Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Sun May 8 12:01:15 UTC 2022

The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show up in court.  But they could not have shown up in court, because they were only listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit. Thus no defendant could have “actual knowledge” that they were sued, let alone be serviced with litigation documents. For the court to then approve sanctions against innocent non-parties to the suit is a logical contradiction.  

This just illustrates yet another way our legal system is horribly broken. Just as was demonstrated by the lawsuit from the family of an oil change outlet’s employee against a totally innocent customer, after that employee was killed by negligence of a fellow employee and the oil change outfit’s management. The car owner had no hand in the death, and in fact wasn’t present and had no power to prevent it. Yet he is the one being sued. 

Shakespeare was right :) 

-mel 

> On May 8, 2022, at 1:24 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> John Levine wrote:
> 
>> I agree that the rest of the language demanding that every ISP,
>> hosting provider, credit union, bank, and presumably nail salon and
>> coin laundry in the US stop serving the defendants is nuts.
> 
> As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
> Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order", according to DMCA, that
> should be a reasonable order for hosting providers of illegal
> contents but not for transit ISPs.
> 
> In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
> actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
> infringements are not be protected by DMCA.
> 
>                        Masataka Ohta