Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Sun May 8 14:39:06 UTC 2022

Masataka,

But the phrase “or linking to the domain” Includes hundreds, possibly thousands, of unwitting certain parties: anyone who operates search services, or permits people to post links in discussion groups, for example, would be included. 

I think I am simply right. 

The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching. But worse, the court  issued a nonsensical judgment, whether to deliver it or not, and that is a travesty.

 -mel

> On May 8, 2022, at 6:29 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> Mel Beckman wrote:
> 
>> 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,
> 
> As the defendants are those identified as "d/b/a Israel.tv, as
> the owners and operators of the website, service and/or
> applications (the “Website”) located at or linking to the
> domain www.Israel.TV;", you are simply wrong.
> 
> > For the court to then
> > approve sanctions against innocent non-parties to the suit is a
> > logical contradiction.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Those knowingly actively cooperating with the defendants are not
> innocent at all though DMCA makes some passive cooperation
> innocent.
> 
>                        Masataka Ohta