Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you said they won the case not made a successful motion to dismiss
winning the case is being found not guilty
winning a motion to dismiss is arguing that the case should not even start
ok so we are going back to the "i will just totally misrepresent the facts that back up your arguement to make my bogus arguement" again.
they didn't win the case - they sucessfully made a motion to dismiss based on a constitutional arguement (therefore the trial never happened)
- the government appealed that motion to dismiss and won (therefore the trial was back on
- the supreme court agreeing completely with the appeals court that the laws was constitutionally valid refused to hear the case at all upholding the appeals court reversal
|
They argued that the case should not be brought because of the right to privacy. The judge agreed with them. The judge dropped the charges against. This means they WON the case. Are you so stupid you can't see that? If two teams show up to play a game and one of them leaves the field before it stars, the other team wins.
They achieved what they set out to achieve. The government disagreed with the ruling and appealed. That doesn't mean they didn't win.
Quote:
nothing about that case justifies the arguement
the trial was allowed to continue because the supreme court agreed with the appeal court ruling that the law in question was in fact constitutionally valid (rightfully so since privacy does not grant right of possession, just right to not have your possessions searched)
which is exactly the point i made orginally
|
No. The Supreme Court stated that the lower courts should handle this not them. They may have agreed with some of the ruling, but the petition to the Supreme Court was filed before the second trial even started. The Supreme Court wanted that lower court to do its job and rule in this case. That never happened because before the case got going the defendants cut a plea deal.
But once again Gideon we are arguing semantics. I don't know why I waste my time in here. I could be using this time to create content that you and your pirate friends can plot to steal then use the technicalities of the law to justify.
Here is what I really wonder: Why do you care what we think? Why are you here? About a year ago when the whole debacle with The Doc went down you explained how you would never accept The Docs offer because even if you were the one sending all the traffic because making a couple million per year was not enough to justify your efforts. You explained how you hold classes and each week you teach 10 different people how to use your techniques to monetize their content via torrents. For this you get $5,000 plus a royalty for life. By my calculations this means you should have made about $50K per week for the last year, assume you took a couple of weeks off that means you brought in about $2.5 million just in fees not counting the royalties. You should be rolling in cash. If I had a deal going that made me a couple of million per year the last thing I would be doing is getting on a webmaster board and trying to convince a bunch of sharks to look into the legitimacy of the technology and yet here you are.
But then, of course, the reality sets in. Not too long ago you claimed you are the only one doing what you are doing and you are staying under the radar. Obviously you are selling your formula for $5,000 per person if you are the only one doing it and you are staying under the radar.
So which is it? Are you the mogul who banks $50K+ per week teaching classes or are you just the guy that we all think you are which is to say you are living in your mom's basement, working a shitty day job and downloading until it makes you orgasm at night all the while plotting on how someday you will use this technology to rule the world?