That’s bs man. Unless you are German.

Speaking as a Briton, while I myself am unlikely to ever encounter Randazza, I’ve nonetheless been following both his apalling campaign – and the debate surrounding it – with great fascination. It’s my sincere hope that this odious man will one day be exposed, humiliated and professionally destroyed in the same way as our own Andrew Crossley.

I knew Randazza’s theory would turn out to be rubbish as soon as I read it: a new legal theory from nowhere that bypassed both DMCA rules and the higher court’s painstaking assembly of various tests for ‘vicarious infringement’ – it just had to be wrong, somehow, but I had none of the specialist knowledge needed to be able to articulate precisely why.

Now we have your answer – and I must say, it’s immensely satisfying to see Randazza’s outrageous claims disintegrated so thoroughly.

What’s more, you’ve given us more than just the basic information needed to know that Randazza was definitely talking nonsense: you’ve given us the certain knowledge that Randazza himself knew all along that it was nonsense, because there is simply no remotely plausible way in which he could successfully operate as a copyright-focused lawyer without having prior knowledge of every one of these legal details and an awareness of their effects on his theory.

You have not simply debunked Randazza’s theory of negligence: you have debunked Randazza himself. All of us with an interest in this matter – and his current and potential victims especially – must surely owe you a great debt of gratitude.

Thank you, Mr Ranallo.
We’re all very much obliged to you.
:D:D:D:D:D