First off, the TPB case happened in Sweden. Last time I looked, Swedish courts don’t set precedent for US courts.

Second, denying a motion isn’t a complete judgement, it’s only a statement that X did not rise to the level required for a preliminary judgement, and not much more. That the judge happened to take the time to list out the reasons doesn’t change it’s standing in the legal system. Understanding the difference between a motion hearing and a full on judgement and ruling is pretty important.

The rest of your post is only your opinion, and no more and no less valuable than my own. However, since you have shown that you don’t understand the basics of the law and what a motion is, it pretty much makes the rest of your opinions seem questionable.

Just want to add that in regards to
“the spitting image in your lack of sense to a few other pro-copyright trolls we have here”

His complaints about people using bold and his insults to people disproving his claims pretty much scream “bobmail”.

Makes as much sense as the CBS case. I dunno tho…this is only the umpteenth time there has been an attempt made to ban companies from providing dual-use software. It usually doesn’t do much good, so why even keep trying?

Damn, I forgot – not in the interests of the rightsholders, no. But certainly it’s interesting for lawyers to encourage more lawsuits…

Oh? You simply spent four or five wordwalls trying to get the point across. Now if all you wanted to debate was semantics, then learn how to read what you yourself write.

” I don’t say that any trial against the PP is a foregone conclusion, but JUST AS THIS RULING AGAINST ALKI MAKES IT HARDER TO GET THINGS DONE, IT IS NOT A COMPLETE CONCLUSION”

Your contention that a case against different individuals, against other methodology – and which lacks any of the criteria the judges in the TPB case took great pains to jot down for the verdict – should be considered “precedent” is still pure imagination.

“The PP would have to show that, even though TPB site operators have been found liable in the past, that they have X or Y or Z reasons why they think they are in the clear”.

No, actually Wadstedt has to prove to the court that they have a case at all. Only after that has been established can we even proceed.

This process is called “presumed innocence” because it is always up to the plaintiff to prove, not the defendant.

And I feel the need to bold that in the vain hope that you may grasp this rather fundamental fact of law.

“…Alki would have to do the same thing, saying that even through they were not able to get a primary injunction, because of X and Y and Z they should still win.”

Alki, in this case, is the plaintiff. PP are defendants. Mull that one over and see how well your comparison on who has to prove what stands. To begin with.

Let me provide you a hint. Three words called “burden of proof”.

“…it’s exactly the same.”

Except, you know, for the roles being reversed?

“Perhaps you are too busy MAKING EVERYTHING BOLD AND BIG AND LARGE FOR PEOPLE TO READ.”

Actually, the reason i bold text for emphasis is usually because some people have such a staggering lack of reading comprehension they don’t even realize what they themselves have posted and need all the help they can get.

Such as clueless morons who try to draw analogues between how a case must proceed while ignoring the plaintiff-defendant roles and with which one of them burden of proof resides.

“Oh,is your other handle RD? You write almost exactly like another prick I have met online before.”

I don’t have any other handles. This is the one I’ve used for several years now.

However, it’s remarkable you should say it because you are the spitting image in your lack of sense to a few other pro-copyright trolls we have here. The dogma preached by the copyright sect doesn’t leave very much room for individuality, common sense, or respect for empirical fact, does it?