Feeds

back to article Kiwi three strikes piracy case collapses

One of the first three cases brought under New Zealand's controversial three strikes copyright infringement has collapsed after the accused demonstrated no knowledge of file-sharing software. Civil liberties group Tech Liberty NZ reports the case collapsed because the accused had no idea how file-sharing software worked. But …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Queen arrested

The accused "Elizabeth II" was the named head-of-state for the inteligence service that illegally spied on the meagupload owner.

Although she claimed to have no knowledge of megaupload, military inteligence, or the current whereabouts of New Zealand, the women known only as "the queen" was still held responsible.

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Queen arrested

AKA: Betty Windsor

AKA: Liz Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Possibly armed with scepter and in the company of vicious dogs/mad husband.

4
4

Re: Queen arrested

Careful, she is not going to like you giving some of her other identities away and she knows how to parachute in now.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Queen arrested

AKA Von Battenberg.

Still at least we don't have Fruitcakes for a Royal Family.

1
0

Re: Queen arrested

Just Google the likes of King Mswati III of Swaziland or King Goodwill Zwelethini, the Zulu king, to find out just how fruity royal famlies can be.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

There are four people around me where i livenmthat have no pass word protection on their wifi.

I would never ever dream of......

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

It looked like an easy win then, but not so much now. And they don't want to set precedent and jeopardize future sue-the-customer cases. So they're bugging out to sue another day.

The defendants may want to consider pushing the case on, if such a thing is possible. Getting gratuitously sued isn't a fun outing so shutting the door on that especially regarding a known-litigous party would be useful. At least sue for time and effort wasted due to them bringing then withdrawing the case, especially since they knew or could have known their grounds to sue were shaky.

With so many large corporate parties increasingly happy to sue very small parties indeed, often in large batches, we don't need more laws justifying such actions, we need laws protecting small parties against what amount to frivolous lawsuits.

32
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

Well said, Sir.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

Just wondering, if they have made these accusations in a public forum and they have been demonstrated to be baseless then is there not a case for counter-suing for defamation?

3
1

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

You have to have "fame" in order to bring a defamation case to court. In this situation the case is more likely to have caused "fame" than damaged it. since it is likely the person in question would never have become known to the general public at large had the case not been brought to court (she was just a regular person leading a regular life).

0
14
Devil

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

Then sue for the publicity.

They've published her name, her living arrangements, her age. Perfect Social Engineering material (Cue debate about her publishing this herself via a facebook profile vs the likelyhood of anyone visiting said profile prior to the case.)

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

No @Alexander Hanff 1, you don't have to have fame to be defamed. Defamation is about being misrepresented or lied about in a public theatre, to the extent that your character has been damaged.

This person would have a case IMO.

14
0

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

She might have a case for defamation, but not if the allegations were restricted to the court environment and proceedings which are privileged and anything goes.

Anyway it would be hard to demonstrate damages I'd guess. If her profession related to IP then maybe (?). But NZ has pretty weak libel laws compared to the UK and much less precedent, making all cases rather unpredictable and risky things.

1
0
g e
Silver badge
Go

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

Just imagine, if you (as a media strongarm organisation) lose the case and the law states:

The defendant shall be awarded damages and costs MULTIPLIED by the value obtained by dividing the plaintiff's financial resources by that of the defendant's.

So if the MAFIAA sues you and you have 1000 quid to your name and they have 100,000,000 then if you're awarded 2k costs/damages/etc then that's multiplied by 100,000 (their 100,000,000 divided by your 1000).

To be honest, just claiming your petrol/bus ticket/etc to the trial would suffice ;o)

4
0
Joke

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

bloody hell bus fares must be expensive in NZ !

0
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: Why they withdrew the case? Easy.

As another poster inferred, they did not want to set a precedent.

Since I do not have any familiarity with NZ laws, I wonder how far the plaintiff can go forward with a case, so that if it gets dismissed, they are forbidden from bringing it again. IIRC the legal term is "dismissed with prejudice".

"Proper justice" here would be an award for time and costs against the plaintiff to discourage bringing frivolous suits.

3
0
This topic is closed for new posts.