3 ms·
Can we get the headline changed? It is not at all accurate - the size of Wikipedia was a largely insignificant point in the judge's reason, as the article clear
by malmaud 11y ago
Can we get the headline changed? It is not at all accurate - the size of Wikipedia was a largely insignificant point in the judge's reason, as the article clearly states.
Maybe we should stop with the conspiracy theories about corrupt judges for a second and actually consider the legal situation. The judge's job is to rule based on the law, not to use his own judgment or fight for his idea of social justice.
For good reasons, you could only pursue a lawsuit against someone if you have real evidence of wrongdoing - not intuition or "common sense" or anything else. How would you feel if the RIAA could launch lawsuits against any teenager with a fast internet connection, based on a statistical argument and 'common sense' that most teens steal music?
- afarrell 11y agoYou are right of course that having one's complaint not based on statistical likelihood but on actual evidence of a tort committed is an important principle. I was hoping someone with more knowledge of that area of law would jump in to start the substantive discussion of the issue as presented to the court. My line of questioning above is based not on any actual evidence that anyone is actually being intimidated in that manner, but on speculation. It is still troubling if someone with more insight into game theory or organization theory cannot jump in with a reason why this sort of perversion of Justice wouldn't be possible. But that doesn't actually constitute any evidence whatsoever that it happened.