6 ms·

I wonder if this means "double jepoardy" is in play: once youtube gets this easily-dismissed lawsuit cleared away, no one can sue youtube again about state of D

I wonder if this means "double jepoardy" is in play: once youtube gets this easily-dismissed lawsuit cleared away, no one can sue youtube again about state of DMCA takedowns on the site.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I wonder if this means “double jepoardy” is in play: once youtube gets this easily-dismissed lawsuit cleared away, no one can sue youtube again about state of DMCA takedowns on the site. No, because: (1) “Double jeopardy” applies to criminal charges only. (2) “Double jeopardy” applies to charges for conduct that is part of the same transaction, not a similar pattern of conduct carried out at different times against different people, much less suits whose similarity is that they are merely in the same broad category (“has something to do with how DMCA takedown notices are handled”.) As a general rule, you can’t lose the right to file a civil suit because of a lawsuit you didn’t participate in. (Class action might seem to be an exception, but class members are viewed as participants unless they opt out, so its technically not.)
- jcranmer 6y ago
  While double jeopardy itself only applies to criminal cases, there is a principle in civil cases that you can't litigate the same issue twice. In practice, this is much narrower than double jeopardy's rule in criminal cases, and comes even less close to applying here than double jeopardy would [were it to apply to civil cases].
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
naniwaduni 6y ago
Double jeopardy does not mean that, after being acquitted of your first murder, you're immune to prosecution for a subsequent killing spree.
- anotherman554 6y ago
  Though there is a dumb movie called "double jeopardy" where the premise is that it works that way.
  - zeroimpl 6y ago
    They were not acquitted for the first murder, they served the full sentence. Then later subsequently threatened to murder the same individual whom they had supposedly already murdered.
    - not2b 6y ago
      It's still stupid: they could be prosecuted for murder, because if they were wrongly convicted for a murder that allegedly happened in 2003, a murder that happened in 2020 would be a different offense, even if it's the same alleged victim.
      - em-bee 6y ago
        they should be tried again, but the sentence should be reduced by time served.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Yeah, DJ still doesn’t work that way. That would be a distinct offense (now, it would be inconsistent, since the same person can only be killed once), but just as there have been, IIRC, a few instances where multiple different people were convicted of murdering the same person (like, directly, not some of them under vicarious liability rules that allow someone other than the proximate killer to be convicted of the offenses) in different trials despite the fact that it is logically inconsistent that all of those convictions could be accurate, it is quite possible to be (wrongfully) convicted of murdering someone and then convicted (rightfully) later if you then actually murder them thinking that having been previously convicted of doing that would give you a free pass. The same evidence used against you in your second trial might be useful in getting any lasting legal consequences of your first convinction expunged and negated as a wrongful conviction, but that’s likely to be of limited value if you are convicted of the second crime (though it might be useful to negate three-strikes or other repeat-offense enhancements.)
parliament32 6y ago
Can you imagine if you got a robbery charge dismissed once, you'd be able to rob as many people as you wanted for the rest of your life?
Justsignedup 6y ago
DJ is for criminal situations, and only for specific instances. For example: If I am accused of killing a man, and I am proven innocent, I cannot be accused of killing THAT SPECIFIC MAN again. If I was to go and kill a man, I cannot claim "but I was already exonarated for killing a man". Because it is not the same crime. DJ is all about being prosecuted for _the same instance of a crime_ more than once. Not that once I broke a law, I cannot break it again in the future. This can apply to civil cases if a judge dismisses the case with prejudice, which means that this specific case cannot be put to trial again. Sometimes a judge dismisses the case without prejudice which indicates that the judge felt there was a case, but not enough supporting evidence yet. If a case is not resolved, it goes up the chain of courts, eventually a court may reject the case, in which case a lower court's ruling takes hold. If a case is resolved I cannot go to trial for that same case again. Nor can I use the exact same evidence for a new case. Or rather... I can but it will get dismissed with prejudice. There is technically nothing stopping me from filing cases against you which were already resolved to harass you. But after like 2 times my lawyer's license will be revoked and possibly I will have a case against me for obvious harassment forcing me to cover any legal expenses. Overall courts really really don't like it when you act in bad faith, even if not criminally.
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  Emphasizing "that specific man" is misleading. The only reason double jeopardy is likely to apply in this particularly situation is that most people don't generally die twice. For any other crime, you can most certainly be accused of perpetrating it upon a specific person multiple times.
- fatnoah 6y ago
  >I cannot be accused of killing THAT SPECIFIC MAN again Nitpick: It's actually that you can't be accused of the SPECIFIC INSTANCE of killing that man. I only say this because there was a movie with a plot of a husband faking his death and the wife being convicted for it. The movie implies that the wife could find and kill the guy and not be tried because she'd already been convicted of killing him. While only one person was murdered, it was the two separate acts of killing the person that are the offenses, so double jeopardy would not apply.

I wonder if this means "double jepoardy" is in play: once youtube gets this easily-dismissed lawsuit cleared away, no one can sue youtube again about state of DMCA takedowns on the site.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I wonder if this means “double jepoardy” is in play: once youtube gets this easily-dismissed lawsuit cleared away, no one can sue youtube again about state of DMCA takedowns on the site. No, because: (1) “Double jeopardy” applies to criminal charges only. (2) “Double jeopardy” applies to charges for conduct that is part of the same transaction, not a similar pattern of conduct carried out at different times against different people, much less suits whose similarity is that they are merely in the same broad category (“has something to do with how DMCA takedown notices are handled”.) As a general rule, you can’t lose the right to file a civil suit because of a lawsuit you didn’t participate in. (Class action might seem to be an exception, but class members are viewed as participants unless they opt out, so its technically not.)

jcranmer 6y ago
While double jeopardy itself only applies to criminal cases, there is a principle in civil cases that you can't litigate the same issue twice. In practice, this is much narrower than double jeopardy's rule in criminal cases, and comes even less close to applying here than double jeopardy would [were it to apply to civil cases].

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

naniwaduni 6y ago

Double jeopardy does not mean that, after being acquitted of your first murder, you're immune to prosecution for a subsequent killing spree.

anotherman554 6y ago
Though there is a dumb movie called "double jeopardy" where the premise is that it works that way.
- zeroimpl 6y ago
  They were not acquitted for the first murder, they served the full sentence. Then later subsequently threatened to murder the same individual whom they had supposedly already murdered.
  - not2b 6y ago
    It's still stupid: they could be prosecuted for murder, because if they were wrongly convicted for a murder that allegedly happened in 2003, a murder that happened in 2020 would be a different offense, even if it's the same alleged victim.
    - em-bee 6y ago
      they should be tried again, but the sentence should be reduced by time served.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Yeah, DJ still doesn’t work that way. That would be a distinct offense (now, it would be inconsistent, since the same person can only be killed once), but just as there have been, IIRC, a few instances where multiple different people were convicted of murdering the same person (like, directly, not some of them under vicarious liability rules that allow someone other than the proximate killer to be convicted of the offenses) in different trials despite the fact that it is logically inconsistent that all of those convictions could be accurate, it is quite possible to be (wrongfully) convicted of murdering someone and then convicted (rightfully) later if you then actually murder them thinking that having been previously convicted of doing that would give you a free pass. The same evidence used against you in your second trial might be useful in getting any lasting legal consequences of your first convinction expunged and negated as a wrongful conviction, but that’s likely to be of limited value if you are convicted of the second crime (though it might be useful to negate three-strikes or other repeat-offense enhancements.)

parliament32 6y ago

Can you imagine if you got a robbery charge dismissed once, you'd be able to rob as many people as you wanted for the rest of your life?

Justsignedup 6y ago

DJ is for criminal situations, and only for specific instances. For example: If I am accused of killing a man, and I am proven innocent, I cannot be accused of killing THAT SPECIFIC MAN again. If I was to go and kill a man, I cannot claim "but I was already exonarated for killing a man". Because it is not the same crime. DJ is all about being prosecuted for _the same instance of a crime_ more than once. Not that once I broke a law, I cannot break it again in the future. This can apply to civil cases if a judge dismisses the case with prejudice, which means that this specific case cannot be put to trial again. Sometimes a judge dismisses the case without prejudice which indicates that the judge felt there was a case, but not enough supporting evidence yet. If a case is not resolved, it goes up the chain of courts, eventually a court may reject the case, in which case a lower court's ruling takes hold. If a case is resolved I cannot go to trial for that same case again. Nor can I use the exact same evidence for a new case. Or rather... I can but it will get dismissed with prejudice. There is technically nothing stopping me from filing cases against you which were already resolved to harass you. But after like 2 times my lawyer's license will be revoked and possibly I will have a case against me for obvious harassment forcing me to cover any legal expenses. Overall courts really really don't like it when you act in bad faith, even if not criminally.

naniwaduni 6y ago
Emphasizing "that specific man" is misleading. The only reason double jeopardy is likely to apply in this particularly situation is that most people don't generally die twice. For any other crime, you can most certainly be accused of perpetrating it upon a specific person multiple times.
fatnoah 6y ago
>I cannot be accused of killing THAT SPECIFIC MAN again Nitpick: It's actually that you can't be accused of the SPECIFIC INSTANCE of killing that man. I only say this because there was a movie with a plot of a husband faking his death and the wife being convicted for it. The movie implies that the wife could find and kill the guy and not be tried because she'd already been convicted of killing him. While only one person was murdered, it was the two separate acts of killing the person that are the offenses, so double jeopardy would not apply.