5 ms·
Won't named plaintiffs have the burden of proving meta actually seeded blocks containing their works? How could they ever do that?
by tiahura 2y ago
Won't named plaintiffs have the burden of proving meta actually seeded blocks containing their works? How could they ever do that?
- otterley 2y agoThe plaintiffs do have the burden of proof, but there are many ways to Rome. Any evidence they can find, whether it be packet captures, client and server logs, incriminating emails, or even admissions, will be proffered to the court and/or jury.
- tiahura 2y agomany ways to Rome Fair enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if none of those methods pan out. 1) Given the timeline, it seems unlikely that anyone was doing a packet capture. 2) Why would anyone at META have been paying attention to, or logging, which blocks were being seeded and which weren't? Who would have personal knowledge such that they could admit that transmission didn't seed the declaration of independence 6 million times?
- otterley 2y agoAgain, they don’t have to trace actual data flows to have sufficient evidence to convince a court or jury that Meta is in breach of the law. Other examples of evidence include an admission from a Meta employee during a deposition that they were instructed to download a bunch of copyrighted material and the undertook the efforts to do so. Or, perhaps the plaintiffs seized the machines used in the scheme (happens all the time following a TRO and discovery motion) and found whole copies or traces of the copyrighted works on them, or even local client logs that suggest that it was done.
- papercrane 2y agoThe plaintiffs will, eventually, need to prove that their claim is likely true ("preponderance of the evidence" standard.) Right now they're fighting about expanding discovery to try and uncover more evidence.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoCompany emails, internal server logs.