6 ms·

I don't know why they decided to pause uploads. Relying on Indian courts for sensible and timely judgments will only lead to grief. They do not respect preceden

by sieve 1y ago

I don't know why they decided to pause uploads. Relying on Indian courts for sensible and timely judgments will only lead to grief. They do not respect precedence and judgements often depend on the judge and the people involved rather than the facts of the case. What happened in University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service is pretty rare.[1] I doubt if we will see a repeat of that one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford_v._Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford_v._Ramesh...

SanjayMehta 1y ago
The key factor in a high profile case is to hire the right (expensive) lawyer. There’s one particularly notorious character whose rate card has been published online. He charges INR 1.5 million per appearance in court. The reality is of course that then the appropriate judges will hear the case. Rarely, if ever, will a judge recuse themselves. Strangely, this happened last week. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/nclat-judge-chennai-recusal-higher-judicial-member-order-favouring-party-301980 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/nclat-judge-chennai-recu...
lou1306 1y ago
I can see the point, but repeating the same action for which you are currently being prosecuted will hardly improve your standing before the court. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- sieve 1y ago
  What did they expect? That an Indian court will give them some kind of immunity from copyright laws? From some media reports I see, the court has already made up its mind on the issue during a previous hearing:[1] > However, the Court stated that Elbakyan, in her first written statement, admitted that the publishers were owners of copyrighted works. It also noted that Sci-Hub were rejected by the Court when they attempted to amend the statement in 2023. Further, it accused Sci-Hub of partaking in “online piracy” and LibGen “by unauthorized means, circumventing technological measures put in place by Plaintiffs to protect copyright in their literary works.” Thus, they rejected the plea. [1] https://www.medianama.com/2024/05/223-delhi-hc-lawsuit-sci-hub-libgen/ https://www.medianama.com/2024/05/223-delhi-hc-lawsuit-sci-h...
A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
> They do not respect precedence This is tangential, but deference to precedent has become a huge problem in US and UK Commmon Law. So much case law has built up over the centuries that you can find a precedent to support almost any position! The "legal research" battle -- like the "discovery" battle -- just adds tremendous time, expense, and complexity, and rarely or indeed almost never benefits the litigants or the court.
- sieve 1y ago
  While no system is perfect, and it might be a case of the grass being greener on the other side, I have some healthy respect for the US system. I am not a fan of the UK system which we have copied almost wholesale. The laws and judgments I occasionally see from there are eerily similar to what we deal with here. As for precedent, yes, things accumulate over time, but by-and-large precedent = predictability. And that is completely missing from our system.
  - jbstack 1y ago
    Out of curiosity, what is it you don't like about the UK system given that you're saying that it's "eerily similar" to the US system? As someone who works in the UK system, I can point to two things I don't like about the US system. Firstly, the inability to recover costs in most cases. This leads to an abundance of litigation (because a party with a weak case has little to lose by trying anyway). It also produces unfair results (because the principle of justice should put the winner in the position they would have been if they hadn't been wronged, but it doesn't because they have to bear their litigation costs). Secondly, the politicisation (and in my view corruption) of the judicial system. We don't have "Conservative" or "Labour" judges here, and it's extremely weird to me that you can have "Republican" or "Democrat" judges given that a judge is supposed to just interpret the law in an unbiased way without regard to their political opinion. To me it seems that Supreme Court decisions are openly corrupt given how often the opinions are divided straight down party lines: statistically you should expect a random mix of Republican and Democrat judges adopting each side.
    - 1y ago
pkphilip 1y ago
Well said. Indian judiciary is beyond ridiculous
EasyMark 1y ago
This sounds a lot like current Supreme Court of the USA as well. Judges ignoring stare decisis and just making it up as they go along.

by sieve 1y ago

SanjayMehta 1y ago

The key factor in a high profile case is to hire the right (expensive) lawyer. There’s one particularly notorious character whose rate card has been published online. He charges INR 1.5 million per appearance in court. The reality is of course that then the appropriate judges will hear the case. Rarely, if ever, will a judge recuse themselves. Strangely, this happened last week. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/nclat-judge-chennai-recusal-higher-judicial-member-order-favouring-party-301980 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/nclat-judge-chennai-recu...

lou1306 1y ago

I can see the point, but repeating the same action for which you are currently being prosecuted will hardly improve your standing before the court. Quite the opposite, in fact.

sieve 1y ago
What did they expect? That an Indian court will give them some kind of immunity from copyright laws? From some media reports I see, the court has already made up its mind on the issue during a previous hearing:[1] > However, the Court stated that Elbakyan, in her first written statement, admitted that the publishers were owners of copyrighted works. It also noted that Sci-Hub were rejected by the Court when they attempted to amend the statement in 2023. Further, it accused Sci-Hub of partaking in “online piracy” and LibGen “by unauthorized means, circumventing technological measures put in place by Plaintiffs to protect copyright in their literary works.” Thus, they rejected the plea. [1] https://www.medianama.com/2024/05/223-delhi-hc-lawsuit-sci-hub-libgen/ https://www.medianama.com/2024/05/223-delhi-hc-lawsuit-sci-h...

A_D_E_P_T 1y ago

> They do not respect precedence This is tangential, but deference to precedent has become a huge problem in US and UK Commmon Law. So much case law has built up over the centuries that you can find a precedent to support almost any position! The "legal research" battle -- like the "discovery" battle -- just adds tremendous time, expense, and complexity, and rarely or indeed almost never benefits the litigants or the court.

sieve 1y ago
While no system is perfect, and it might be a case of the grass being greener on the other side, I have some healthy respect for the US system. I am not a fan of the UK system which we have copied almost wholesale. The laws and judgments I occasionally see from there are eerily similar to what we deal with here. As for precedent, yes, things accumulate over time, but by-and-large precedent = predictability. And that is completely missing from our system.
- jbstack 1y ago
  Out of curiosity, what is it you don't like about the UK system given that you're saying that it's "eerily similar" to the US system? As someone who works in the UK system, I can point to two things I don't like about the US system. Firstly, the inability to recover costs in most cases. This leads to an abundance of litigation (because a party with a weak case has little to lose by trying anyway). It also produces unfair results (because the principle of justice should put the winner in the position they would have been if they hadn't been wronged, but it doesn't because they have to bear their litigation costs). Secondly, the politicisation (and in my view corruption) of the judicial system. We don't have "Conservative" or "Labour" judges here, and it's extremely weird to me that you can have "Republican" or "Democrat" judges given that a judge is supposed to just interpret the law in an unbiased way without regard to their political opinion. To me it seems that Supreme Court decisions are openly corrupt given how often the opinions are divided straight down party lines: statistically you should expect a random mix of Republican and Democrat judges adopting each side.
  - 1y ago

pkphilip 1y ago

Well said. Indian judiciary is beyond ridiculous

EasyMark 1y ago

This sounds a lot like current Supreme Court of the USA as well. Judges ignoring stare decisis and just making it up as they go along.