The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
WSJ BLOG HAS THE COMPLAINT!!!!!
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:38 PM
Make sure you listen to this as you read the complaint. http://youtube.com/watch?v=b714Wi4CDsQ
|
 |
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:40 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:44 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:46 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:01 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:03 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 3:41 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 5:25 PM
Edit: She repeatedly attempted to stop it and was refused. She was stalked in the gym. that's a bit more than "saying something mean." |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 7:10 PM
There's a fine line between being mean and slandering somebody. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:58 PM
a). Copyright infringement is the only asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction. The Complaint states no background facts indicating that the only named defendant (Ciolli) infringed any copyrights (rather, it explicitly states that some subset of defendants committed such actions). However, the copyright cause of action section goes on to allege that "defendants" have copied the copyrighted photos. I think any reasonable investigation would show that not all defendants did so, and the complaint itself suggests this.
Indeed, all the stated causes of action name "defendants" without distinction between various individual defendants.
b). I'm not convinced that all the other causes of action arise under the the same nucleus of operative facts as the copyright claim. Is subject matter jurisdiction valid?
c). I'd be interested in learning how the plaintiffs acquired ownership of the copyrights at issue.
d). What a bunch of assholes (the posters, that is). |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:02 PM
speculation, just kidding, please don't sue me |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM
I don't really know if any of the things I mentioned are valid grounds either, but interesting things I would research if I had enumerable hours of free time and free Westlaw. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 11:56 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:08 PM
Simply "having them taken" doesn't give the subject ownership of the copyright.
I could make an argument for copyright ownership even if someone else took them, but I won't go into that. I'm interested in what their theory is. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:11 PM well, Doe II doesn't list copyright in her complaint. what's that about? I didn't realize there were even pictures of Doe I. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:12 PM
Is that right? I wonder what the basis for jurisdiction is, then. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:13 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:20 PM
I kind of hope they get someone to defend them (at least Ciolli) pro bono, just so we can see the legal issues play out.
On the other hand, I kind of want some of the defendants to get PWNED! |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:27 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:27 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:40 PM |
|
Date: May 11th, 2008 11:18 PM
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=812353&mc=5&forum_id=2#9769257 |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:21 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:24 PM
I know there is case law dealing with whether related contractual claims can be heard in federal court based on copyright issues in the contracts, but I'm not sure if that's relevant.
Edit: at any rate, it seems like Ciolli should be able to say that they haven't asserted a copyright claim against him (and if they have, it's wading into murky Rule 11 territory). |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:42 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:45 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:47 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:49 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:49 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:50 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:51 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:52 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:51 PM
i cant get the pdf to work :(
edit: n/m, got it. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:01 PM
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=592614&mc=59&forum_id=2#7729696 |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:08 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:08 PM
EDIT: this was supposed to be a reply to Fulano. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:04 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:06 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:49 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:52 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:52 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:53 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:54 PM it just doesnt happen. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:53 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:55 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 9:12 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:57 PM
Also, LOL at the explanation of "CGWBT" in Paragraph 46. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:00 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:09 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:13 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:15 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:16 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:20 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:23 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:16 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:07 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:09 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:18 PM
I know this sucks for our peers, but that is hilarious. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:18 PM
Did they even read this thing before they filed it? |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:21 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:23 PM
|
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 4:42 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:37 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:39 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:42 PM 43. Despite her attempts to end additional defamatory, harassing, and threatening posts about her, the outrageous behavior on AutoAdmit continued. The posters' fixation with Doe I1 went so far as to include suggestions to follow her to the gym and attempt to take her picture while in public:
Date: February 12th, 2007 11:29 AM Author: vincimus I can assure you she doesn't dress conservatively. Anyone who goes to the gym in the afternoon has seen her trapsing around in spandex booty shorts and a strappy tank top. She wants people to look, and they do. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:44 PM but is vincimus named as a defendant? if so that seems ridiculous to me. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:48 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:59 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:18 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:27 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:46 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:47 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:48 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:48 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:58 PM as for false light, that's seems slightly more possible, if "she wants people to look" and the description of her outfit at the gym are considered attributing Doe II views she doesn't hold or action she didn't take. but it still has to be considered offensive to a reasonable person. there's also the "unreasonably publicity given to another's life" claim. someone else can look that up on wikipedia. but don't all of these "intrusion of privacy" claims have to involve some sort of actual INTRUSION? |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:03 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:29 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 6:51 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:41 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:14 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 6:36 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 7:27 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 11:06 PM |
|
Date: June 14th, 2007 9:13 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 11:35 PM
|
|
Date: June 13th, 2007 2:35 AM |
|
Date: November 4th, 2007 12:38 PM |
|
Date: November 4th, 2007 12:58 PM |
|
Date: December 4th, 2007 5:05 PM |
|
Date: June 12th, 2008 4:35 PM |