Here is the order Shaudius. What do you think?
-
Here is the order Shaudius. What do you think?Comment -
John, I say you start a section in the Service Play forum for "PROS Only" where you force this guy and his handicapper to provide picks for 1 year free of charge in lieu of attorney fees. I also like the idea of taking his domain, http://www.picknation.com/Steven-Budin-CEO.aspx. Guys a complete and utter \*\*\*\*\*\*.Comment -
That is interesting. My previous post was in reference to personal jurisdiction, it did not delve into the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts, because I presumed that it was present because of the alleged violation of a federal statute.
If I was the attorney for the plaintiff in this case, I would appeal the judges decision, because I don't find it well reasoned or persuasive, it basically amounts to saying mostly that the Lanham Act doesn't specifically allow for the suing of a foreign entity in federal court so therefore the court has no SMJ. My argument would be that since the internet site(in this case SBR) is US facing, and operates a US domain name(.com in this case), it is subject to the laws that apply to companies that operate US domain names. I would make the argument that is similar in the civil context to the US seizing the domain name of firstrowsports for violation of copyright law. I would also say that this opens up a Pandora's box whereby companies could incorporate overseas and operate businesses that marketed to US consumers which availing themselves of a US domain name which would appear to consumers to be identical to a US company and thereby exempt themselves from any suit brought by US consumers.
He makes reference to a ninth circuit case for the proposition that, "the Copyright Act does not provide jurisdiction forclaims where the infringing acts took place outside of the United States" I would disagree that the infringing acts occurred outside the United State simply because the company that published the infringing acts is incorporated outside the United States. This is far from settled law with regard to the internet, and I don't believe the court in the case he was referencing talks about the internet. Furthermore, he talks about a case which holds, "that there must be a substantial connection between the parties involved in the alleged infringement and the United States for the Lanham Act to cover the alleged infringement" This is a proof question, so it sounds like the company that sued you didn't do their homework since there is a clearly a connection between SBR and the United State, hell, SBR is throwing its bash in the US this year, among other things, and markets specific redemption offers to the US. Just because the plaintiff can't show the specific infringing act was committed by someone in the US prior to bringing suit doesn't mean that SBR isn't subject to subject matter jurisdiction. The actual infringement is a question of fact best left for discovery and trial, at which point SBR could file another motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on their behalf if the plaintiff failed to show that a specific act violated the copyright or Lanham acts. As I stated before, where the act occurred is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the alleged act effected the US enough.
The fact that you are attempting to obtain attorney's fees for all this goes to support my above notion that this is a bad policy to enforce in US courts. Clearly you are attempting to avail yourself of US courts to obtain legal fees incurred in defending the suit(if you really are) but if the judge in this case is correct there are basically no cases in which you are specifically able to have a civil suit brought against you and that's ultimately scary for me as a US internet consumer(not because of SBR but because of what it means for other companies that operate on the internet).
Of course all of the above would be an argument before an appellate court interpreting the SMJ provisions of the law, which is what the district court did in this case. His decision is right in that he is the judge, but if the plaintiff brought suit somewhere else, or appealed the ruling, it is certainly a question that could be raised since the ruling of the judge is based on no settled law that I can see.Comment -
this guy is a newcomer, an outlaw, I am sending vito deluca and sammy winder down with JJ to straigten out this monqul, JJ he wants to brag he hasn't kicked back to the office, call me this will be your first score. JJ you have the sheet to decode this number 059-919-4127, Iwant this guys nose busted along with the payment.Comment -
Shaudius,
You might want to reread the judge's opinion. The case wasn't dismissed due to SBR being a foreign entity. It was dismissed because there was no infringement in the United States. *If* there was an infringement (and we do not believe there was), it would have been in Costa Rica, where SBR's servers are located. The judge threw the case out because there was no infringement in the United States, which is required to pursue a copyright claim based on U.S. Law. If a person in Vietnam flagrantly violates a US Copyright in Vietnam, that does not give a cause of action under Copyright/Lanham act.
If you saw all the crap they tried to pull, you might reconsider whether attorney fees are warranted. In general, if you lose a copyright case, you owe attorney fees at the judge's discretion. In this case, there were other grounds as well to award attorney fees. I promise, I will do a detailed video on this lawsuit, and cover that angle as well.Comment -
guy had no chance with Justin7inchRooster_in_a_Box on the case!!!!
Comment -
Shaudius,
Appeals are costly and rarely succeed. Based on that alone I predict they will appeal. LOL
Keep in mind the case most likely would have been dismissed on "fair use" if it wasn't thrown out for the reasons the judge cited.Comment -
I have edited my contentions to address these additional concerns of the judge, but I still disagree with his reasoning. He cites a case, Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co. which he says stands for the proposition that the copyright act does not extent to cases where the act occurred outside the United States. As I amended to say, that case does not stand for the proposition that acts that occur on the internet for a company that is incorporated outside of the US are not subject to US jurisdiction. Were this to be the case, domestic companies would potentially simply place all their servers overseas to avoid any and all liability for copyright infringement and have the content produced and put on their website by a person in Windsor, Canada for instance, which I don't think the Act in question would support.
Also, the reason that Stevo's complaint in the judge's words focused on the effects of the actions of SBR is because that's the test the courts use for Lanham Act infringement, which the court in this case ignores. Hell, a case that the judge references,Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co actually talks about this effects test. The judge in this case, however, doesn't talk about this established effects test which is to be used by the courts when deciding subject matter jurisdiction in cases that involve foreign defendants except to say that the plaintiff's documents mention effects a lot(which as I said before, no duh they do that's the whole crux of the subject matter jurisdiction test). Like I said before, I would appeal this in a second, infringement in the US is not a requirement of the subject matter jurisdiction test.
They didn't lose the case on the merits. The court refused to hear the case based on lack of jurisdiction. In effect they said the case is not properly before us, therefore we cannot hear it. This is not at all the same as losing a copyright case. The judge can still retain the power to award attorneys fees for a dismissal, but the circumstances would have to be exceedingly bizarre to justify this.Comment -
I fail to see how there was any "fair use" based on my limited knowledge of the facts. The use was commercial in nature, as opposed to educational. A substantial portion of the work was copied, and publishing it on SBR basically destroyed the market for it for the copyright holder, you'd have an extremely difficult time proving fair use based on those things just on my limited understanding of what was done.Comment -
I wouldn't go that route, buying information (picks) and then sharing them is equivacal to me buying Justin's book, photocopying it, and then reselling it.
As I stated in my PM, forums are a whole different beast, I would hold you liable ONLY if they asked you to cease and desist and you told them no. This was clearly a sue and settle, grab cash lawsuit which should have never seen the light of day. I assure you this attorney is being closely examined by the Nevada Bar.
As an aside, when I first started posting plays back in 2009, I got most of them from the RX. I think the RX should be bought back to court.
Comment -
so could someone photocopy and scan the contents of a book, like conquering risk and post it online, if they posted it on a site that used servers located in a foreign country?Comment -
"I think that teams whose QBs wear odd-numbered jerseys are better than those that wear even-numbered jerseys." That is distinct enough to earn a copyright. The content can be full of crap, inaccurate, and have no chance of accomplishing what it claims and still have a copyright. Of course, if something is inaccurate and fails to accomplish anything, its copyright is probably worth less.Comment -
That's a different beast entirely than fair use. What you're talking about is safe harbor, which is the idea that you aren't liable for copyright infringement by third parties posted on your website that you make available for use by others. I don't know what the allegation were of the plaintiff in this case, but the motion of the judge seems to indicate an allegation that SBR was posting the reports of the plaintiff, which if not true would be a issue of material fact for the judge to determine after summary judgement to determine if the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA apply.Comment -
J7 should spend some time (lots of time) in the gym and more time AWAY from the table...
God BlessComment -
May Jesus Christ bless Walker and his plays!
Jon Cheers
Comment -
this dude is a complete toolComment -
we need boner18 in here to chime in....
good stuff Shaudius!!!Comment -
Shaud,
if you need a job I got some connections with this guy...
Comment -
This world is a funny placeComment -
This argument can clearly be resolved using references from Roe vs Wade.Comment -
too bad sbr, cannot always be a one way street
some lawyer out there feels he has a case, now you have to pay to fight itComment -
The same lawyer was used to sue MadJacks another gaming forum for copyright infringement an lost there too. The court granted attorney fees in that case.
Stevo came up with this brilliant idea that he could haul every forum into court and force settlements. I think he picked the wrong opponent to break in his scheme. For starters through court sanction mediation until the end of time we will never pay him a penny. Plus we are a foreign company with no assets in the US. More bad capping.Comment -
These lawyers can write. What school did Erin Brockovich go to again?Comment -
This guy is a poser douche. Look at those reflective shades. Look at that black shirt with the jacket over it. Look at how he picks up his drink before saying anything and then points his finger in the air.
Then you have to look at this speaking style like he's all cool. This guy is the equivalent to a grade school punk.Comment -
leaper be careful there hoss....this guy got cartels. and crews. and syndicates. oh yeah an fuggin lawyers.
leaper dont answer yer door today son. after writin about stevo on the innerweb anybody knockin is either gonna pop a cap in yer ass or serve ya some legal paper.
me an stevo are cool cause i got his view up on that last vid from 50 to 235.Comment -
the prick is right
this guy is totally connected, he even has his "crew" win basketball games for him in totally scripted over time games
truly hope sbr's assets are off shoreComment -
Stevo suffers another bad beat
A week later Stevo's suit against TheRx is also tossed. Looks like Stevo's and Gibson's record is now 0-3 suing forums that discuss their picks.Comment -
LOL. complete tool.Comment
