DMCA subpoenas are nonsense. Having a judge rule on sufficient cause should always be the standard for any subpoena, and DMCA subpoenas can be signed off by a clerk.
A judge evaluating the merit and determining that there’s cause for a subpoena is fine. But it’s supposed to be the first step, not reliant on a platform pushing back and spending resources to make it happen.
The other dumb thing here is X pushing back via the first amendment when multiple district courts have ALREADY ruled and thus set case law and precedent that copyright infringement does not qualify for first protections.
Like I’m not sure why they’d take a tact they probably knew wasn’t going to work other than to preen about protecting user rights, but doing it in a way that wouldn’t work?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
DMCA subpoenas are nonsense. Having a judge rule on sufficient cause should always be the standard for any subpoena, and DMCA subpoenas can be signed off by a clerk.
A judge evaluating the merit and determining that there’s cause for a subpoena is fine. But it’s supposed to be the first step, not reliant on a platform pushing back and spending resources to make it happen.
The other dumb thing here is X pushing back via the first amendment when multiple district courts have ALREADY ruled and thus set case law and precedent that copyright infringement does not qualify for first protections.
Like I’m not sure why they’d take a tact they probably knew wasn’t going to work other than to preen about protecting user rights, but doing it in a way that wouldn’t work?