1. 25
  1.  

  2. 4

    Interesting snippet from the article:

    When these music companies sued Cox Communications, an ISP, the court got the law wrong. [emphasis mine]

    While I think that the precedent is harmful, I wonder why the EFF is claiming that the court “got it wrong” - usually one considers the court to be the ultimate legal authority (even if not the moral one).

    1. 25

      I’m not entirely sure where you got that. In English law systems, the entire point of appellate courts is to handle situations where a district court (which is where this trial happened) got the law wrong. (It is, in fact, literally the only thing you can actually appeal on. By the time you’re making your appeal, the factual decisions made by the judge or jury are presumed valid; the entire debate is about the law itself.) While you often won’t see quite such blunt phrasing as “the court got the law wrong” in briefs made to an appellate court for politeness reasons, that phrasing is common in both scholarly law circles, and in the decisions that come down from appellate courts.

      Roman law systems are different, and you are closer to a correct point if we were talking strictly about the Supreme Court of the United States. But a district court? Appellate lawyers and appellate judges’ entire careers are predicated on the fact that lower courts make legal errors. The EFF is on strong footing, phrasing-wise.

      1. 11

        While I think that the precedent is harmful, I wonder why the EFF is claiming that the court “got it wrong” - usually one considers the court to be the ultimate legal authority (even if not the moral one).

        This would really only apply to the supreme court, and even then you’re allowed to argue to the supreme court that the supreme court got it wrong. Lawyers do it, judges do it, etc.

        In this specific case a district court (the first court that hears a case) heard a case and made a series of rulings, and the the EFF is arguing to the appeals court that the district court made the wrong rulings, that’s the normal flow of affairs and how appeals work (pretty much the only type of decision your allowed to appeal is the decisions made by the lower court, and those decisions are nearly always on matters of law, not fact).

        The EFF is also making that argument publicly, which is pretty normal in legal cases. For them it’s good for fundraising/making their work visible. For most litigants it’s also just good to get “your side” of the story out there. It’s also a manner in which future policy can be influenced to some degree.

        So… nothing interesting in that the court said they got it wrong… that’s normal.

      2. 1

        Isn’t the internet considered a basic human right at this point?