Hacker News Reader

Comment by jekwoooooe | Hacker News Reader

Is this legal isn’t a useful question. The better question is how likely are you to get sued? With civil lawsuits it doesn’t matter if it’s legal you can be sued and harassed by lawyers if you get on their radar.

View on HN

This is definitely the right pragmatic take. A lawyer friend of mine once laid it out for me: "in litigation, if you go to court, even if you win, you lose". The reality is that court sucks, and getting sued sucks for all but the ultra-wealthy (who can absorb the cost). For those of us with less than $100MM, court is a universe to be avoided.

>A lawyer friend of mine once laid it out for me: "in litigation, if you go to court, even if you win, you lose"

In my country we have a phrase for this exact scenario: "the punishment is the process".

When the government or a powerful person wants to fuck with you, all they have to do is drag you endlessly through the court system, even knowing they'll loose. Because the experience will be 100x more painful for you to win than it is for them to loose.

It's what the UK government did to the postal workers in the Fujitsu scandal.

Is there a limit how many concurrent lawsuits can be thrown at one person?

No, not technically, however in the US there are the SLAPP statutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

Don't underestimate this.

My family members sued each other over a small inheritance. 5 kids fighting over a couple million dollars. Case has dragged out across almost 4 decades. Lawyer fees dwarfed the size of what was being fought over several times over. Some family spent time in jail for contempt of court... Family members then put up all their personal assets to keep fighting. Then they lost and were faced with a judgment that left them destitute well into their retirement years with no way to earn new money. Some family members are still appealing and fighting adjacent court battles (property seizure, etc). This process has consumed the last decades of their lives and everything they worked their whole lives for.

Not only would I say never end up in court, I'll extend you one further. Never get the government involved in your personal relationships.

Well, that seems a bit silly!

>Never get the government involved in your personal relationships.

Amen! You can't tax friendship.

Which is why, ideally your access to the court system should NOT be dependent on your wealth.

Access to it isn't. You can theoretically sue in federal court with a few hundred dollars in filing fees. It's not cheap, but not exorbitantly expensive either. It's representation that's expensive.

No need to sue. Send a cease and desist and your average hacker like OP will take it down in a hurry...

In this case not even a cease-and-desist was needed. Just seeing 1.7M peers crying out in the void for company was enough. Living in a country overly friendly with Hollywood and its money, I do understand him.

Yes, prime example of a chilling effect where the fear of a lawsuit stops people from engaging in perfectly legal activities. It's unfortunate that copyright law does not concern itself with collateral damage like this.

This is not collateral damage, this is the intended effect - decreasing their competition, legal or otherwise.

I think the point is that you can't count on that and need to assume that you are going to attract actual lawsuits. DMCA provides easier take down options for copyright owners but AFAIK does not compel them to make use of those options before going to court.

I think companies will try with a strongly worded letter first, as this would save them money over straight going to court. But I get that the risk may not be worth it for many people, I myself would be very scared if I received a letter threatening a lawsuit for a ridiculous amount of money, even knowing that they are exaggerating the scale of damages just to scare me.

Unfortunately what they will do is file a DMCA with the hosting provider. Most will immediately shut you down, none of them defend their customers.

Considering the obscene fines courts have granted the media industry who claim losses with zero basis in reality it's only to be expected. Would you be willing/able to defend your customers when faced with billions in fines and a court system that has been aggressively favoring your opponent?

I’m not sure if that’s true actually, you might get a takedown notice, but to sue, and maybe I’m wrong but you have to claim damages, all op has to do is not announce out?

IE he can see the peer pool but they don’t announce the peer list.

The RIAA doesn't have to sue to make OP's life miserable. They have enough lawyers on the payroll to drown him in perfectly legal demand letters. Go one step further and assume the demand letters are harassment - what's OP going to do, sue the RIAA?

Nahh, for a bunch of annoying letters take them to small claims court. Cheap for you, expensive for them, and you win if they don’t show up.

haha, no, this is not their first rodeo

Sure, but that’s why they avoid this kind of harassment in the first place.

You made a hypothetical assuming they would do something they wouldn’t because it puts them at risk.

This is a cool feel good theory but can you show an example of this working?

It’s not the kind of thing that generally makes the news. One example that was is a guy who was making good money doing this to spam callers. His case was bolstered by asking to be put on their no call list and then them ignoring that, but the point is the vast majority of people don’t do it even if in theory they could.

However the important bit isn’t winning in a harassment case but having documentation to get them to stop in the future.

Suing isn’t just going to court it means subpoenas, depositions, motions, letters, etc. all this stuff costs a ton of money without you even stepping foot in a court. The system is so broken

Exactly, you might just get a takedown notice. Or you might not if someone decides they want to burn you in court. This is how chilling effects from copyright laws can suppress perfectly legal speech.

> Is this legal isn’t a useful question

Why do you say that?

I think even seemingly "useless" questions can lead to valuable discussions and insights... and it might also be possible that your perspective is not the only valid one.

What's useful (or not) to one person is not always the same for others.

You may want to adjust your LLM settings. Your post seemingly dropped everything but the first sentence from the context window and then wrote vapid fluff that makes no sense in context.

I do not use any LLM, thanks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com