MESSAGE
| DATE | 2026-05-08 |
| FROM | Aviva
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] amicus - complaint cleaned version...
|
This could be stronger. It can use some case law attributions. Why was
this not submitted?
On 5/7/26 9:02 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 5/7/26 8:09 PM, Aviva wrote:
>> Well, if they accept Fair Use as a defense of Copyright, it will not
>> have much of a significant impact.
> It is not our business and I REALLY have other things I am dealing with.
> I should had just written it myself
>
> Something like this:
>
> AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF NEW YORKERS FOR FAIR USE
> I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
> New Yorkers for Fair Use represents a coalition of citizens and digital
> advocates who view the over-extension of copyright law as a direct
> threat to civil liberties. Our interest lies in ensuring the judicial
> system is not used as a tool for "legalized bullying" that strips
> individuals of their First and Fourth Amendment protections.
> II. ARGUMENT
> 1. Fair Use as a Constitutional Limit, Not a Litigation "Excuse."
> The First Amendment does not permit the government—or private parties
> acting through the courts—to silence critique. Fair Use is the mechanism
> that prevents copyright from becoming a state-sanctioned gag order. By
> dismissing this case, the Court vindicated the Defendant's inherent
> right to participate in the digital public square.
> 2. The 4th Amendment and the "Seizure" of Digital Expression via Trolling.
> The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in
> their digital "effects." Copyright trolling transforms this protection
> into a vulnerability.
>
> Weaponizing the DMCA: Plaintiff’s tactics involve using the DMCA and
> meritless litigation to effectuate the unreasonable seizure of content.
> When a platform is forced to "take down" speech based on an objectively
> unreasonable claim, it is a seizure of that speaker's digital property
> and presence.
> Abuse of Process: Trolling tactics seek to bypass the Fourth
> Amendment’s requirement for "reasonableness" by using the threat of
> massive statutory damages to coerce speakers into silence or settlement.
> This is an end-run around the due process typically required to seize or
> suppress private property.
>
> 3. Deterring the "Troll" Business Model through Fee-Shifting.
> The Plaintiff’s strategy in this case mirrors the "copyright troll"
> model: filing claims not to protect a commercial market for the work,
> but to exploit the high cost of legal defense.
>
> The Censorship Motive: Unlike legitimate creators, "trolls" use
> copyright as a proxy for censorship, seeking to "scrub" the internet of
> critical or embarrassing content.
> Correcting the Power Imbalance: Awarding attorney fees is the only
> way to break the trolling cycle. Without fee-shifting, the "seizure" of
> a defendant's financial resources becomes a punishment in itself, even
> if they eventually win. To protect the Fourth Amendment rights of the
> citizenry, the Court must make the "seizure" of speech financially
> ruinous for the aggressor, not the victim.
>
> III. CONCLUSION
> To prevent the judicial system from being used as a mechanism for
> unreasonable digital seizures and the suppression of free speech, New
> Yorkers for Fair Use respectfully requests that this Court GRANT the
> motion for attorney fees.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
