Reply to post:

Australia to block piracy sites if Big Content asks nicely in court

Trevor_Pott Gold badge

"But generally a court will kick out a case based just on suspicions, if the plaintiff cannot back up their suspicions with evidence."

Sure, if it's an actual trial. There are lots of instances in which you go to a court to get them to sign off on something but that it doesn't involve a trial. A warrant would be an example.

So it seems to me it's entirely possible here what we're talking about is Big IP going to a court and saying "we suspect BobsDildoShack.com of hosting our IP", getting a ban and then it being up to the owner of BobsDildoShack.com to respond to that ban.

See, in a trial, there's representation. The opportunity to answer your accuser and defend yourself. In anything else, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the court's involvement is anything more than a FISA-court-like rubber stamping process.

Nothing about this seems like these are presented to the court as "cases". As described, it's far more like "getting a warrant". Show minimal evidence, get rubber stamp, and the onus is on the accused, not the accuser.

Except, you know, there's not actually any "getting a warrant" involved, and no reason to assume that even that minimal level of evidence is required.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022