sfbullygirl wrote:oh but I do Dick....I was an operations manager for a legal service for 15 years, whose job it was to subpoena records for civil cases and take depostions so I am aware of the legalities.
Forgive me, from your writings I would never have surmised that you held such a position. What is an "operations manager"? Was deposing witnesses and subpeonaing records the full scope of your responsibilities?
IF this gets to civil court then subpoenas will be issued on both sides, depositions taken under oath and at the very least I would expect that both parties computer records will be accessed as well subpoenas issued to the photo hosting account and web server account to obtain records that show that Rebecca's actual IP address did in fact download those files, which if it cannot there is no basis for this accusation since Noel does not sell this collar on her website and has never posted a picture for public viewing anywhere to my knowledge.
Everyone already understand that it is entirely possible to win a civil judgement based on a preponderance of evidence, and that in reality this can have NOTHING to do with what is fact and what is not. It's that whole "justice vs. the law" thing.
We are concurrently discussing two different standards of proof in error. There is both a legal standard and a personal one. It is entirely possible to steal an idea and get away with it legally, just like it's possible to break a criminal law and walk. In court what you know
is irrelevant. It's what you can prove
(PBARD or POE depending on the court), that matters. This standard is necessary for court, but wholly inappropriate for most other purposes. To wit:
I do not believe that people should should base their personal beliefs on what has or has not been proven, or supported, in civil court proceedings. No one does that, because it's silly. I am noting with interest that it is actually quite possible to predict who will take which side in this, based largely on personal allegiances, as well as the myriad of tactics they will use to defend and justify the actions of their associates, as necessary. It's almost Pavlovian. I suppose it's the human nature to tend to our own. Tribalism got us this far, after all.
Then, perhaps they can also get down to the final verdict on whether someone has the leagl right to claim copyright when they use commercially available materials for the creation of their products, when they do not actually file a copyright for said product, and feel that because they made it they now claim rights to it. Much like if one of us buy a commercially available fabric and then make a collar from it...does that mean that no other collar maker out there can then make a collar from that same fabric.
Yes, when we boil it all down, in terms of legality, copyright is probably the only issue. However, in terms of basing a decision on whom to believe, copyright has little to no value.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone did bring conclusive evidence forward demonstrating that another party stole their ideas and profited from them, causing a financial loss to the originator, only to have the courts fail to act at all. Justice vs. the law.
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge