Defendant crashed its website, slowed it, and damaged the servers, and Defendant admitted to the same by way of default,” the ruling said.
OK, so if I set up a lawsuit against OCLC in my country where they don’t reside, and they fail to show up to contest the charges, I get to claim they admitted guilt by default?
Also, since the claim is they used bots that behaved like legitimate search engine bots, are they also suing Google?
I can see why they might not want AA putting undue stress on their servers, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re suing over.
OK, so if I set up a lawsuit against OCLC in my country where they don’t reside, and they fail to show up to contest the charges, I get to claim they admitted guilt by default?
Assuming your country’s laws are roughly based on British common law, yes.
Winning a case is easy. How you enforce the judgement is much harder.
This is why the speculation is that they will not comply. If the servers are not in reach of the US, the owners are not in a country that will extradite them, they don’t store money in US banks and the US doesn’t stupidly commit war crimes in order to capture them… then ignoring the court order is about as hard as you ignoring North Korean law.
edit: but Alexandra Elbakyan does sci-hub under her own name and just ignores US courts, since Kazakhstan doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the USA.
If the President chooses to sanction them, yes. A judge cannot impose that kind of sanction because they have limited jurisdiction.
The court can order you to pay, and it can order US banks to seize your money. But a US court cannot order France to seize your money.
Basically, judgements are a judicial function with a more limited scope and sanctions are akin to foreign policy but can extend as far as we are able to force/negotiate.
OK, so if I set up a lawsuit against OCLC in my country where they don’t reside, and they fail to show up to contest the charges, I get to claim they admitted guilt by default?
Also, since the claim is they used bots that behaved like legitimate search engine bots, are they also suing Google?
I can see why they might not want AA putting undue stress on their servers, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re suing over.
Assuming your country’s laws are roughly based on British common law, yes.
Winning a case is easy. How you enforce the judgement is much harder.
This is why the speculation is that they will not comply. If the servers are not in reach of the US, the owners are not in a country that will extradite them, they don’t store money in US banks and the US doesn’t stupidly commit war crimes in order to capture them… then ignoring the court order is about as hard as you ignoring North Korean law.
But the US can impose a few inconviniences on you:
Same link without google tracking: https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/google-gmail-amazon-accounts-closed-cant-book-hotels-trains-flights-cant-buy-dollars-how-donald-trumps-sanctions-have-made-lives-of-international-criminal-court-judges-hell/articleshow/126454613.cms
Operators of pirate sites don’t tend to publicize their identities.
Yea, the defendants are
edit: but Alexandra Elbakyan does sci-hub under her own name and just ignores US courts, since Kazakhstan doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the USA.
If the US really wants to, they’ll just come kidnap you.
If the President chooses to sanction them, yes. A judge cannot impose that kind of sanction because they have limited jurisdiction.
The court can order you to pay, and it can order US banks to seize your money. But a US court cannot order France to seize your money.
Basically, judgements are a judicial function with a more limited scope and sanctions are akin to foreign policy but can extend as far as we are able to force/negotiate.