Can anyone explain to me on who's authority a judge has authority to arbitrarily issue edicts for businesses not directly related to a court proceeding? AFAIK, ALL US ISPs can tell the judge to shove it up his ass, as only a law can require them to effect operational changes short of very strict exceptions (like national security).
Please correct me here.
Because law enforcement will do whatever they're told to do by whoever is the last stop in the accountability chain.
This where Judge Dredd comes from it's the dystopian end game. Courts have the final say, so it's only a matter of time before they end up on the front line.
I understand what you're saying, but courts don't have final say and this isn't Judge Dredd. It sounds like you agree, the judge has zero authority to issue any such decree. At least, that's how I'm reading what you've stated. If they fail to comply, who's going to enforce it? Who's responsible at an ISP to comply or even ensure compliance is met? Who is billed for the time? I guess all bills are sent directly to the judge or the court to pay for costs?
I would think the original plaintiffs would have to sue the ISPs
Thing is, I can't see that these ISPs were party to the original suit. Meaning they've had no opportunity to plead any case as to why they would or would not, could or could not, block certain websites, or how much money it would cost them to enforce. I guess that comes when and if the original plaintiffs seek enforcement.
Exactly. How can a non-party to a lawsuit be bound by a judge's order?
Basically the judge can't do anything directly to someone who isn't a party to a case. As far as I could tell from a half assed search, a judge cannot join someone to a case sua sponte (i.e. on their own without a party requesting it). The judge might try to hang his hat on the DNS entry being the property of the defendants, and therefore the ISPs are obligated to do what the judge tells them to do with it (like if a bank was instructed to turn over money in your account to pay a judgement). That, as far as I can tell (again from a half assed search) Is a novel legal theory.
The other possibility is that because it involved Israeli interests, the judge just assumed they could do whatever the fuck they want.
This is exactly the same as the CDC issuing edicts and demands. From their point of view, there's nothing to lose by making demands. Look at Klaus schwab, he's acting like he's been elected world president. Crazy thing is, world leaders are pretending he is.
You're right.
I thought you were mistaken and went back and read the article: it was a Judge's order.
Not an official policy released by the FTC or FCC. Not an executive order. Not a new law.
I don't understand how a judge can order non-parties to perform actions on a case.
Obviously, he can. We are all wrong. And this is just how the system works. But it doesn't make sense to me. This feels like too much power from a judge.
The Authority comes from the Digital Millenium CopyRight Act (dmca.com). The order is to remove Infringing URL's. These links are facilitating the theft of Intellectual Property. The order is atypical of a standard order as they are usually issued by an agent of the copyright holder and not a Judge. I am not an advocate of DMCA, just stating the definition.
(post is archived)