Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative
So you actually think that if you can't serve somebody then any case is unfair... great defence against crimes... I'll do what I want then flee the jurisdiction and carry on committing crimes by remote in your jurisdiction... did you read the full judgement relating to the inability to contact TPB owners... do you seriously mean that because of that, there should be no action to take because "it's not fair, if they can't defend themselves..." when they've made the choice to move out of their home country and scatter round the world... your opinion may be that the process was unfair but that tends to make your opinion, at the best, incredibly naive... there have been many court cases where defendants are not present (usually by their choice) and nobody denies their legality so what's so special about running a "pirate" site that requires the owners get special treatment when thay can't be bothered to defend themselves in courts anyway...
|
The issue is not that the defendents chose not to be there, but that they were never joined or invited to attend, so did not have the chance to decide to attend or not.
In this particular case it makes no pragmatic difference, as TPB would not have turned up to defend the case, but there is a significant legal diffence.