"You're a hypocrite" doesn't strike my as a particularly strong defense. I understand the moral impetus of your argument, I just don't think it's very good legal advice.
Totally not a lawyer. But this could be very damaging to some copyright cases that aren't clean cut. At least here (not from the US) if you can show that the plaintiff doesn't respect the law they're asking to uphold, the judge has some leeway.
Since they're a global company and very litigious, this might prove useful to some lawyers.
I think the person you're replying to was referring to the "clean hands doctrine". In common law, one of the Maxims of Equity--or principles by which courts try to rule--is that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands."
An incredibly simplified overview of this doctrine is that a person cannot claim equitable relief (that is, win a civil suit on the basis of equity) in a situation where the person has also acted wrongly or unfaithfully. A common example is that a landlord may not pursue eviction of a tenant if the landlord has violated the tenant's rights.
The clean hands doctrine is very nebulous and since I'm not a lawyer I don't claim to know all of the twists and turns. In my reading, the doctrine does not mean someone must be "completely pure" in an area in order to prevail. Generally there has to be a relationship between the thing the person wishes to sue for or defend against and their own actions. So while Disney might be abusing copyright in other areas, the doctrine (probably?) would not stop them from claiming copyright privilege in unrelated suits, such as against someone selling derivative works.
Not good legal advice at all under the current state of the law, but very effective for shaping public opinion, which can then lead to shaping the future state of the law.
Comments
"You're a hypocrite" doesn't strike my as a particularly strong defense. I understand the moral impetus of your argument, I just don't think it's very good legal advice.
Totally not a lawyer. But this could be very damaging to some copyright cases that aren't clean cut. At least here (not from the US) if you can show that the plaintiff doesn't respect the law they're asking to uphold, the judge has some leeway.
Since they're a global company and very litigious, this might prove useful to some lawyers.
Interesting! If you don't mind me asking, what country are you in? I'm asking because I'm an American and I don't think I've ever heard of this.
I think the person you're replying to was referring to the "clean hands doctrine". In common law, one of the Maxims of Equity--or principles by which courts try to rule--is that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands."
An incredibly simplified overview of this doctrine is that a person cannot claim equitable relief (that is, win a civil suit on the basis of equity) in a situation where the person has also acted wrongly or unfaithfully. A common example is that a landlord may not pursue eviction of a tenant if the landlord has violated the tenant's rights.
The clean hands doctrine is very nebulous and since I'm not a lawyer I don't claim to know all of the twists and turns. In my reading, the doctrine does not mean someone must be "completely pure" in an area in order to prevail. Generally there has to be a relationship between the thing the person wishes to sue for or defend against and their own actions. So while Disney might be abusing copyright in other areas, the doctrine (probably?) would not stop them from claiming copyright privilege in unrelated suits, such as against someone selling derivative works.
Not good legal advice at all under the current state of the law, but very effective for shaping public opinion, which can then lead to shaping the future state of the law.