Please stop equating owners of IA and EFF with criminals - copyright infringmenent is nowhere near equivalent to actual crimes that cause harm. It's a disgusting rhetoric that was paid for by rent seeking publishers.

I am merely making the analogy to such lawyers, not attempting to call them criminals. Sorry if I came off as doing otherwise.

That said, while not in this case (I think), copyright infringement is in many for profit contexts criminal under the laws of the United States.

> The EFF is on the right side of the law the same way a lawyer for a criminal is.

By this definition, no lawyer can be on the wrong side - you know what is meant by the phrase ‘wrong side of the law’ stop it with the mental gymnastics.

No, the criminal in the above is absolutely on the wrong side of the law. That's the assumption after all.

Lawyers are on the wrong side of the law when they break it themselves (see, e.g., Avenatti), but not when they represent people on the wrong side of the law. The latter is necessary for the common law court system to work at all.

> "No, the criminal in the above is absolutely on the wrong side of the law. That's the assumption after all."

In America at least, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So the assumption should be that the defendant is on the right side of the law. It's the prosecutor or complainant's job to prove the defendant is in fact on the wrong side of the law.

To call a defendant 'the criminal' (and saying the defendant is in the wrong) is putting the cart before the horse.

You're nitpicking the language in a hypothetical here. Of course the court can't assume the defendant is guilty, but the purpose of the word criminal here is to say that in the hypothetical the defendant did actually commit the crime they are accused of.

> You're nitpicking the language in a hypothetical here.

That is exactly what you are doing by picking a bone with the phrase wrong side of the law

No, it isn't. By saying the EFF is on the wrong side of the law you are implying that they are acting badly, this is simply not the case and needs correcting.

There is a reason why falsley accusing someone of a crime is libel in and of itself and is actionable under the law regardless of damages, I don't think this quite reaches that standard, but it is damn close.

EFF IS on the wrong side of the law. Yes everyone deserves a defense but you yourself admitted IA was in the wrong and EFF is choosing to go to bat for them.

No. As explained above acting as legal council for someone who has broken the law does not make you yourself be "on the wrong side of the law".

And as I said - EFF isn’t acting as blind legal council - they are tying themselves to IA even saying they are proud to stand with them and pledging financial support for them. This is totally different from a public defender being elected for a citizen. I didn’t say it was illegal for EFF to do this or that they were breaking the law, I said they were on the wrong side of the law.

I'm beginning to think you actually just don't know what "the wrong side of the law" means. Here is the definition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20the%20wrong%...

Exercising their first amendment rights to support an organization that broke the law is unequivocally legal, a healthy part of society, and not on the wrong side of the law.

Fwiw I think everything you're saying makes perfect sense. Regardless of the plaintiff and defendant's cases, the lawyers are there to ensure the judicial system is fair to the best of their ability. IA might be wrong, but EFF and their legal team are there to make sure they are fairly represented.

Nice alt

Read their argument in the context of legal proceedings after the defendant pleads guilty

The lawyer is still on the right side of the law after the plea

A defense attorney defending a guilty criminal doesn’t typically pledge financial and moral support and state publically that they are proud to stand with them (not for, with). EFF is tying themselves to IA far beyond just acting purely as a legal representative.

Taking a political stance that the existing law is bad is not only not illegal, but it is one of the few things that is very explicitly legal. Doing so does not put you on the wrong side of the law. This includes when your political actions involve making statements in support of, defending and funding the legal defense of those who have broken the law.

> In America at least, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Is this true for civil cases? I presume no one is being charged with a crime here...

> Is this true for civil cases? I presume no one is being charged with a crime here...

Yes. The publishers are saying 'the Internet Archive violated my rights and has caused monetary damages. They owe us for those damages.' It's up to the publishers to provide that the Internet Archive violated those rights.

Now civil trials and criminal trials have different standards for evidence and determining guilt. In criminal trials, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a criminal offense.

In civil cases, the complainant (plaintiff) just has to prove via a 'preponderance of the evidence' that their rights were violated. Meaning, it's more likely than not their rights were violated.

By that definition no lawyer operating in good faith is.

You're not arguing about whether the defendant is on the wrong side of the law.