The person from the lawfirm claims in their demand letter that they have received information
Since they do not specify what kind of infofmation they have received it could be anything from a proven fact to a rumour.
What seems so strange to me is that a site can be taken temporarily down solily on the grounds of "what might be a rumour". The fact that their letter did not contain any facts would make an action like taking the site down be the same as arresting a person on grounds of a rumour that that person killed someone.
True the lawfirm can obtain their evidence just by surfing to the web page and saving the illigal parts on one of theur local computers, but since they did not mention it in their demand letter it is easily to believe that they do not have any.
I believe that in the US law enforcement is on the principle of "not guilty until proven otherwise", so I can hardly believe your statement to be true, or if it is true, that such a law can be enforced without resulting in some lawsuit for a big damage compensation to be paid by the lawfirm (or the MPAA) to the maintainer of the website in case that, in a court the, judge finds that this specific website is not illegal.
I don't know if the monk initiallly skipped the year 1666, but there was a year 1666. With History lessons I learned that in that year there was a great fire in the city of London, destroying a greater part of the city. It was also the yeas of the first (or second) great seawar between Holland and England. The fact that these historical events exist for that year proofs tha there was a year 1666.
Slashdot Mirror
The person from the lawfirm claims in their demand letter that they have received information
Since they do not specify what kind of infofmation they have received it could be anything from a proven fact to a rumour.
What seems so strange to me is that a site can be taken temporarily down solily on the grounds of "what might be a rumour". The fact that their letter did not contain any facts would make an action like taking the site down be the same as arresting a person on grounds of a rumour that that person killed someone.
True the lawfirm can obtain their evidence just by surfing to the web page and saving the illigal parts on one of theur local computers, but since they did not mention it in their demand letter it is easily to believe that they do not have any.
I believe that in the US law enforcement is on the principle of "not guilty until proven otherwise", so I can hardly believe your statement to be true, or if it is true, that such a law can be enforced without resulting in some lawsuit for a big damage compensation to be paid by the lawfirm (or the MPAA) to the maintainer of the website in case that, in a court the, judge finds that this specific website is not illegal.
I don't know if the monk initiallly skipped the year 1666, but there was a year 1666. With History lessons I learned that in that year there was a great fire in the city of London, destroying a greater part of the city. It was also the yeas of the first (or second) great seawar between Holland and England. The fact that these historical events exist for that year proofs tha there was a year 1666.