The corrupt bow tied idiot also said Rule 18 doesn't apply. Sure, Alphabet corporation is hosting and publishing the issue at hand. But we don't need to bring the party that is allegedly publishing the works at issue into a lawsuit about the published works, even though the entire lawsuit is about the works being published by Alphabet and not Lolcow. No. Lolcow is vicariously liable for Alphabet Corporations infringement. But somehow Alphabet corporation is not directly liable.
I would be fascinated to hear the explanation for this on appeal. How Lolcow is Vicariously liable for Alphabet corporations direct infringement, and yet Alphabet corporation does not need to answer to the direct infringement by their google drive subsidiary, that is central to Greers own claims of vicarious liability. that causes liability by a third party due to their actions. WILD. The Rule 18 denial really needs to be banged on about. The District of Utah held that that a defendant is vicariously liable in a case where the direct infringer is NOT liable. How the fuck does that work?
But I forget, the bow tied idiots never assumed their idiocy would be subject to appeal.