Idk, maybe take the five
pending motions up with the layabout judge!
They keep using the term "transmitted," probably because it has a narrower definition under some statutes. However, under CARDII the term is "disclose" and it's pretty broad!
Unfortunately for the sexpest, that is not relevant (also, he did). Sending it through DMs over the internet count as interstate commerce (
ex).
Well, did he "make [it] accessible"? Solo only talked about getting access to Rose's Discord, so how else than by Destiny continuously making the video accessible did he get a hold of it?
They're being stupid. Plaintiff is specifically arguing that Destiny's means of sharing the material made the disclosure continuous and thus applicable after the statute's effective date; they did not argue that the law should be applied retroactively.
What positive evidence shows that Destiny
did not share the video with Abbymc after the effective date?
Here's what Plaintiff's lawyers had to say on this matter on June 23:
Weird case to cite?!
The case is not about "whether private material transmitted via a Google Drive link to a third party could constitute an ongoing transmission." The court found that the
inadvertent disclosure of the URL to a whole ass Google Drive (folder), where the owner of the Google Drive thought he had restricted-access, meant the Defendant, whom the URL was disclosed to, did not have
authorization to copy, delete, and edit material on the Google Drive (very much outside the scope of anything having to do with the material that was initially transmitted..as screenshots sent in an email).
Whether or not it was "widely disseminated" and tantamount to "publicizing information in a regional magazine," or "placed in a location where anyone could access it," Destiny made the video continuously accessible. That's how Solo got it.
Nobody has argued that "'anyone with a browser' could stumble upon the Google Drive on a web search" - And it certainly isn't necessary for a right of action under CARDII. Destiny shared the video in a way where he knowingly made the video accessible and shareable with zero oversight, and the person he shared it with was a teenager he had been sexting for like 10 days.
That case wasn't about continuous disclosure at all! It wasn't like the Defendant in that case could have accessed the Google Drive at the time of the initial disclosure and would be authorized to do so! Also it wouldn't be continuous disclosure since the disclosure happened by someone sending Defendant a bunch of screenshots in an email (i.e. creating local copies)
Also weird, considering Solo got the video from the cloud-hosted copy that Destiny made accessible!