If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Judge smacks down copyright trolls in porn case. Hot   (latimes.com) divider line 97
    More: Spiffy, Prenda Law Inc., copyright troll, creative work, fantasy literature, Web User, federal judges  
•       •       •

14173 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2013 at 9:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-10 09:50:06 AM
Ars Technica and Popehat hava been covering this story in great detail since it started, if anyone is curious to read more.  It's pretty entertaining.
 
2013-04-10 09:51:17 AM
media.skateboard.com.au
 
2013-04-10 09:51:35 AM
The lawyer plead the 5th? Is that even permissible?
 
2013-04-10 09:52:49 AM
After invoking the 5th when asked to explain their conduct in front of a federal judge, it's clear these "lawyers" won't be practicing in any courtroom for much longer.
 
2013-04-10 09:53:24 AM
Whelp. Nothing dirty in this headline at all. No Siree. Just complete innocence.

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-04-10 09:54:03 AM
I have a copyright on Missionary. Hasn't gotten me very far.
 
2013-04-10 09:55:44 AM
If someone pays for the airline ticket, I would be proud to fly to California and suck this judges c*ck.

THAT'S how happy I am to hear of this ruling.
 
2013-04-10 09:56:43 AM
Google  Righthaven Lawsuits and  Stevens Media to get a better idea of how this is going to turn out.

Also I think that they should change East Texas' name from "The Piney Woods" to the "Patent Troll Forrest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Ea st ern_District_of_Texas

people.virginia.edu
 
2013-04-10 09:57:03 AM
Pics or it didn't happen?
 
2013-04-10 09:57:38 AM
Wright asked several Prenda lawyers to explain their legal strategy.

Instead of answering, the lawyers pleaded the 5th Amendment.


Wow.
 
2013-04-10 09:57:41 AM
Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/
 
2013-04-10 09:58:16 AM
Then he delivered an ominous warning to a lawyer for Steele: "If you say answering these kinds of questions would incriminate him, I'm inclined to take you at your word."

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if I was one of the Prenda lawyers that line would send a chill down my spine.
 
2013-04-10 09:58:49 AM

Digital Communist: Ars Technica and Popehat hava been covering this story in great detail since it started, if anyone is curious to read more.  It's pretty entertaining.


Absolutely.  I've been following the whole case and it's hilarious.  I'll add the link to all the Popehat Prenda-tagged posts.  It starts at the bottom

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-10 09:59:52 AM
Wright ordered Prenda's Gibbs to explain the firm's business model. Among other things, he was unhappy with Prenda's method of selecting defendants for the lawsuits. The method boiled down to collecting Internet account numbers and "blindly picking" a "pubescent male in the house" of an Internet subscriber to sue as the purported pirate. That kind of "hunch" isn't sufficient to form the basis of a lawsuit, he said, although he acknowledged that the expense of performing a genuine piracy investigation "would destroy Plaintiff's business model."

In another case not much more investigation than this was found to be reasonable grounds to file a copyright lawsuit. You need more to win, but not to file.

What distinguishes these guys and Righthaven from the RIAA is they are non-practicing entities, to borrow a term from patent law. The judge didn't like champerty* so he smacked the plaintiffs harder than he would have if they had been personally harmed.

* Champtery is the common law term for buying a cause of action you had no other interest in. It is no longer a crime.
 
2013-04-10 10:03:57 AM

cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/


That guy's a dick.
 
2013-04-10 10:06:54 AM

Ken at Popehat: cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

That guy's a dick.


I lol'd.

/Also, thanks for the amazing coverage.
 
2013-04-10 10:07:10 AM

mongbiohazard: Then he delivered an ominous warning to a lawyer for Steele: "If you say answering these kinds of questions would incriminate him, I'm inclined to take you at your word."

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if I was one of the Prenda lawyers that line would send a chill down my spine.


As I understand it, one of the arguments that the prenda side is trying to make is that these proceedings effectively constitute a criminal trial for prenda, therefore pleading the 5th cannot be used as prejudicial evidence against them.

Good luck with that. After the deposition incident, I'm pretty sure the judge is out for blood. It's pretty apparent to everyone at this point that these guys are exactly what they appear to be - scumbag trolls who make money extorting people - and they've pissed the judge off enormously.

Pretty sure this is going to end in tears for prenda.
 
2013-04-10 10:09:52 AM
Got nailed on some music a production company we hired used last year for an online video. The didn't have the proper rights.  Cost me $7K for a job that maybe paid $2500...production company didn't have the money to pay it...if it had gone to court it could have ended up being 35K and my company, my client and the production company could have been sued individually.

The actually have webbots that scour youtube for certain pieces of music now.  Crazy.
 
2013-04-10 10:11:00 AM
Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?
 
2013-04-10 10:12:11 AM
So does a lawyer pleading the fifth set up some sort of legal singularity? Where they have to bring in representation who, in turn, have to plead the fifth and bring their own representation? Every barrister on the planet reads the writing on the wall and knows that the last to be picked for the dodgeball team will be stuck holding the bag which accelerates the assimilation of lawyers at an exponential rate. By the third week, the federal courthouse is literally bursting at the seams with writhing, undulating  mass of Brooks Brother's suits, briefcases and paperwork from all previous lawyers/clients.

Then the earth mercifully collapses in on itself like a Jupiter in the movie 2010.
 
2013-04-10 10:17:50 AM
Yeah, you might not like what the RIAA did a decade ago, but that's not the same thing as copyright trolling.
 
2013-04-10 10:18:04 AM

mongbiohazard: Then he delivered an ominous warning to a lawyer for Steele: "If you say answering these kinds of questions would incriminate him, I'm inclined to take you at your word."

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if I was one of the Prenda lawyers that line would send a chill down my spine.


I am a lawyer, and, absolutely.
 
2013-04-10 10:20:26 AM

cwheelie: Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?


That's a narrow way to look at it.  It's a ruling in favor of returning a small measure of sanity to copyright law, a section of law that is deeply, deeply insane.  Plus, we all like watching weasels get smacked down so authoritatively.
 
2013-04-10 10:20:46 AM
One of the questions that they refused to answer was "Where does the money go?" from the lawsuits.  In addition to the Justice Department the judge may also request the IRS to start looking into this.

This last court appearance lasted only twelve minutes.  I think the judge ended it so quickly so that he wouldn't be censured for having the defendants (Prenda Law) taken out in the parking lot and executed.  Judge Wright is an ex-Marine and he is really pissed...

Read the whole saga on Popehat.
 
2013-04-10 10:22:19 AM

cwheelie: Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?


Being that nobody has even mentioned porn yet until you did, I'm going to have to go with, "No, and you seem to have missed the point entirely."

Hint: A lot of nerds care about patent and copyright trolling.
 
2013-04-10 10:23:48 AM

mongbiohazard: cwheelie: Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?

Being that nobody has even mentioned porn yet until you did, I'm going to have to go with, "No, and you seem to have missed the point entirely."

Hint: A lot of nerds care about patent and copyright trolling.


Dang, there are like 25 posts and we're not even talking about porn yet?  That's an above-average lag for a Fark thread.
 
2013-04-10 10:23:52 AM
Elegy:  As I understand it, one of the arguments that the prenda side is trying to make is that these proceedings effectively constitute a criminal trial for prenda,

More like the judge had already decided they were naughty boys and was holding a hearing (actually this was a second one after they decided to blow off his previous hearing) to give them a chance to explain why he shouldn't discipline them.  And they decided to plead the Fifth when asked about doing their jobs.  Let's play this out in another setting

"John, I called you into my office today because there have been some troubling irregularities in your job performance lately.  I am sorry, but this sort of thing is not considered acceptable in this company, and we are going to have to write you up.  However, I am not soulless monster, so if you want to provide an explanation as to why you think I should go easy on you, I am more than willing to hear you out."

**crickets, because John decided not to come into the office**

[A month later, when John finally deigns to show up to his supervisor's office]
"John, I called you into my office today because there have been some troubling irregularities in your job performance lately.  I am sorry, but this sort of thing is not considered acceptable in this company, and we are going to have to write you up.  However, I am not soulless monster, so if you want to provide an explanation as to why you think I should go easy on you, I am more than willing to hear you out.  Why don't we start with you telling me how you go about doing your job -"

"I refuse to explain my basic job description because it will implicate me in a crime!"

**boss keels over from aneurysm**
 
rpm
2013-04-10 10:32:07 AM

Ken at Popehat: cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

That guy's a dick.


And probably a bronie. I mean, you can pay for ads with ponies? WTF?
 
2013-04-10 10:36:25 AM
No HERO tag?
 
2013-04-10 10:42:09 AM
Porn. Penis. 26 minutes.

Sorry, pet peave.
 
2013-04-10 10:48:30 AM

Super Chronic: mongbiohazard: cwheelie: Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?

Being that nobody has even mentioned porn yet until you did, I'm going to have to go with, "No, and you seem to have missed the point entirely."

Hint: A lot of nerds care about patent and copyright trolling.

Dang, there are like 25 posts and we're not even talking about porn yet?  That's an above-average lag for a Fark thread.


To paraphrase Archer:
"See how we just let that go by? Look at us. We are perfect gentlemen."
 
2013-04-10 10:50:10 AM

cwheelie: Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?


This is not a judge.
This is War Machine.
 
2013-04-10 10:51:40 AM
Ken at Popehat:
That guy's a dick.

Your coverage and analysis of this whole thing has been awesome.
 
2013-04-10 11:02:03 AM
Legit copyright holders deserve what is owed to them.  Unfortunately the way the law is written now, it makes little distinction between private piracy and outright commercial piracy, which is where these MASSIVE fines come into play.  That being said...

...There is a possible public shame factor that comes with "theft" of porography.  Yes, theft is theft, that being said... unfortunately, as prevalent as the "culture of porn" is in modern society, it still carries a level of shame and embarrassment with it.  Yeah, it is a double standard by comparison to being sued for downloading the newest Nickelback album, and this law firm knows that.

I am not sure what the solution here is...I mean, piracy is going to exist no matter what.  I am not saying "let's sit on our hands and do nothing..."
 
2013-04-10 11:02:04 AM
s3.postimg.org
 
2013-04-10 11:02:56 AM

ZAZ: Wright ordered Prenda's Gibbs to explain the firm's business model. Among other things, he was unhappy with Prenda's method of selecting defendants for the lawsuits. The method boiled down to collecting Internet account numbers and "blindly picking" a "pubescent male in the house" of an Internet subscriber to sue as the purported pirate. That kind of "hunch" isn't sufficient to form the basis of a lawsuit, he said, although he acknowledged that the expense of performing a genuine piracy investigation "would destroy Plaintiff's business model."

In another case not much more investigation than this was found to be reasonable grounds to file a copyright lawsuit. You need more to win, but not to file.

What distinguishes these guys and Righthaven from the RIAA is they are non-practicing entities, to borrow a term from patent law. The judge didn't like champerty* so he smacked the plaintiffs harder than he would have if they had been personally harmed.

* Champtery is the common law term for buying a cause of action you had no other interest in. It is no longer a crime.


Thank you for the lesson - in all my long years, I had never before heard of "champtery"!

/Not a lawyer, but do work for a bunch.
 
2013-04-10 11:03:19 AM

Civil Discourse: Ken at Popehat: cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

That guy's a dick.

I lol'd.

/Also, thanks for the amazing coverage.


That. Thanks, Ken!
 
2013-04-10 11:07:43 AM

Endive Wombat: ...There is a possible public shame factor that comes with "theft" of porography.  Yes, theft is theft, that being said... unfortunately, as prevalent as the "culture of porn" is in modern society, it still carries a level of shame and embarrassment with it.  Yeah, it is a double standard by comparison to being sued for downloading the newest Nickelback album, and this law firm knows that.


There was a great scam in Australia a few years back... Guy advertised porn videos for sale in the back of a magazine - just mainstream stuff, though, couples, oral, etc. He got a lot of buyers sending checks, cash, or money orders. He would then diligently reply to each one with an apology, saying the video had sold out, and enclosed was a check for a full refund from the company. Valid checks, too... but the company name was something incredibly disturbing like "Chained up dog-farkers bondage bestiality orgy porn company, LTD," and as a result, almost none of them were deposited.
 
2013-04-10 11:20:12 AM

mama2tnt: Thank you for the lesson - in all my long years, I had never before heard of "champtery"!


Neither has Wikipedia, oddly enough...
 
2013-04-10 11:26:40 AM

Theaetetus: There was a great scam in Australia a few years back... Guy advertised porn videos for sale in the back of a magazine - just mainstream stuff, though, couples, oral, etc. He got a lot of buyers sending checks, cash, or money orders. He would then diligently reply to each one with an apology, saying the video had sold out, and enclosed was a check for a full refund from the company. Valid checks, too... but the company name was something incredibly disturbing like "Chained up dog-farkers bondage bestiality orgy porn company, LTD," and as a result, almost none of them were deposited.


As referenced in that great documentary: Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
 
2013-04-10 11:28:18 AM

finnished: mama2tnt: Thank you for the lesson - in all my long years, I had never before heard of "champtery"!

Neither has Wikipedia, oddly enough...


Its because it is spelled Champerty
 
2013-04-10 11:32:06 AM

Endive Wombat: Legit copyright holders deserve what is owed to them. Unfortunately the way the law is written now, it makes little distinction between private piracy and outright commercial piracy, which is where these MASSIVE fines come into play. That being said...


Humorously enough, statutory damages were intended to be low.  Pitifully, insultingly low in fact.  Its just that the drafters didn't expect normal everyday people to be willfully infringing and getting sued by major corporations for it.
 
2013-04-10 11:34:55 AM
Just making a comment so it is on myfark before I go to bed.

This shiat really shiats me.

The fact that the USoA change copyright laws, etc. to protect Mickey Mouse shiats me almost as much.

And yes I too place the blame squarely on the RIAA - they really should be taken to court on their own basis (for being insane mother farkers who take up waaay to much of the community's court dollars.)
 
2013-04-10 11:35:03 AM

Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: ...There is a possible public shame factor that comes with "theft" of porography.  Yes, theft is theft, that being said... unfortunately, as prevalent as the "culture of porn" is in modern society, it still carries a level of shame and embarrassment with it.  Yeah, it is a double standard by comparison to being sued for downloading the newest Nickelback album, and this law firm knows that.

There was a great scam in Australia a few years back... Guy advertised porn videos for sale in the back of a magazine - just mainstream stuff, though, couples, oral, etc. He got a lot of buyers sending checks, cash, or money orders. He would then diligently reply to each one with an apology, saying the video had sold out, and enclosed was a check for a full refund from the company. Valid checks, too... but the company name was something incredibly disturbing like "Chained up dog-farkers bondage bestiality orgy porn company, LTD," and as a result, almost none of them were deposited.


That is excellent. Was the scammer punished?
 
2013-04-10 11:35:43 AM
I like the cut of this judge's jib.
 
2013-04-10 11:44:42 AM

Langdon_777: The fact that the USoA change copyright laws, etc. to protect Mickey Mouse shiats me almost as much.


Or, you know, to bring us in line with European laws.
 
2013-04-10 11:58:18 AM

angryjd: mongbiohazard: Then he delivered an ominous warning to a lawyer for Steele: "If you say answering these kinds of questions would incriminate him, I'm inclined to take you at your word."

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if I was one of the Prenda lawyers that line would send a chill down my spine.

I am a lawyer, and, absolutely.


Also a lawyer (just not YOUR lawyer).  Prenda's lawyer's spine isn't chilled, he hasn't done anything wrong.  Prenda, however, knows he's hosed.

Tom_Slick: The lawyer plead the 5th? Is that even permissible?


First I've heard of it, but don't see why not.  Every lawyer has a duty of candor to the court (read: you can't lie to the court) which the lawyer is probably rightly interpreting as anything he says will be treated as sworn testimony (or something very close to it. I'm not a litigator, so anyone who is please step in and correct me).  the 5th says you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself, so given the choice of answering the question (which might cause him to explain how he'd been defrauding the court and extorting his defendants, which would expose him to criminal liability) I think it's reasonable to invoke the 5th.  At any rate, given any concern, it's the smart thing to do.  Better to invoke the 5th and look squirrely than admit you've been bad and have it used against you at a later proceeding.
 
2013-04-10 12:02:10 PM

mongbiohazard: cwheelie: Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?

Being that nobody has even mentioned porn yet until you did, I'm going to have to go with, "No, and you seem to have missed the point entirely."

Hint: A lot of nerds care about patent and copyright trolling.


I'm not disagreeing - these guys needed to be taken biatch slapped. It's just that in so many threads we see anti judge ranting until there's a ruling that favors something we like. Then it's all judicial lovey dovey.

and I was being snarky
 
2013-04-10 12:02:48 PM

WillyChase: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: ...There is a possible public shame factor that comes with "theft" of porography.  Yes, theft is theft, that being said... unfortunately, as prevalent as the "culture of porn" is in modern society, it still carries a level of shame and embarrassment with it.  Yeah, it is a double standard by comparison to being sued for downloading the newest Nickelback album, and this law firm knows that.

There was a great scam in Australia a few years back... Guy advertised porn videos for sale in the back of a magazine - just mainstream stuff, though, couples, oral, etc. He got a lot of buyers sending checks, cash, or money orders. He would then diligently reply to each one with an apology, saying the video had sold out, and enclosed was a check for a full refund from the company. Valid checks, too... but the company name was something incredibly disturbing like "Chained up dog-farkers bondage bestiality orgy porn company, LTD," and as a result, almost none of them were deposited.

That is excellent. Was the scammer punished?


Eventually, yes. There was some fraud law that applied, but I don't know the details.
 
2013-04-10 12:03:10 PM

WillyChase: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: ...There is a possible public shame factor that comes with "theft" of porography.  Yes, theft is theft, that being said... unfortunately, as prevalent as the "culture of porn" is in modern society, it still carries a level of shame and embarrassment with it.  Yeah, it is a double standard by comparison to being sued for downloading the newest Nickelback album, and this law firm knows that.

There was a great scam in Australia a few years back... Guy advertised porn videos for sale in the back of a magazine - just mainstream stuff, though, couples, oral, etc. He got a lot of buyers sending checks, cash, or money orders. He would then diligently reply to each one with an apology, saying the video had sold out, and enclosed was a check for a full refund from the company. Valid checks, too... but the company name was something incredibly disturbing like "Chained up dog-farkers bondage bestiality orgy porn company, LTD," and as a result, almost none of them were deposited.

That is excellent. Was the scammer punished?




www.wearysloth.com
 
2013-04-10 12:07:37 PM
Just came in to say that I like this Judge!


/aaaaaand I am outta here
 
2013-04-10 12:16:53 PM

Claude Ballse: Google  Righthaven Lawsuits and  Stevens Media to get a better idea of how this is going to turn out.

Also I think that they should change East Texas' name from "The Piney Woods" to the "Patent Troll Forrest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Ea st ern_District_of_Texas

[people.virginia.edu image 540x110]


Sigh. Texans find more ways to fark up America and are proud of it. (Bush is another example).

Succeed already. Please.
 
2013-04-10 12:25:30 PM
i236.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-10 12:46:53 PM
It seems way too difficult to disbar a lawyer.
I mean, the ethical standards for being a lawyer are already pretty low.
These shiatheads should be disbarred and rotting in prison.
 
2013-04-10 01:21:50 PM
Wow, a good Judge.
 
2013-04-10 01:25:37 PM
What is really needed is a law that lets us burn them as witches.
 
2013-04-10 01:35:34 PM
Ah, John Steele, a nice lawyer there.

His model for porn suits;
Monitor a torrent, then sue all people downloading/"sharing" that file.
And NEVER contact the site hosting the tracking file to take down that torrent.

It should also be noted that the initial seeders in a lot of Steele's suits were the same person.  It's been suspect that Steele's own firm or someone on his behalf was doing it.
 
2013-04-10 01:40:21 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Ah, John Steele, a nice lawyer there.

His model for porn suits;
Monitor a torrent, then sue all people downloading/"sharing" that file.
And NEVER contact the site hosting the tracking file to take down that torrent.

It should also be noted that the initial seeders in a lot of Steele's suits were the same person.  It's been suspect that Steele's own firm or someone on his behalf was doing it.


That is interesting. If the rights holder is a seeder, then how would it be piracy?
 
2013-04-10 01:48:05 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: That is interesting. If the rights holder is a seeder, then how would it be piracy?


Keep in mind, this guy is a patent troll.  And you'd have to prove it, which means having to go through the whole court process.  Which is generally a moot point, as Steele and his group have no intention of actually going to court.

And, if you wanted to be smart/sneaky about it, you'd do the initial seeding from some place "safe" like an open connection / hotspot.
 
2013-04-10 01:48:42 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Satanic_Hamster: Ah, John Steele, a nice lawyer there.

His model for porn suits;
Monitor a torrent, then sue all people downloading/"sharing" that file.
And NEVER contact the site hosting the tracking file to take down that torrent.

It should also be noted that the initial seeders in a lot of Steele's suits were the same person.  It's been suspect that Steele's own firm or someone on his behalf was doing it.

That is interesting. If the rights holder is a seeder, then how would it be piracy?


Downloading the file from the rights holder wouldn't be, but re-sharing the file would be. Or rather, you may be lawfully obtaining a licensed copy from the copyright owner, but that doesn't give you a right to re-distribute it.
 
2013-04-10 01:49:24 PM

Satanic_Hamster: The_Six_Fingered_Man: That is interesting. If the rights holder is a seeder, then how would it be piracy?

Keep in mind, this guy is a patent copyright troll.  And you'd have to prove it, which means having to go through the whole court process.  Which is generally a moot point, as Steele and his group have no intention of actually going to court.


This has nothing to do with patents.
 
2013-04-10 01:49:33 PM

cwheelie: mongbiohazard: cwheelie: Just to make sure I'm following - because it's a ruling in favor of porn, we now like judges on Fark?

Being that nobody has even mentioned porn yet until you did, I'm going to have to go with, "No, and you seem to have missed the point entirely."

Hint: A lot of nerds care about patent and copyright trolling.

I'm not disagreeing - these guys needed to be taken biatch slapped. It's just that in so many threads we see anti judge ranting until there's a ruling that favors something we like. Then it's all judicial lovey dovey.



/rickromero.jpg
People like it when a judge or other public official does what we like to see and don't like it when they do something we don't like to see. Nothing surprising there.


and I was being snarky

You need more practice. Next time if you would like to snark about people saying something in a thread then you might want to not be the first person to actually bring it up. It totally undercuts your snark.
 
2013-04-10 01:50:52 PM

Teiritzamna: Langdon_777: The fact that the USoA change copyright laws, etc. to protect Mickey Mouse shiats me almost as much.

Or, you know, to bring us in line with European laws.


You mean by signing the Berne Convention, TRIPS, WCT, of which the US, the EU, and the UK are all signatories to? Or do you mean the clothing that should copyrightable in the US, like the French and Italians do? There are some edge cases in each (for example, boat hull designs are copyrightable in the US, but not in Europe, the EU also also "Moral Rights", which are very narrow in the US), but the laws are fairly similar in what is covered, the rights granted, and length of copyright.
 
2013-04-10 02:04:08 PM

Theaetetus: Downloading the file from the rights holder wouldn't be, but re-sharing the file would be. Or rather, you may be lawfully obtaining a licensed copy from the copyright owner, but that doesn't give you a right to re-distribute it.


And, by definition, any use of bittorrent is sharing.  Though it should be noted that they've never offered proof that anyone actually *uploaded* the files in question; just had them shared at particular times.
(for those who haven't used bittorrent, you can set your client to not upload anything but you'll still appear on the torrent lists as a seeder/sharer)

Kinda curious if anyone has ever used that defense; from what I read from the various music/movie sharing lawsuits that actually DID go to court, the copyright holders never offered any evidence that the defendant actually uploaded anything; just that they had it shared.

Theaetetus: This has nothing to do with patents.


Brain fart.
 
2013-04-10 02:14:05 PM
Key Prenda lawyer Paul Hansmeier, like his colleague John Steele, lawyered up and refused to talk at the April 2 hearing.

1) If I'm reading this correctly, the lawyers now have their own lawyers?

2) John Steele is a lawyer? And not one of the actors? Because that's a porn name if I ever saw one.
 
2013-04-10 02:16:03 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Theaetetus: Downloading the file from the rights holder wouldn't be, but re-sharing the file would be. Or rather, you may be lawfully obtaining a licensed copy from the copyright owner, but that doesn't give you a right to re-distribute it.

And, by definition, any use of bittorrent is sharing.


Not so... You can speed throttle down to a mere trickle of uploading, change your firewall or IPSec settings to block uploads on those ports or block connections to hosts that don't have full copies, etc. You can totally be a leech.

Though it should be noted that they've never offered proof that anyone actually *uploaded* the files in question; just had them shared at particular times. (for those who haven't used bittorrent, you can set your client to not upload anything but you'll still appear on the torrent lists as a seeder/sharer)

Don't know about them in particular, but in the RIAA/MPAA cases, the investigators find a target seeder, and then block all connections to everyone except that specific seeder. Then, they have a clean log showing that they obtained 100% of the file from that particular host.

Kinda curious if anyone has ever used that defense; from what I read from the various music/movie sharing lawsuits that actually DID go to court, the copyright holders never offered any evidence that the defendant actually uploaded anything; just that they had it shared.

Nope, they did - MediaSentry was the investigator in the Tenenbaum case, and had the above evidence.
It's also been relatively moot - Thomas-Rasset destroyed her hard drive, which led to an adverse inference that she had the file. Tenenbaum admitted to sharing the file on the stand.
But that said, I don't believe the RIAA/MPAA have ever sued someone who was leeching, for several reasons:
(i) unlike someone who distributes, a leech can actually make an actual damages case for $1 (or the relevant amount), which can be used to mitigate the statutory damage award;
(ii) it's technically impossible to find a leech unless you upload to them (or deep scan every packet at the ISP), which then falls under that sweet "you obtained a licensed copy from the copyright owner" argument above; and
(iii) someone who is just leeching can rush out and buy a physical copy with cash, and then make a plausible claim that they had it all along and were just engaging in format-shifting by proxy, which would arguably be legal fair use.
So, for at least those reasons, they only go after people who upload.

Theaetetus: This has nothing to do with patents.

Brain fart.


Jackas- oh. :)
 
2013-04-10 02:17:13 PM

Fat Bobcat: Teiritzamna: Langdon_777: The fact that the USoA change copyright laws, etc. to protect Mickey Mouse shiats me almost as much.

Or, you know, to bring us in line with European laws.

You mean by signing the Berne Convention, TRIPS, WCT, of which the US, the EU, and the UK are all signatories to? Or do you mean the clothing that should copyrightable in the US, like the French and Italians do? There are some edge cases in each (for example, boat hull designs are copyrightable in the US, but not in Europe, the EU also also "Moral Rights", which are very narrow in the US), but the laws are fairly similar in what is covered, the rights granted, and length of copyright.


I just meant the extension.
 
2013-04-10 02:20:00 PM

Theaetetus: Brain fart.

Jackas- oh. :)


images.vg247.com
 
2013-04-10 02:22:15 PM
www.asention.com

Here come da judge!
 
2013-04-10 02:26:16 PM
Here you go Judge, don't worry about using lube on the Prenda guys:

gardeningtoolssupplies.hostzi.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-10 02:42:14 PM
Kinda curious if anyone has ever used that defense; from what I read from the various music/movie sharing lawsuits that actually DID go to court, the copyright holders never offered any evidence that the defendant actually uploaded anything; just that they had it shared.

Thomas got a new trial because the judge decided that merely offering to make copies should not have been considered infringement. She lost at the second trial with the narrower definition of copyright infringement. I forget what proof was offered. Probably some RIAA contractor downloaded from her computer.
 
2013-04-10 02:43:30 PM

Teiritzamna: Fat Bobcat: Teiritzamna: Langdon_777: The fact that the USoA change copyright laws, etc. to protect Mickey Mouse shiats me almost as much.

Or, you know, to bring us in line with European laws.

You mean by signing the Berne Convention, TRIPS, WCT, of which the US, the EU, and the UK are all signatories to? Or do you mean the clothing that should copyrightable in the US, like the French and Italians do? There are some edge cases in each (for example, boat hull designs are copyrightable in the US, but not in Europe, the EU also also "Moral Rights", which are very narrow in the US), but the laws are fairly similar in what is covered, the rights granted, and length of copyright.

I just meant the extension.


The extension actually matched the US with what the EU had agreed on several years before. The Copyright Duration Directive extend the copyright term in the EU to 70 years after the death of the author in 1993. The US copyright act gave a term of death + 50 years until the extension in 1998, which matched the death + 70 number the EU adopted.
 
2013-04-10 02:57:18 PM

Fat Bobcat: The extension actually matched the US with what the EU had agreed on several years before. The Copyright Duration Directive extend the copyright term in the EU to 70 years after the death of the author in 1993. The US copyright act gave a term of death + 50 years until the extension in 1998, which matched the death + 70 number the EU adopted.


yes. I know. That is what i was referencing.
 
2013-04-10 03:10:33 PM
Trolls in porn?  I may have to look into that.
 
2013-04-10 04:11:37 PM
Am I mistaken or does this case seem to have even bigger implications than what's been mentioned?  From the article, it seems like one of the big issues the judge has is that the lawyers aren't taking the time to identify the actual perpetrators but instead are just matching the IP to a physical address and suing the youngest adult male.  The lawyers are saying that having to find the actual perpetrator would ruin their business model while the judge is saying, "Yeah, but you can't file a lawsuit based on a guess about who you're supposed to be suing."  My understanding is that, in the past, it's always been up to the defendant to prove that somebody else was using their internet connection.  If that switches to the lawyers' burden, that could put an end to this simply by making the process unprofitable for the trolls.
 
2013-04-10 04:11:55 PM

Teiritzamna: Fat Bobcat: The extension actually matched the US with what the EU had agreed on several years before. The Copyright Duration Directive extend the copyright term in the EU to 70 years after the death of the author in 1993. The US copyright act gave a term of death + 50 years until the extension in 1998, which matched the death + 70 number the EU adopted.

yes. I know. That is what i was referencing.


I'm an idiot,  I misread and thought you making one of those "we should be more enlightened like Europe" arguments, not knowing the EU is often the dog wagging the tail on this stuff.
 
2013-04-10 04:14:09 PM

Tom_Slick: The lawyer plead the 5th? Is that even permissible?


yeah, you can't ever be ordered by any government entity to admit to committing a crime.  However, unlike a defendant at trial, when a LAWYER pleads the fifth the judge MAY make inferences from that invocation.  They basically just waved a red flag that they are up to some illegal shiat, and the judge's comment reported in the article indicates he's going to sic the DA on them.
 
2013-04-10 04:22:37 PM

mofa: Porn. Penis. 26 minutes.

Sorry, pet peave.


You'll get over it.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-10 04:47:04 PM
Magorn

More generally, your silence can be used against you when you are not a criminal defendant.

See also Monica Goodling.
 
2013-04-10 04:48:58 PM

Fat Bobcat: I'm an idiot, I misread and thought you making one of those "we should be more enlightened like Europe" arguments, not knowing the EU is often the dog wagging the tail on this stuff.


Its alright - it does make your responses now make sense.  Your eagerness to correct, plus your ability to actually intelligently cite things to back up your points makes me have to ask: law student?
 
2013-04-10 04:52:14 PM

Ken at Popehat: cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

That guy's a dick.


Popehat, thanks for all that you do.
idea for your next post:  Could you make an info-graphic or chart laying out who the players in this saga are?  I'm having trouble keeping everyone straight as to who we think everyone is in the pecking order vs. what Prenda is claiming is the pecking order?
 
2013-04-10 05:20:41 PM

nmemkha: Sigh. Texans find more ways to fark up America and are proud of it. (Bush is another example).

Succeed already. Please.


They did succeed.  Now if they secede..
 
2013-04-10 07:19:44 PM

Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Satanic_Hamster: Ah, John Steele, a nice lawyer there.

His model for porn suits;
Monitor a torrent, then sue all people downloading/"sharing" that file.
And NEVER contact the site hosting the tracking file to take down that torrent.

It should also be noted that the initial seeders in a lot of Steele's suits were the same person.  It's been suspect that Steele's own firm or someone on his behalf was doing it.

That is interesting. If the rights holder is a seeder, then how would it be piracy?

Downloading the file from the rights holder wouldn't be, but re-sharing the file would be. Or rather, you may be lawfully obtaining a licensed copy from the copyright owner, but that doesn't give you a right to re-distribute it.


Does that still apply if they're the one who originally uploaded the torrent? Or if they're running the tracker? At what point does it become obvious that they're intentionally facilitating the sharing? At what point is that essentially granting a peer a redistribution right?
 
2013-04-10 07:32:47 PM

Theaetetus: Downloading the file from the rights holder wouldn't be, but re-sharing the file would be. Or rather, you may be lawfully obtaining a licensed copy from the copyright owner, but that doesn't give you a right to re-distribute it.


To look at it another way. If I send something to a user, it will pass through several routers on the way there. Each of them will receive the data, process it, and retransmit it. Sure ISPs are protected by safe harbor, but how about entities like a hotel? Are they illegally redistributing every piece of copyrighted material that passes through them on the way to a end-user, regardless of the right the end-user has to the media?

If not, then isn't the "re-distribution" portion of your example simply the network fulfilling the distribution of the lawfully licensed copies? Every peer is just a router with a cache after all...
 
2013-04-10 08:26:49 PM

Teiritzamna: Fat Bobcat: I'm an idiot, I misread and thought you making one of those "we should be more enlightened like Europe" arguments, not knowing the EU is often the dog wagging the tail on this stuff.

Its alright - it does make your responses now make sense.  Your eagerness to correct, plus your ability to actually intelligently cite things to back up your points makes me have to ask: law student?


Bingo, graduating in a little over a month. I've gotten so jaded with anything mentioning IP online I pretty much assume someone is just spouting off. I have had to explain that the Eastern District of Texas is in fact a federal court and not a bunch of locally elected yokels on Fark before, so I take things I read on here a bit harshly sometimes.
 
2013-04-10 08:26:58 PM

Ken at Popehat: cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

That guy's a dick.


Shoulda known you'd have a Fark login.  Thanks for all the entertainment.  Your chronicle of the Oatmeal/Carreon affair was legendary, and Carreon's hateful she-demon of a wife is *still* providing lulz in your name on her insane, screeching, hairpulling derpfest of one website.

/welcome to Totalfark.
 
2013-04-10 08:28:22 PM

ProfessorOhki: Does that still apply if they're the one who originally uploaded the torrent? Or if they're running the tracker? At what point does it become obvious that they're intentionally facilitating the sharing? At what point is that essentially granting a peer a redistribution right?


Here's the thing, though.  You'd have to prove it, and by that point means you've had to spend time in court.  These guys don't even want to enter court, their entire business model is just threatening to sue once they get peoples contact info.
 
2013-04-10 08:32:01 PM

ThunderPelvis: Ken at Popehat: cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

That guy's a dick.

Shoulda known you'd have a Fark login.  Thanks for all the entertainment.  Your chronicle of the Oatmeal/Carreon affair was legendary, and Carreon's hateful she-demon of a wife is *still* providing lulz in your name on her insane, screeching, hairpulling derpfest of one website.

/welcome to Totalfark.


Dude!  Thanks so much for the TotalFark.  Much appreciated.

Yes, Tara Carreon is photoshopping me into Klan pictures now.  It's like dating all over again.
 
2013-04-10 08:49:42 PM

Ken at Popehat: ThunderPelvis: Ken at Popehat: cefm: Way to jump on the story late, LA Times.  Popehat has been covering this for weeks, in much more detail and with better insight, analysis and entertainment value.

http://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

That guy's a dick.

Shoulda known you'd have a Fark login.  Thanks for all the entertainment.  Your chronicle of the Oatmeal/Carreon affair was legendary, and Carreon's hateful she-demon of a wife is *still* providing lulz in your name on her insane, screeching, hairpulling derpfest of one website.

/welcome to Totalfark.

Dude!  Thanks so much for the TotalFark.  Much appreciated.

Yes, Tara Carreon is photoshopping me into Klan pictures now.  It's like dating all over again.


You're very welcome!

I'd pay a lot of money to be a fly on the wall in the Carreon household for a night.  The self-righteous anger expressed in the form of nauseatingly bad poetry could probably power a small city or two...
 
2013-04-10 09:04:41 PM
So, what's the minimum amount we'll all accept to prevent them from suffering the shame and embarrassment of having been caught trolling and extorting money out of people?
 
2013-04-10 09:09:24 PM

Fat Bobcat: Teiritzamna: Fat Bobcat: I'm an idiot, I misread and thought you making one of those "we should be more enlightened like Europe" arguments, not knowing the EU is often the dog wagging the tail on this stuff.

Its alright - it does make your responses now make sense.  Your eagerness to correct, plus your ability to actually intelligently cite things to back up your points makes me have to ask: law student?

Bingo, graduating in a little over a month. I've gotten so jaded with anything mentioning IP online I pretty much assume someone is just spouting off. I have had to explain that the Eastern District of Texas is in fact a federal court and not a bunch of locally elected yokels on Fark before, so I take things I read on here a bit harshly sometimes.


Well good luck to you sir on exams and the bar!

Just looked at your status, and have to ask which new England school as there are a few of us masshole ip attorneys in this thread.
 
2013-04-10 09:45:10 PM

scalpod: So, what's the minimum amount we'll all accept to prevent them from suffering the shame and embarrassment of having been caught trolling and extorting money out of people?


All current assets, private and business, plus an amount equal to 150% of the "settlements" they've acquired so far, with overage divided among all attorneys involved with Prenda.  Disbarment too.  They all deserve to be stuck scrubbing toilets at a crappy McDonald's part time with garnishments taking whatever pennies they manage to earn.

/I *may* have a bit of a bias against lawyers
 
2013-04-10 10:33:37 PM
Very interesting. BM.
 
Esn
2013-04-11 02:07:49 AM

Endive Wombat: I am not sure what the solution here is...I mean, piracy is going to exist no matter what.  I am not saying "let's sit on our hands and do nothing..."


Why not?

Megaupload Shutdown Hurt Box Office Revenues (overall; box-office for blockbusters went up, but went down for smaller films)

Online Music Piracy Doesn't Hurt Sales, European Commission Finds

Movie box-office keeps setting records, despite record piracy.

Sound Recording Just 6% of Average Musician's Income

Artists Make More Money in File-Sharing Age Than Before It (overall economic size of music industry stayed the same from 1999-2009 adjusted for inflation, but the "live" segment grew and the "recorded" segment shrank)

Meanwhile, copyright is growing more and more into a tool of censorship and surveillance; the only way to control control copyright on the internet is to spy on what everyone is doing, thus doing away with the old principle of postal secrecy.

Where's the economic justification?
 
HBK
2013-04-11 03:41:33 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with their bar licenses.
 
2013-04-11 07:29:17 AM

xxmedium: So does a lawyer pleading the fifth set up some sort of legal singularity? Where they have to bring in representation who, in turn, have to plead the fifth and bring their own representation? Every barrister on the planet reads the writing on the wall and knows that the last to be picked for the dodgeball team will be stuck holding the bag which accelerates the assimilation of lawyers at an exponential rate. By the third week, the federal courthouse is literally bursting at the seams with writhing, undulating  mass of Brooks Brother's suits, briefcases and paperwork from all previous lawyers/clients.

Then the earth mercifully collapses in on itself like a Jupiter in the movie 2010.


Hay, some of them are Jos A Banks suits....
 
2013-04-12 02:44:17 PM
www.cavemancircus.com
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report