Mass Infringement Pre-Settlement Lawyers Team Up To All Fail Together

from the good-luck dept

Tue, Jan 11th 2011 3:44am — Mike Masnick

We've noted how in the past year, a bunch of "pay up or we'll sue" law firm operations have popped up, signing up confused and short-sighted copyright holders, who believe that shaking down fans is a business model that can work. Of course, to date, this legal strategy has been failing pretty spectacularly in court. It is true that some folks just pay up but as these lawsuits continue to have trouble in court, people will begin to realize that paying money to someone who just demands it probably isn't a smart move. Of course, one of the issues is that none of the law firms actually have the manpower to follow through and sue people, so it should come as little surprise that some of the law firms who have recently been losing in court, including Kenneth Ford, the lawyer for Axel Braun, as well as Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (which is the law firm behind US Copyright Group) are teaming up to try to work together. I guess they figure it's better to fail together, rather than to watch each fail alone.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, pre-settlement
Companies: us copyright group

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

btrussell (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:11am

Sorry, but that song/movie is on my "pending list."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teddy_Bear (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:30am

Way I see it.

DGW gets a few firms in or near major metro centers to file these mass shakedowns in multiple courts to avoid the jurisdictional issue. This only serves to keep the "settlement mill" running. They still don't have the ability, the manpower or even the intention to take any signifigant number of people to trial. What needs to be done is to force a court to make a decision on misjoinder and make these shysters file individual suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:35am

I had a professor in high school who had a saying. "When the going gets tough, the fluff'll get slutty". Seems to apply here.
Sure would be nice to collect some of the money these firms waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:50am

Any court "losses" so far have only been directions by the court to refile in other ways. They haven't lost anything, just made it even more expensive for the pirates when they finally get caught.

By banding together (and probably adding in lawyers all over the country) they can refile in many jurisdictions, once again starting the process.

The only "mill" here is the piracy that keeps grinding out the free copies, day in, day out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:04am
  
  Re:
  Blah blah blah, unfounded assertion. Rawr rawr rawr refusal to accept reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, you comment about TD's post is correct. "Blah blah blah, unfounded assertion. Rawr rawr rawr refusal to accept reality." about sums it up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They haven't lost anything, just made it even more expensive for the pirates when they finally get caught.
      
      Please back that up. How is a "pirate" going to be made to pay a more expensive fight?
      
      By banding together (and probably adding in lawyers all over the country) they can refile in many jurisdictions, once again starting the process.
      
      Obviously, the RIAA's lesson in 2008 from this is no indicator of the future. They have three major cases pending.
      
      A pyrric victory
      
      A refusal to pay
      
      Limewire's search seeking vs the RIAA's statutory damages
      
      How about some research before looking bad in front of others next time? ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clearly you have no understanding of precedents in law, and sample settlements. You are also forgetting the dissuasion factor that more and more settled lawsuits will cause.
        
        Jammie Thomas is a great example. She is likely to spend the rest of her life living poor because she got horrible legal advice. Instead of settling for a few thousand and moving on (which the RIAA offered her multiple times) they fought, and now she is pretty much under a settlement order for the rest of her life.
        
        Limewire is even worse, they are likely to set the whole thing back for filesharers, when the RIAA comes up with enough information to convince the courts of the losses as a result of file sharing, which could very likely establish a working number.
        
        All three of those cases have been won by the RIAA, all were found liable. The question is how much, not if.
        
        Perhaps you would like to do some research before looking stupid in front of others next time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because refuting a post with a logically presented argument with referenced sources is a method of looking stupid. That's much worse than what iptards do by having post after post of simply saying, "you clearly don't understand", and spouting pure speculation and unsupported opinion, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        iptards
        
        You know, I've been looking for a rejoinder to "freetards," and I think I've found it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know, I've been looking for a rejoinder to "freetards," and I think I've found it.
        
        It is funny, but is it worth stooping to their level?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I like the word: irrelevant
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is funny, but is it worth stooping to their level?
        
        I'll stoop to any level to get a laugh.
        
        ...On the other hand, I'm not all that funny, so I guess I should keep it civil instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Clearly you have no understanding of precedents in law, and sample settlements. You are also forgetting the dissuasion factor that more and more settled lawsuits will cause."
        We have a precedent.
        300 000 songs willfully infringed for commercial gain = 45Mil.
        http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/
        
        That is $150 each when used commercially. What should it be for Jammies' non-commercial use?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jamie Thomas may end up poor but she will not be alone see EMI is right behind her LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Jammie Thomas is a great example."
        
        She was already the poster child for RIAA abuse. She has four children, little, if any, income, and works mainly with natural resource coordination (read: ~$20,000 - $30,000) income.
        
        She could have paid the $25,000 that was offered but that's more than her budget could truly afford. She chose a fight, which I truly can't blame her for. The one ding on the entire thing is damages.
        
        Limewire
        ...
        
        The RIAA has been having that particular stumbling block since the DMCA came out. They lobbied for the laws and yet have NO proof of the damages caused by filesharing. Yes, they can shut down the P2P technology but then something else comes up that they can't fight. They try to take that down and like moles, something else springs up. So keep on believing they can convince a court of economic damages. I just think that (FINALLY) we can get a few good details on filesharing in this modern era, instead of lopsided anecdotal evidence of it "killing an industry".
        
        Perhaps you would like to do some research before looking stupid in front of others next time.
        
        After 10 years of studying this stuff, studying (and using Napster and finding newer bands), listening to Dmusic.com, jamendo, OCRemix, last.fm, among the myriad of other things, I think my education is well on its way.
        
        But I guess when your last piece of music was analog tape, you can't expect much. Oh well, better luck next time with the insults. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dang, forgot to close a bracket:
        
        Limewire
        ...
        
        The RIAA has been having that particular stumbling block since the DMCA came out. They lobbied for the laws and yet have NO proof of the damages caused by filesharing. Yes, they can shut down the P2P technology but then something else comes up that they can't fight. They try to take that down and like moles, something else springs up. So keep on believing they can convince a court of economic damages. I just think that (FINALLY) we can get a few good details on filesharing in this modern era, instead of lopsided anecdotal evidence of it "killing an industry".
        
        Perhaps you would like to do some research before looking stupid in front of others next time.
        
        After 10 years of studying this stuff, studying (and using Napster and finding newer bands), listening to Dmusic.com, jamendo, OCRemix, last.fm, among the myriad of other things, I think my education is well on its way.
        
        But I guess when your last piece of music was analog tape, you can't expect much. Oh well, better luck next time with the insults. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Limewire is even worse, they are likely to set the whole thing back for filesharers, when the RIAA comes up with enough information to convince the courts of the losses as a result of file sharing
        
        One thing you didn't mention: the RIAA is not the only one coming up with loss figures. As directed by the judge, Limewire is also coming out with its own estimates.
        
        Between the two, I think we'll see some real interesting figures. If the judge is rational (I'm betting he is), the damages will almost certainly be closer to Limewire's estimates.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        These guys should start rubbing their prayer beads. Once the judges catch up and figure out the misjoinder issue, these will go away fast. Being able to go after thousands for a single $350 filing fee is potentially profitable -- but that margin goes away quickly when you have to file against every defendant individually as per the joinder rules. Not to mention that each case costs more than just that filing fee -- misjoinder will be the big nail in this coffin, but these groups are hoping that judges won't figure it out or something.
        
        ...thankfully we have the EFF around to, you know, remind people of these things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:28am

3 of the 4 linked items get websensed because of the word porn in the title, may i offer a vote for websense friendly titles.

That and not reusing a link in the span of a paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  I'd like to vote that we make every URL websense unfriendly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
big al, 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:30am

M_O_N_E Y
hummmm i'd love to see how the split for this joining is going to be.... now you have 2 sets of lawyers to support.
oh that's right it's just for the 'JUST CAUSE" as we all know..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:47am

Maybe USCG can show these porn guys how to plead a case that won't have the bulk of the defendants severed before they get their addresses to use for the settlement offers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  That certainly would be to the plantiff's benifit, personally I won't shed any tears for missed pre-trial gains from people who were severed by a judge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:36pm
  
  Re:
  The problem isn't the argument -- it's the fact that the defendants are not joindered correctly at all. If we're following the conventions to the letter, none of these cases would be against more than one defendant, or a few at the most -- and those that stick together would have severance be their first tactic, as the joinder would be flimsy at best.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem isn't the argument -- it's the fact that the defendants are not joindered correctly at all. If we're following the conventions to the letter, none of these cases would be against more than one defendant, or a few at the most -- and those that stick together would have severance be their first tactic, as the joinder would be flimsy at best.
    
    How do figure they're misjoined? I thought USCG has done a good job pleading sufficient facts to justify joinder under Rule 20. The judges have agreed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lordmorgul, 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:32am

Extortion
Extortion by a licensed lawyer is still Extortion. No way to sugar coat the truth there. These guys are operating an extortion racket... and lots of stupid Americans who do not know their rights are simply paying them money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teddy_Bear (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:53am

Blah blah blah..still doesn't address the fact that the "game" here is to strong arm cash out of people based on an IP address alone. With no intent to actually sue anybody. What percentage of IP owners (people paying the ISP) are actually the people doing any ALLEGED downloading? These cases if the ever do go to trial are going to sink faster than the Titanic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teddy_Bear, 13 Jan 2011 @ 5:02am

I don't think the judges have ever properly addressed the joinder issue. They appear to be avoiding it at present. Eventually a real decision on the issue will have to be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]