Judge Backpedals On Allowing Mass Infringement Lawsuits After Press Calls Attention To Her RIAA Lobbying Past
from the nicely-done dept
There was a lot of attention paid to Judge Beryl Howell's decision to allow some mass copyright infringement lawsuits to move forward with all the defendants lumped together (and her bizarre claim that this was to benefit the defendants). Soon after that, it came out that Howell had very recently been an RIAA lobbyist, which certainly called her objectivity on such cases into question. Even though neither of the cases she was working on involved the RIAA, the issues were clearly quite similar, and such a ruling would obviously benefit the RIAA should it decide to start suing people again. However, as many people submitted, Judge Howell appears to be backpedaling on those initial rulings and it may lead to the dismissal of most of the cases against the defendants listed. It's definitely speculation at this point, but people are wondering if the attention brought over her initial rulings may have resulted in these latest rulings. One key point is whether or not Howell recognized how these lawsuits really worked, and how they appeared to be more of a way to use the legal system to get people to pay up as part of a business model, rather than a real legal remedy. Perhaps drawing more attention to that resulted in her correcting her earlier ruling.
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: beryl howell, copyright, infringement, mass lawsuits
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Law and Judge Howell
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b)(3) - Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
I don't see how she hasn't stepped down from the case. You can back down all you want but look at (a) and tell me she doesn't have a questionable (biased) background. Look at b(3) and look at her history of being a part of the NET Act, the Patriot Act, or even the DMCA. Her background is biased and as far from impartial as can be...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law and Judge Howell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O tempora, o mores!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*giggle*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How exactly do the new rulings "correct" her prior rulings? Different issues, different rulings. They have nothing to do with each other, as far as I can surmise.
I didn't understand the point of the torrentfreak article when I read it last week. I certainly don't understand whatever the point is you're making now. Care to explain?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This judge has worked closely with copyright law, with the NET Act, the DMCA, and even the Patriot Act. Her judgement is quite clouded against defendants and she has a very strong bent towards the prosecution's side. Judges are supposed to be impartial. The best thing she could have done would have been to recuse herself from this case.
What makes this especially mind boggling is how in her ruling, she allowed the prosecution to "quest" for IP addresses, because "it would be too expensive for them otherwise". That's not justice to all of the issues of joinder, jurisdiction, or due process that is discussed on Techdirt, that's collusion to the nth degree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frankly, why is she allowed to even continue to be a judge? Her motivations have clearly been exposed.
What are the governing bodies that oversee this type of corruption? Let's contact them and demand she be repremanded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Objection!
And let the Gods help her if she decides to try to pursue them without considering these other cases...
I think Anonymous would have a field day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Real question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder how often this happens
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I wonder how often this happens
a: An incalculable amount.
I personally feel this is the root cause of most if not all our problems.
It isn't corruption like taking bribes etc...(although I wouldn't be surprised to find out that also takes place) but the corruption of the values of the individual judges. They are more concerned with establishing themselves and setting precedents than with justice.
I always mark no on the ballot for retaining judges, it is a futile gesture but I live with the disillusionment that they will look at the paper and see someone was unhappy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I wonder how often this happens
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: O tempora, o mores!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe the first time,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Connection
"We only have the artists best interests at heart and this is all for them"
Heh, yeah, sure thing. And I have this lovely bridge to sell you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Crickets....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Source: Judge John Kane
Righthaven LLC v. Brian D. HillCourt case number: 1:11-cv-00211-JLK
Even her peers understand that those kind of modus operandis are not in the interests of justice, society or even proper.
So what exactly is there to explain?
That thing stinks to highhavens and anybody with two eyes can see it, no amount of BS can cloud that simple fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Explain that her lack of experience and bias made her make a judgment that goes against all of her other peers?
Explain that she now is trying to fix her standing to appear a bit more reasonable? when the proper instance would be to her to excuse herself completely?
Care to explain why she is still in the case since she is obviously partial to the issues and thus not competent to judge anything from that case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
streisand effect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Connection
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not that she has a lack of experience, it's her background that makes her incredibly biased.
Other than that, you're spot on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because not everyone is as dishonest and biased as the people on Techdirt.
We know that's how you people live your life; that doesn't mean everyone else behaves the same way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: O tempora, o mores!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is Warner Bros.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ever heard of Hollywood accounting? Yea, real integrity there.
Are you a sith lord?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Her earlier rulings were in three cases where Time Warner had moved to quash subpoenas they'd received to turn over subscriber information. Amici had raised the issue of misjoinder, so she addressed the arguments, finding that joinder at these preliminary stages was proper. She noted that as plead, the plaintiffs had met the requirements for joinder. She cited relevant case law to back up her decision. She made similar rulings with respect to the jurisdictional and First Amendment issues. Her analysis was thorough, and thoroughly backed up by caselaw.
The issues there were threshold ones, i.e., whether or not subscriber information would be turned over to USCG.
These new rulings have nothing to do with those issues. The issues here are about what happens now that USCG already has this information.
That's why I'm asking what I'm asking. In what way do these new rulings show that she is changing gears?
If anything, I think the new rulings show more of the same behavior on her part. The 120-day window in the Call of the Wild case had already been extended once. That extension was up in November, and only now is the court inquiring about it. USCG is offering to dismiss the defendants, and she's simply saying that either they should do it, or she will. Big deal. The issues in the Maverick case are similar. USCG is ready to dismiss, and she says she'll do it if they don't. Big deal.
How does any of that show "backpedaling" or "correcting"?
It doesn't. It's total FUD.
I'm simply asking Mike to explain his point, if he's able. I'm sure he has an explanation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe you suffer from tunnel vision because you missed this:
Quote:
Appears is not a conclusive statement is it?
Further:
Quote:
So Mike didn't state "backpedaling" or "correcting" was occurring, but wondered if it was occurring, and now with your response we can move on, she is not backpedaling and according to you she is doing more of the same, which we might now call for her to be reprimanded for clear abuse of her position to further the interests of her ex-employer.
Clear that women is not fit to be cashier let alone a judge.
Is that good enough for ya?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The Connection
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not backpedaling, in my view, and not for the reason suggested
All she has done here is decide that, once the plaintiff gets identifying information, the plaintiff must eventually dismiss those defendants against whom plaintiff does not intend to proceed in the DDC. That is the same approach as adopted by Judge Collyer here in DDC, an approach Judge Howell followed in the opinion she issued rejecting the approach for which we argued as amici curiae. We argued, in fact, that if she allowed personal jurisdiction she should, at least, order dismissal immediately upon getting the actual ID, instead of letting the plaintiff keep defendants in the case for months at a time in the hope of shaking money out of more Does by the implicit threat of making them defend in DC. Judge Howell has, regrettably, followed Judge Collyer in giving the plaintiffs more time to extort settlement payments through the implicit threat of having to defend in a geographically inconvient forum.
I note here that Mike does not embrace the contention that the blogs made a difference, but only notes that some people are claiming that. Myself, I think it highly unlikely that Judge Howell did anything differently based on the fact that some bloggers complained about her previous time in legal practice helping the RIAA (or, indeed, the fact that she was sympathetic with the concerns of copyright holders when she worked for Senator Leahy). Suggestions from some bloggers that their own condemnation played a role in this order strike me as a reflection of inflated self-importance.
Those connections are not anything that would have required her to recuse herself, and not anything that would cause any federal judge to be embarrassed. Judges come to the bench with worldviews formed by their time as lawyers before they became judges. Neither criminal defense lawyers nor prosecutors who become judges have to recuse themselves from criminal prosecutions generally just because their attitudes may well be affected by their legal experiences as practitioners. They just have to recuse from specific cases in which they or their law offices were involved.
The same is true for judges who, as lawyers, were in private practice and who presented the interests of companies or trade groups. Some judges do choose, for a discrete period of time, to stay off cases in which their old law firms or former clients are involved. But the RIAA is not a party to these cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keep in mind what she 'taught...'
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/howell
Judge Howell has taught Legal Ethics as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law.
I will not venture her 'politics' but I know the White House may be interested...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PS:
RIAA Financing
Judge Beryl Howell received 415,000 USD from the RIAA for lobbying work, from 2005 to 2008, during her tenure at Stroz Friedberg LLC. This financing represents a potential conflict of interest for cases which involve copyright law.[2][3]
Nearly half a million means nothing to ethics or influencing her thinking. Ask any rich lawyer or judge...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One last PS:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One last PS:
I wonder if there may have been involvement of any consulting lawyers...
Just thoughts, but, having a hand in writing a law, and giving formal knowledge of potential bribery... naw,.,.. no reason to suspect a cause for recusal,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bias
The only way a dynamically assigned IP address could be a reliable identifier of a particular user is if the ISP has an accurate record of who was logged in when and what IP address was assigned to each user at what time, and the person seeking that user's ID knows the exact time that the IP address they're seeking the user of was in use. Unless all these conditions are met, it could be anybody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not backpedaling, in my view, and not for the reason suggested
By chance do you know what may occur with the names that are dismissed? If anything, it seems that with the names, the named Does will likely be facing these shoppers in their states of residence with the same nastygram settlement letters. If I recall, unless they are dismissed with prejudice, there is a chance these people can be sued again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I wonder how often this happens
You are either very ignorant of the judicial system in those countries, or of the US judicial system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
By chance do you know what may occur with the names that are dismissed?
For those defendants who have realistic defenses to plaintiff's claim, this means that, at least, they can more easily defend themselves. What we see from time to time is that they can identify a local lawyer with whom they have some neighborhood or family connection, who sympathizes with their plight or is outraged by what the plaintiff is doing, and is willing to help them with a free defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Latest re DGW's Maverick Entertinament case
http://ia700304.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.141583/gov.uscourts.dcd.14 1583.docket.html
*** see items 96, 97
Looking at the latest filings, the 4,350 DOEs (first it was 1,000, then 4,350), is now 2,125. About 2,225 of them got dismissed from the suit due to "local jurisdiction" reasons that they're not in the DC-area.
The kicker is, most/lot, of the dismissed DOEs have their names, addresses included in the doc available for all to see. I wonder whether if they all will received settlement letters.
My own IP is part of the remaining DOEs who are all still anonymous. I wonder if Comcast had release my details to DGW post 4/1 or not.
Anyone else here involved in this case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]