Judge Slams Copyright Troll Lawyer John Steele's Latest 'Fishing Expedition'
from the another-one-down dept
The mass infringement lawsuit shakedown plan is looking shakier and shakier these days as more and more courts keep hitting back on these cases. More and more judges (with one notable exception) are recognizing that these lawyers are just using the court system to pressure people into paying up... and they don't seem to like it very much. The latest involves Chicago divorce lawyer-turned-porn P2P shakedown lawyer, John Steele. Steele has already had some trouble with judges buying his arguments. Steele is also the guy trying to set these lawsuits up as reverse class actions -- a strategy that failed miserably the first time around.However, despite that loss, Steele has tried again for another reverse class action. Earlier, the judge denied Steele's motion for expedited discovery. Expedited discovery is a pretty standard thing that almost every court grants as a matter of course, but we've now seen a few courts in these mass infringement lawsuits refuse, after realizing the only purpose behind expedited discovery is to get the names/addresses of people in order to hit them up with settlement offers. In this case, the judge specifically ordered the court clerk not to issue subpoenas in the case, to stop Steele from getting the info he needed to pressure people into settling. Steele still pushed forward, trying to get the court to approve things so he could send out the subpoenas and get the names.
But the judge is having none of it.
In an incredibly short, but clearly well-thought out response (pdf) to Steele, Judge Harold Baker, makes it clear that he wants no part of this. First, he points out that IP addresses do not match up well with individuals, and even points to the recent story of a home being raided for child porn due to an open WiFi router, to highlight that an IP address does not show who's actually doing the downloading:
Moreover, VPR ignores the fact that IP subscribers are not necessarily copyright infringers. Carolyn Thompson writes in an MSNBC article of a raid by federal agents on a home that was linked to downloaded child pornography. The identity and location of the subscriber were provided by the ISP. The desktop computer, iPhones, and iPads of the homeowner and his wife were seized in the raid. Federal agents returned the equipment after determining that no one at the home had downloaded the illegal material. Agents eventually traced the downloads to a neighbor who had used multiple IP subscribers� Wi-Fi connections (including a secure connection from the State University of New York). See Carolyn Thompson, Bizarre Pornography Raid Underscores Wi-Fi Privacy Risks (April 25, 2011), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42740201/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/But, much more importantly, Judge Baker notes the serious fear of chilling effects from these lawsuits, pressuring people to settle even if they are innocent, and even calls out one of Steele's other cases, where Steele has dropped a bunch of defendants who settled. While that may have been good for Steele at the time, Judge Baker uses it to point out that this appears to be Steele's business model, rather than a real legal situation, and he sees no reason to help Steele out in this fishing expedition to scare people into settling:
The list of IP addresses attached to VPR�s complaint suggests, in at least some instances, a similar disconnect between IP subscriber and copyright infringer. The ISPs include a number of universities, such as Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, and the University of Minnesota, as well as corporations and utility companies. Where an IP address might actually identify an individual subscriber and address the correlation is still far from perfect, as illustrated in the MSNBC article. The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscriber�s household, a visitor with her laptop, a neighbor, or someone parked on the street at any given moment.
In Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 - 1000, counsel sought leave to dismiss more than 100 Doe defendants, stating that some of the Does had �reached a mutually satisfactory resolution of their differences� with the plaintiff.... Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, noted that whether you�re guilty or not, �you look like a suspect.� Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether VPR has competent evidence to prove its case. In its order denying the motion for expedited discovery, the court noted that until at least one person is served, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over anyone. The court has no jurisdiction over any of the Does at this time; the imprimatur of this court will not be used to advance a �fishing expedition by means of a perversion of the purpose and intent� of class actions.Denied.
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: fishing expedition, john steele, reverse class action
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: welp
On the other hand, copy privileges ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: welp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Applauso!
A judge, judging. Happy day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, if Steele were a big corporation ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
I'm not a lawyer, which clearly manifests itself, but it gives me some freedom in choosing the words. Mr. Sperlein is clearly pissed, and that gives me some comfort regardless of the future case outcome.
http://www.scribd.com/collections/2997952/Case3-10-cv-03647-Dockets
If you don't have time to read everything, Docket #25 is where I call troll by its real ugly name.
Today I'm sending another motion, as harsh as #25, and I will upload it as soon as it is filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
I failed to find any part of this definition that was not applicable to legal extortionists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
"Counsel, however, would be well
advised to identify all defendants by the June 2 case management conference."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
"Just give me 243 names, you can omit the anonymous filer's name, so I will not be able to go after him later".
I'll try to keep my blog fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com updated, I just started it to keep all the documents together and to give this case some publicity. Trolls are afraid of lightning, copyright trolls are afraid of publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-244
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it possible that was from one of the illegal subpoenas that should not have been sent out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a dick bag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in "my" case, which is about sodomy pornography, naturally everyone would benefit from the screenings of those masterpieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can hear the naysayers now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can hear the naysayers now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.xbiz.com/news/legal/133557
How is that software working for you Steele?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but, but, but.... piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think butt piracy is part of Mr Steele's IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Reputation is everything" and you sir are an ass....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What will you do when one of the "does" challenges you in court? There are many IP Attorneys willing to watch you squirm in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm going to give a modicum of credit here and assume that this probably isn't Steele, as much as I want to jump on the bandwagon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh wait, you're not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steele
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reality check
This is a shockingly pro-pirate (and pro-child porn) opinion. The judge just asked Steele to name the account holder associated with an IP address--before he could link the address to a name (impossible without a subpoena). If a child porn trader or a p2p pirate can hide behind an IP address, they are perfectly anonymous and cannot be held accountable for their illegal actions.
Categorically denying the request to link IP addresses should not be issued for the sake of the few people stupid enough to still have open wireless. True, there is the danger that people will be bullied into settling, but the same thing could be said about every lawsuit. If you sued me for punching your baby I would be "embarrassed" and would be worried about the "daunting and expensive" legal system. Case dismissed?
If you do not like the state of U.S. copyright law (too much protection, too much litigation, etc.), fine. But that is a different discussion.
p.s. J Doe is absurd (the forum users at Ars Technica are not stupid). Using the court system to assert rights that are codified in black-letter law is not "terrorism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reality check
As for the point about being embarrassed, find me a list of baby punching lawsuits and I might be willing to take that argument seriously
This is a different discussion from the state of US copyright law. This is a discussion about a lawyer who is attempting to pervert the purpose of class actions. He is abusing the system to extract cash. The rest of the arguments are too weak to respond to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reality check
Punching a baby would have much more evidence than a "secret proprietary system".
Punching a baby would not seek to name thousands or hundreds of people, all of whom will never be in a court room because instead they get a letter offering to "settle" the issue for a few thousand. This letter also would not have the threat of $150,000 in damages, and telling the world your alleged private habits to gain your compliance.
Punching a baby would be more questionable when if the baby was put on the street with a sign that said punch me. (As some of them like to seed the files they then sue for.)
Punching a baby would not involve negotiations where they allow you to "settle" for less than the $3,000 demand, only to use your signed letter to say it wasn't enough and pay the rest as you now admitted guilt. (Thanks Randazza)
But I applaud your attempt to establish the mental link with filesharing and kiddy porn producers. And it is terrorism, they are preying on peoples fears. How else do you explain the Grandmother in MN currently facing trial for having torrented a Hollywood film, despite the fact she does not own a computer. And the lawyers think they need to make an example out of her, and are still pursing the case in an attempt to get her to just pay the "settlement" so others who are innocent of the "crime" might just pay up to avoid the hassle.
How many innocent people need to be targeted in these cases, before anyone wants to admit their tracking system is flawed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reality check
I also want to add that I recently found a bunch of extremely stupid people, they call themselves "Electronic Frontier Foundation": they advocate using open wireless. What a bunch of idiots!
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/open-wireless-movement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reality check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: reality check
Look what the most wise and reputable intellectual property lawyers say about this disgraced organization:
----------------------------------------------
Evan Stone of Texas, porn pirate fighter:
"...the Court appointed a trio of attorneys renowned for defending internet piracy and renowned for their general disregard for intellectual property law."
(3:10-cv-01900-N)
----------------------------------------------
Gill Sperlein of California, a sodomy porn pirate chaser:
"He[i.e. me] strings together a series of hearsay discussions from pro-piracy websites...."
(3:10-cv-03647-WHA)
----------------------------------------------
John L Steele of Illinois, porn pirate chaser:
"mumbo jumbo, chicken gumbo"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: reality check
Had the man, who had a gun pointed at him and his family, had a secured wifi point he would still be in jail.
Even not finding a single bit of kiddy porn on his computers, the argument would have been made that he HAD to have done it because his WiFi was "secure".
The average person believes some really questionable things -
The check is in the mail.
The government is your friend.
No baby, I'm clean and condoms feel weird.
Don't worry I won't *censored for AC's* in your mouth.
Technology is always right.
Trying to prove that someone broke into your "protected" system is difficult, and even if you can explain it so the slightly less than techie "get it", they often assume its you just using the tech to confuse them so you must be guilty.
Showing the court the router was open to anyone within x distance (where x is typical range not accounting for cantennas or other tricks) could have accessed it, you have reasonable doubt. The lack of any kiddy porn on the premises serves to strengthen that claim. They are less likely to assume you have a secret kiddy porn machine you keep hidden elsewhere and bring out sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Northern California, Does 1-188
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Northern California, Does 1-188; IO Group v. Does 1-244
My case (IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-244) is also in Northern CA, and I have been fighting against Mr. Sperlein (fighting on my own, without an attorney: no attorney agreed to help me without the need for me to effectively identify myself � either by IP or, via a protective order, by city and initials). I looked at other IO Group cases (as well as cases in other states), and it does not look like quashing subpoenas works. The arguments that have worked so far are:
1) improper joinder (it was the main reason to sever and dismiss all the Does except for one in each of two other IO Group cases � with 19 and 435 Does) and
2) lack of jurisdiction (Judges in West Virginia were especially vocal about it � look, e.g. at https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/12/16 and read the Judge�s �Order in Third World Media v. Does 1-1,243� at https://www.eff.org/cases/west-virginia-copyright-troll-lawsuits ; also worth reading is the article about a Digiprotect case: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110417/22352913929/us-court-dings-digiprotect-mass-lawsuit-filing s-worries-about-pressure-those-sued-to-settle.shtml ).
These are the two arguments that I have been trying to make in my filings. If you�d like to learn more about my experience, we can discuss it in comments to the page that I created for my case: https://fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com/io-group-inc-v-does-1-244/ Other Does from IO group cases (as well as anyone who is interested) are also welcome to post their comments and questions there. I think it�s very important that Does start talking to each other.
The most important readings for my case are my Dockets 16 and 25 and plaintiff�s replies to those � Dockets 18 and 26. They can be found at http://www.scribd.com/collections/2997952/Case3-10-cv-03647-Dockets (don�t miss the 2nd page in this list).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Northern California, Does 1-188; IO Group v. Does 1-244
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Northern California, Does 1-188; IO Group v. Does 1-244
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Northern California, Does 1-188; IO Group v. Does 1-244
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Northern California, Does 1-188
Me too. Just today. Would like to know how you are planning to proceed.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Steele disagrees
http://www.xbiz.com/news/133638
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But Steele disagrees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But Steele disagrees
Hard Drive Productions, one of Steele's clients, was using a host for their branch "Amateur Allure" that hosted the content of other pornographers without their consent. Suddenly, when this was circulated on this site (I think this site) they changed hosts. It's interesting that in changing hosts they acknowledge the problem, yet they continue to purse people who in all likeliness use these sites and are led to believe what is on the sites is free content.
How are all, or even most of these people intentionally damaging Hard Drive Productions. If the pornographers would stop cannibalizing each other (not to imply HDP is complicit in this) consumers would have a clear picture of what brands belong to what networks, and that by taking a brand from a network that it isn't affiliated with they could be taking content that a brand hasn't released as free.
But as things are all the tube sites and sites that link to one another, and to downloads not on their networks, including torrent files, can't be distinguished by a casual consumer. The average person clicking around on the internet who decides to follow pornography links will quickly be brought to the vastness of the pornography networks and be presented with a variety of options. If they click on a download that happens to be a torrent (which takes a small program and a few clicks to use) suddenly they stand to be labeled a thief and sued.
This argument doesn't stand for Movies or Video Games because everyone knows that no company makes a full length film or a full featured video game (with very very few exceptions) and offers it for free in hopes for future business. Pornographers on the other hand do this. And if they don't why are there so many sites full of it. For example ipadporn.com 173.208.160.186 based in the US hosts a vast collection of videos free of charge. The casual viewer isn't likely to pay for a product that is freely available from sites based in the US.
One must conclude that if they are based in the US, have been around for some time, and are hosting thousands of videos that most likely came from various pornographers who don't seem to care, why would these pornographers target them for downloading (from bittorrent or elsewhere) content that is offered free at countless sites.
It makes sense that if pornographers want to protect their content they would go after those hosting it first, especially those in the US, and UK (Places where US law can reach them).
The only reason I can think of for them not doing this rational thing is that they want this whole thing to continue so they can cash in on it. Once consumers see changes in the pornography landscape they will quickly understand the intentions of pornographers. But as things stand, people will continue visiting the big repositories, downloading free content, and not comprehending the double talk of the pornographers. And the ones who happen to use a torrent will threated by the legal system.
Pornographers, fix your own house first, then pursue the thieves. That is what you're council should be suggesting, unless he's in this for the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But Steele disagrees
There is a huge business in just conversion alone. The early tube sites were created for this specific reason. Guess who created, contributed to, and profited from those sites?
It's kind of humorous that they did this to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But Steele disagrees
HDP probably claims they are not in league with the tube sites, but I fail to see how it is justifiable to single out those obtaining the material via torrent or some other means. Some of these sites provide download options as well as streaming options, and sometimes torrent is one of those download options. Granted there is a line between the tube sites that don't regularly provide download options and the ones that use temporary hosts and torrents, but the casual porn surfer isn't going to recognize that the download links offered by temporary hosts are normally used for illegal content, and that torrents are mainly used as an easy way to keep the content available without having to deal with deletions due to copyright infringement.
I see some validity to the argument that torrents are mainly used by heavy porn consumers (as they relate to porn) to sidestep copyrights and feed their consumption habits, but they can also be used by casual users who don't know about the stigma of torrents, or even that there is any difference between downloading a torrent and streaming from a tube site.
So all in all I don't have any problem with this if it wasn't for the unlucky ones who happened to entertain a new way of downloading and are now stuck with a lawsuit hanging over their heads. But as for the ones who are initiated and know which of the stuff is offered illegally, let them pay up. But there isn't a big profit in chasing the real crooks individually, only a small one, so I don't think they will be doing that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Steele disagrees
Here is another fact confirming your conjecture that the trolls want their business model to continue. I wrote in one of my filings (http://www.scribd.com/doc/54298028/310-Cv-03647-WHA-Docket-25-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Strike (Docket 25 , p.7)): �The web site of the technology company (Media Protector) employed by Plaintiff for collecting the IPs of alleged copyright violators claims (See http://www.mediaprotector.de/html/html_en/technologie/frameset.html) that the technology is capable of detecting the initial seeder (the person who knowingly uploads the file to be downloaded by others). Going after these initial seeders would be substantially more efficient for protecting copyright than going after hundreds of P2P network participants, many of whom may have no relation to the alleged infringement.� In his reply (http://www.scribd.com/doc/54298036/310-Cv-03647-WHA-Docket-26-Reply-to-Opposition) my troll did not reply anything to this. This suggests that he does not want to find the initial seeder (one can even suspect that he might have planted this initial seed himself).
Here is another relevant piece of my filing:
�Another fact that strikes about these copyright troll cases is the difference in treatment received by corporations and by individuals in alleged infringement situations. Basically, the sites that collect thousands in revenues usually receive the equivalent of cease and desist letters. Private internet users targeted by copyright trolls, on the other hand, receive letters demanding thousands of dollars in order to avoid a federal lawsuit... One discussion participant wrote in a comment to an article discussing the actions of a copyright troll Mr. Steele: �So the webmasters of popular sites got cease and desist letters, while your average computer user gets letters demanding $1000s. Congrats on abusing the little guy, Mr. Steele.�
I guess that since companies that own web sites employ lawyers, it is too difficult and not really profitable to go after them, so our trolls hope to profit from abusing little guys who are divided (don�t know about each other), don�t have money for litigation, and hence will likely settle out of court. Our response would be to try to unite little guys, like Steven suggested in his comment (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110430/00274114096/judge-slams-copyright-troll-lawyer-john-steel es-latest-fishing-expedition.shtml#c834 ). See more on this at https://fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com/io-group-inc-v-does-1-244/#comment-3 (the 5th paragraph is about uniting the Does).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a US Senator has to say about it
Senator Wyden asserts that a more-guided attack at the largest offenders may be more effective than trying to destroy the entire market one at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.scribd.com/collections/2997952/Case3-10-cv-03647-Dockets, #38
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Shadur strikes again
Mr John "Hubris" Steele dismissed all Does "with prejuidice."
Now, why would he have done that?
Here are some thoughts from Judge Shadur:
MEMORANDUM ORDER
It seems that attorney John Steele (�Steele�) might be well
advised to stay away from Las Vegas or other casinos, because his current filing on behalf of plaintiff Boy Racer, Inc. has--despite odds in the range of 25 to 1--been assigned at random to the calendar of this District Court, which had previously been the recipient of another random assignment of a Steele-filed action (that one being CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-300, No. 10 C 6255). This Court had ended up dismissing the CP Productions action for the reasons stated in its February 7, 2011 memorandum order and its February 24, 2011 memorandum opinion and order, which (among other reasons) rejected attorney Steele�s effort to shoot first and identify his targets later.
As appeared to be true in the CP Productions case, it would
seem feasible for Steele and his client to pursue the normal path of suing an identifiable (and identified) defendant or defendants rather than a passel of �Does.� Moreover, that practice would also facilitate the determination as to which defendant or defendants is or are amenable to suit here in Illinois, as well as testing the viability of the currently amorphous Count II assertion of a civil conspiracy.
Accordingly,just as in CP Productions, both the Complaint
and this action are dismissed without prejudice. As in that
case, Boy Racer is free to advance its copyright infringement claims against one or more identified defendants on an individual basis or, if appropriate, a plausible conspiracy theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge Shadur strikes again
He filed another case Monday on behalf of Boy Racer
1:11-cv-03097 Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-17. Guess who this one was assigned to? Judge Milton Shadur.
Of course Steele dismissed all seventeen does with prejudice. Again!
So, if an Attorney has such a great case against the does. Why does he dismiss them when Shadur is assigned the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge Shadur strikes again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just received in the mail a letter from Steele asking for $2900 to settle. What is the worse case scenario, and what is the most realistic scenario I could expect? I really don't want to hire a lawyer, could I just wait it out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John Steele's extortion attempts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]