Copyright Troll John Steele Insists That 70-Year Old Is Responsible For Porn Downloads... Even If Someone Else Used WiFi
from the uh,-no dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in the story of a 70-year-old grandmother sued for downloading porn by bumbling copyright troll lawyer John Steele, whose claim to fame seems to be his ability to lose cases, as judges keep slamming his attempts to sue lots of people in what's clearly a shakedown situation.And while it's entirely possible that a 70-year-old would download porn (who says they don't like porn?), in this case, the woman seems suitably confused about what's going on that it seems unlikely. At best, it sounds like she has an open WiFi, which someone else may have used. But, Steele is falsely claiming this doesn't matter:
The letter from Steele suggests that someone else using an unsecured wireless network isn't a viable legal defense for the account holder, noting that downloaders of child pornography have employed this excuse to no avail....This is simply untrue. In fact, generally speaking, US law and courts recognize that "service providers" don't have liability for third party usage of their networks. There are some conditions and exceptions, but to make a blanket claim like Steele did is simply false. Given his track record with these lawsuits and the attempts to pressure people into settling, it's no surprise that he'd mislead like that, but hopefully it just leads up to yet another court smacking him down.
[....]
In an interview, he said anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old.
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, john steele, liability, open wifi, wifi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now compare this to John Steele, a man so shitty that he sucks even though is name is John Fucking Steele.
What I'm saying is, I really hope this robbery ends with a purse-beating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
+1 Internets to you sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're really comparing open WIFI to a service provider? Nice. I guess I will make sure everyone that uses mine signs that pesky contract then. Thanks for clearing that up!
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks!
Anyway, the "conditions and exceptions" that the article casually brushes aside will almost NEVER be satisfied by someone who just has an open wifi network for their home (e.g., registering with the copyright office).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice is Blind
That's funny, because I'm having trouble thinking of any area other than copyright infringement where that would be the case. If someone used your computer to hack into another system, they would be the ones who broke hacking laws, not you. If they picked it up and bludgeoned someone to death with it, they would be charged with murder, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice is Blind
"Justice only see's right and wrong."
Justice has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with the law. The law is an arbitray set of rules created by man. Influenced by those who wish the law to be one way or another. Nothing more, nothing less. Unjust and unreasonable laws are ignored, and ones that benefit society are followed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice is Blind
Years later I have (Comcast provided) wireless adapter issues and I am *asked* by the phone tech if I would like to secure my wireless. I said sure, why not, and he talked me through the procedure. Whatev.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not the dullest either, and until I got asked I had zero idea that our connection was not or even should be secured. I have little doubt this woman had any idea either. I'd wager she never even knew to ask about such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Justice is Blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice is Blind
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/hacking-neighbor-from-hell/?utm_source=feedburner&a mp;utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
Quote:
And that is not how WiFi works, most of the routers out there are not even capable of being secured, because they are not up to date and would need to be changed for them to be less insecure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Steele can not even prove it was her account involved. You see his super secret high tech tracking software that is 100% perfect, has never been vetted by anyone but Steele.
Steele has no interest in pursing the actual perpetrator of the alleged crime.
He has the single goal of getting a ruling that says if your WiFi was open, your at fault.
His interests are not served in the pursuit of justice, but the pursuit of getting people to pay him to go away.
Steele was getting laughed at by people he was pursuing in these cases, and then he trotted out the "awards" won in "similar" copyright cases. He included the awards Liberty Media Holdings won against the guy selling homemade DVDs of Corbin Fisher movies on eBay (an actual infringment) as well as the poor sap who settled for "a kajillion" (citation needed) but that amount gets knocked down as long as he makes his monthly payments and promises to never ever be naughty ever again.
It is theater, they want to scare people with these huge awards, and give the appearance that it is so much cheaper to settle than for you to challenge them.
This is lawyers exploiting the legal system with trickery to "win" money that more than likely they could never win in court, even with the more likely than not level of proof required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is just fine, AFAIK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having an open WIFI does not imediatly equate to guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope this guy loses hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open wifi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open wifi?
Open networks have their place. That place just isn't being connected to my boxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seniors and computers
They usually have a friend or relative that sets up their equipment and don't have a clue what has been done. If someone came in to help her and set up her connection for her. If that person didn't set up the security it just didn't get done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disbarment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We finally found out that if a network cable were plugged into the proper socket the wireless would be turned off.
As I have another wireless router and it is secured with WPA-2 I am not to worried about anyone using my wireless without my knowledge.
You would think that ISP's would be a bit more security friendly towards their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently it was a copyright violation. That's why a private lawyer is sending the letters and not a district attorney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case against me just like this.
They have my IP address connected to the download, so obviously someone with access to my router downloaded the file. I have roommates, though. I also have people who visit me frequently. (I live in Vegas, so I get lots of visitors.) I've also opened my WiFi signal from time to time to let people use it without having to go through my security (I use MAC address filters, among other things) and then forget to reinstate the security after they leave.
They wanted me to pay $2,900 to settle for that single file. This is obviously extortion, especially since part of the settlement letter was them effectively saying, "If you don't settle, keep in mind we'll plaster your name all over the Internet to publicly shame you for downloading porn."
So, I've got a few interesting points/questions regarding this situation that I was hoping you or your readers could answer:
1) I know the legal system is screwed up with Internet-age cases, but an IP address alone couldn't possibly be sufficient evidence to win a lawsuit claiming that I personally downloaded this file, could it? I realize this is a flawed analogy -- and please provide a better analogy if you can think of one -- but to me, that's like a gun I own being used in a murder, and me getting convicted based on that evidence alone. You can only prove that my gun was used, not that I was the killer.
2) How was the person who downloaded this file supposed to know that it was illegal? They certainly couldn't have known before they downloaded it, and I sincerely doubt there was any way to know *after* they downloaded it, either. If you have no way of knowing that you've downloaded copyrighted content, how can what you've done be illegal? They're basing their case on people assuming they're downloading something illegally, not knowing they're downloading something illegally. There are plenty of porn companies who gladly put some of their videos on BitTorrent sites as *promotional tools* to whet people's appetites for more.
3) The mass settlement letters are obviously a money grab. What's more, since there's the threat of a lawsuit/public humiliation if you don't accept the settlement, I don't see how this doesn't amount to blatant extortion. (For the record, I declined the settlement since I didn't download the file.)
4) Branching off of the public-humiliation aspect of their extortion letter, would I have a reasonable countersuit for defamation?
5) I’m also considering the idea of using a few of my friends in PR to launch a PR campaign against the porn company and the law firm. Is there any merit to such a campaign?
They have not served me papers yet -- although I did have a phone conversation with a representative from the Steele office wherein I declined settlement. They may not actually serve me since a single file might not be worth their time, and it’s a shakedown anyway, but I’d like to be prepared. I’d also like to preemptively strike in any ways I can. I want to use this case to set an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Case against me just like this.
2 - Because every scrap of media on the planet is owned by someone. The entertaining portion was a Mick Haig (IIRC) production called Der Unkle (sp) which shares a name with a film in the public domain. Even Stone lied on the copyright application in that case and mucked it all up. The other fun thing to point out is the lawyers hands are rarely clean in these matters, as often the exhibits from the ip tracking firms show that they were uploading to the swarm as well as downloading. I think a Judge would be curious why these defenders of copyright are making the situation worse by adding to the alleged infringement. There is a story here on TechDirt about a German tracking firm who in their contract spell out that they will be creating the honeypot for others to download from, which seems less than legit.
3 - It is not a "threat" it is them explaining what could happen if a legal case were to be filed. The words are chosen carefully, but make no mistake this is extortion carefully covered in legalese.
4 - Nope. Unless they started posting lists of the names of the accused in the paper. Otherwise it is a simple legal case that is public record, and it can not be their fault if people do not give you the presumption of innocence.
5 - Roll with it. There are many small disconnected groups of users out there who have been targeted by these types of firms. The studios don't care because it costs them nothing, all costs are paid by the lawyer from the settlements and he pays them after he takes his cut. A man posted an open letter to Larry Flynt around the time Evan Stone started a case on behalf of Hustler, and the more coverage it got the less interested in pursing the matter Hustler became. People targeted tend to demonize the lawyers involved but do not seem to scream as loudly at the studios involved. I think if there were more negative publicity for the studios, they might change their mind.
Many people are afraid to come forward, because these lawyers make it clear that they will make an example of anyone they can. No one wants to be the head of the revolution.
You might want to search the copyright registration database and make sure the film they accuse you of having downloaded actually is registered, often they are not or they are filed right before the case drops. But a lapse in filing the case changes the damage awards they could actually win if they were to file a real case.
Be cautious talking to Steele's phone people, they like to trick people and manipulate you into incriminating yourself. They use standard debt collector techniques pretending this is all real and for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Case against me just like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Case against me just like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Case against me just like this.
Whoa...... stop right there. Even that bit is not obvious. They have a piece of software that picked up some numbers off the internet. They then got your service provider to cough up the details of the customer that was using that address at the time. They used another piece of s/w to extract those details. Remember that all s/w has undiscovered flaws. Maybe his piece of s/w had a bug that garbled the IP address - maybe it got the time wrong (IP addresses change with time - someone else could have been using those numbers shortly before or after you. The same applies to your ISP's s/w.
That is not evidence that should ever stand up in court. If you look at the procedures used for prosecuting computer based crime you would realise that there is no way that this procedure could come even close to meeting the strict standard required.
I couldn't ever get a student "convicted" of academic misconduct (plagiarism) on that type of evidence!
If you need advice on how to handle this I think the being threatened site would be a good place to look. ACS law seem to be dead now but this guy seems to have a similar modus operandi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Case against me just like this.
Just a word of warning, this is not a criminal case, so criminal evidentiary standards do not apply. The type of evidence you're talking about likely would be admitted in a civil copyright case, and you would be free to criticize its merit/weight.
I just don't want anybody getting a false idea of how strong/weak anybody's case is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Case against me just like this.
You are not a "telephone service provider", you are an end user. In the same manner, you are not an "internet service provider", you are an end user. If you choose to let other people use your connection, if you choose to intentionally have an open wi-fi connection, and so on, you are taking the risks that come with it, as the account holder and end user.
Mass settlement letters are a shaking of the tree. Those who pay, great. Those who fight back, equally great, see you in court sonny.
It's not really hard. They have you dead to rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Case against me just like this.
First, the telephone example is a matter of contract between you and the phone company. The copyright example is not a matter of contract between you and your ISP. Rather, the copyright holder must show that you infringed, or that you meet the requirements for some sort of secondary liability. Someone using your wifi without you having the slightest clue what's happening is not sufficient for secondary liability.
Second, it is not "equally great" for these attorneys if you put up a fight, because I suspect they are not billing by the hour on these cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Case against me just like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old. "
By this logic the following are also true:
... anyone who fails to secure their [car] is as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies [committed by the thief] as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old.
... anyone who fails to secure their [back door] is as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies [wrought by the home invaders] as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old.
...anyone who [purchased Enron stock was] as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old.
...anyone who fails to [purchase a new car once a year] is as responsible for the subsequent [industry bail outs] as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old.
... anyone who fails to [bribe their judge] is as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old.
Actually, that does makes sense in a weird way. Provided I twist it into a mobius strip and squint vigorously while drinking tequila.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Errr
If the police accuse you of downloading child porn, but when they seize and search your computers they can't find any, then yes, that is a a legally viable defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong.
Not even close to being comparable.
Only a grandiose ass would attempt such a claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is a grandma with an open wifi considered a "service provider" under the law? That doesn't sound right. Got any links?
I think that what Steele is saying is saying is essentially true. Once the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of infringement, the burden shifts to the defendant to show they didn't do it. "I have an open wifi" is not a complete defense. Without more, it's not enough to prove the defendant didn't do it.
"While defendant claims that he uses an unsecured wireless router at his residence, which could have been used by an outside party to commit the alleged infringing activity, this does not constitute a complete defense." Arista Records, Inc. v. Musemeci, 2007 WL 3124545 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2007.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OK - so supposing you are innocent and you find yourself in the position of the defendant, what are you supposed to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somewhat diagree
I fear it is just a matter of time (or past time) before the content owners begin to leak their material all over the place just to fish for settlements.
In this case, the poor lady got swept up by the large net by actions likely not her own. If it is true that she is responsible for actions taken on her network by others, then the law is the law. I would think common sense here would prevail as she likely had her grandson set things up in the easiest way possible for an old lady to use new technology, and thus should be given a pass. But at some point we cannot make excuses for ignorance. It ain't bliss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steele thinks he can't be touched
0 JohnSteele
Hello, I enjoy reading all the non attorney analysis of the ardc and me, they think pirate complaints of our suits are a joke and don't even forward them to me anymore.
I never hear anyone claim they didn't do it on this site, just complaints of getting caught. These sites are always two months behind what is going on. Just wait. We are just getting started. Here is my advice: next time your mom makes you a snack, and your thinking about taking a break from world of Warcraft, just close Your eyes and dream of your favorite star trek character. It's cheaper
Source
http://current.com/technology/93161143_copyright-troll-john-steele-vs-illinois-co de-of-professional-conduct-oped.htm#93340002
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IDK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IDK
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03285313826/mass-infringement-lawyer- never-mind-facts-just-pay-up.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IDK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-Steele Facebook Club anyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-Steele Facebook Club anyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pink Lotus Entertainment LLC v. Does 1-20
§ 412 • Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies
for infringement
In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of
the rights of the author under section 106A(a), an action for infringement of the
copyright of a work that has been preregistered under section 408(f) before the
commencement of the infringement and that has an effective date of registration
not later than the earlier of 3 months after the first publication of the work or 1
month after the copyright owner has learned of the infringement, or an action
instituted under section 411(c), no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s
fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for—
(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced
before the effective date of its registration; or
(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the
work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration
is made within three months after the first publication of the work.
This means that Mr Steele would not be awarded statutory damages or attorney fees ( as he settlement letter scares you with). He could try in court for lost revenue, which he would have to prove.
Seems, that the dates are in the defendants favor! Do your homework!
Here are links to the code to check out yourself:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Here are the links to look up a copyright, and the copyright basics manual:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
http://www.copyri ght.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He never intended for any of these cases to go in front of a jury because that'd cut into his profits, not to mention all of the holes in these cases that you could drive a bus through. These judges need to realize Steele's endgame and stop him before he gets started. Expedited discovery is meant for a quick and speedy trial, not a long, drawn-out process of legalized systematic extortion via mail and phone calls (from a wanted fugitive). I wish the IARDC would pull its head out of its posterior and investigate this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]