Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
from the punishment-does-not-fit-the-crime dept
Remember Judge Beryl Howell? She's one of the only judges who's received one of these copyright troll cases involving hundreds, if not thousands, of totally unrelated John Does in a single case to refuse to sever the unrelated defendants (and bizarrely tried to claim it was to their benefit to be sued together). It only later came out that Howell was very recently an official lobbyist for the RIAA. At the very least, that calls into question her objectivity on copyright cases.Anyway, late last week, Judge Howell also made an interesting ruling in one of US Copyright Group's cases, involving the movie Call of the Wild. Like her earlier ruling, this one will have many more copyright trolls filing cases in her district, hoping to get a judge so amenable to the arguments of copyright trolls. The ruling was a default judgment, meaning that the guy being sued simply did not respond to being sued (a dumb move). Of course, with a default judgment, the court still has some leeway in ordering what kind of award is given, and in this case, Judge Howell has apparently decided that the absolute minimum anyone could pay if found in default on a copyright case is not the $200 for innocent infringers, nor the $750 amount that is the official minimum listed in the law... but, rather $3,430, which is the $750 amount plus another $2,680 in lawyer's fees. That's a bit strange since it's not all that common to award attorney's fees in such cases, and considering that US Copyright Group is a factory of sorts, pumping out tons of these cases, and suing tens of thousands of individuals without much effort to ascertain the legitimacy of the lawsuits, it's difficult to see how it could have cost them that much at all.
Still, have no fear that this particular default judgment will be waved around by USCG and others in their shakedown letters to people who are being pressured into paying up.
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, default judgment, statutory damages
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she loves doggie sex.loves to have orgies with RIAA & MPAA Officials.
they have a secret club where they all screw each others pets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today's word is Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Erm, citation needed I think...
"such a lovely following of rejects"
I think the AC trolls are more in this category. At least those who tend to agree with Mike actually discuss the issue at hand instead of trying to attack Mike persoanlly with every post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
P.S. Costco is having a sale on aluminum foil this week. Stock up now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's neither someone's "character" nor mental faculties, when you can't understand a joke and want to justify demonizing someone's viewpoint in order to continue ad hominem attacks.
That's all and nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now you're a psychic? You understand the motivation and intent of each and every post? Sorry, these kinds of posts are generally taken a face value by legislative staffs who monitor the discussion of proposed bills.
I haven't seen proponents of the copyright or the Protect IP bill suggest killing pirate site operators or stating that judges who render copyright decisions they disagree with have group sex with animals. Perhaps copyright proponents just lack the wacky, sophisticated sense of humor of the apologists. I hope they keep it up though, it discredits them far more than anything else I can think of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... Are you absolutely sure about this? I'm giving you your ONE chance to back away from this statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I find it ironic that you talk to Senators all day and don't remember the one Senator who became infamous for wanting to destroy computers left and right.
There have been death threats in filesharing.
And who could forget that once upon a time, copyprivilege was punishable by death?
Feel free to go ahead and debate them and minimize them all you want. I'm sure the point will be lost on you that this really isn't a huge issue to me, because the thoughts and opinions of one anonymous speaker wanting to Donkey Punch Beryll, doesn't mean that everyone in the world who supports filesharing, or speaks out against it, feels the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
er, you mean the shit you threw on our faces? that's nothing new, just a drop in the ocean of poo-flinging your side has done for years and is still doing today
for all i know, one of yours could've posted that, it's friggin' anonymous, who knows what side their on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Source: Albert Enstein.
Source: http://www.urlesque.com/2010/10/19/ddos-attacked-gene-simmons-lily-allen-officer-bubbles/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*shrug*
not worried about that, really, you'd have to be like an expert at losing credibility to beat what the MAFIAA has already accomplished
...or a spy sent by them to discredit the other sides...
good thing i already had a supply of tinfoil hats premade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, [citation needed].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, [citation needed].
You're right to question this. I doubt that this is true. People should feel free to assert that judges accept money in exchange for rulings and have group sex with dogs. No way that sort of stuff would color an outsider's perception of the people who frequent this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and it's hardly tin foil hat time to suggest that a judge who has worked as an RIAA lobbyist might have a conflict of interest when working on a verdict that directly profits the RIAA. That seems pretty direct, even if it's not a deliberate conflict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9133954/Growing_White_House_ties_to_Google_draw_protest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you're too stupid to understand the point I'll repeat it:
Having a career prior to being a judge is not a problem. Being a lobbyist for an industry prior to judging cases for that exact industry is a conflict of interest. I'd be saying the same thing for your "Googlers" too if they were expected to make important policy that directly favoured Google, but that's not what's being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Nice Streisand effect too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Costco is not having a sale. I checked their site, the local store, and the mailer my wife hid from me last week.
Here I was all excited to stock up.
I really wish the the IP crowd would hire at least one researcher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
well, i tried, but it seems the pro-copyright group has already bought out the entire supply, now what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You, sir (ma'am?), disgust me. Taking an AC comment (anonymous, probably written by the same shill-machine you in/directly work for) and putting yourself on the same anonymous pedestal just to drop a few of fallacies here? And doing it anonymously? Disgusting...
Analogy:
Lawyers like Evan Stone only reveal to voters the character and mental state of proponents to unreasonable copyright measures. Thanks Mike for hosting a forum where true substance of the copyright proposition can be put on full display.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How many?
Also, how do you know said AC was a "loyal fan and devotee"? For all we know, it was you . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As opposed to the people who have called for my death, regularly lied about me, attacked me and my family?
Btw, the comment you're responding to? It's from someone who normally attacks us. Yes, that's right, it's someone on your side of the debate who posted that as an exaggeration pretending to be one of the people who support us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Next on the RIAA/Movie list BAN LOGIC... It gets in the way of our profits....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Btw, the comment you're responding to? It's from someone who normally attacks us. Yes, that's right, it's someone on your side of the debate who posted that as an exaggeration pretending to be one of the people who support us.
Interesting assertion from the guy who suggests that an IP address alone is insufficient to create a link to an individual for the purpose of an indictment or civil action. Tell us Mike, could someone have spoofed his IP address? Or maybe hacked his wireless router. Or maybe his router isn't password protected.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny thing...
Europe has an issue with data privacy. I wonder how you would feel if an IP address was found to be linked to "improper use of the internet".
Oh, right, profits must be paid...
M-A-X-I-M-A-L-I-S-T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
M-O-R-O-N
Mike is simply noting a correlation between one idiot who attacks him and another account with the same IP address. He's not looking for reparations, nor banning the IP, as he could do.
Unlike your corporate Gods, he's not looking for legal sanctions, where the standard of evidence should be much higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Called for your death? Wow. If you died, I couldn't rag on you. That would suck for me, so I'm against. Stay safe! :)
Btw, the comment you're responding to? It's from someone who normally attacks us. Yes, that's right, it's someone on your side of the debate who posted that as an exaggeration pretending to be one of the people who support us.
That's hilarious if I was responding to a sarcastic comment. That doesn't change the thrust of my point though, which is that your loyal crew seem to be internet thugs, toughs, and hooligans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm with you here Mike. You have his IP address and that of other of his posts. It's all you really need to conclude that the guy who posted is from the "other side". And while it's not infallible, I'd wager you're can be almost 100% certain that your assertion is correct. Funny how when the government or a rightsholder uses an IP address to make an assertion you convulse in protests, sidetracking and excuse making. Your hypocrisy is truly breathtaking to behold. What an embarrassing douchenozzle you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you had said: "I'm concerned that Mike is viewing this information", maybe I'd have some sympathy, but complaing that Mike is revealing that this particular user, who we still aren't able to identify unless Mike points him out again and references this post in that pointing out, has posted before? Yeah, that totally rips that AC's privacy to shreds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But lately Mike is looking at the IPs and posting some of what he finds to discredit his critics. You may think this is OK, but I don't. I think it's a complete violation of trust, and I think Mike has crossed a line by doing this. I think it's total bullshit.
When I find time I'll reinstall Tor and start using that for this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but if someone can point at two posts, and without saying anything else, can say, "the same person wrote these two posts", discredit someone?
Further, tell me exactly who, and how to identify them in future posts, Mike has discredited?
What, you can't tell me how to identify AC in the future?
And further again, who is he discrediting here? He said that the person who wants to murder people has posted negatively before; He's discrediting the person who wants to murder people? By saying that person has posted here before? Run that by me again?
Is it possible that you are referring to Mike discrediting you because he made a statement that you cannot confirm/deny that directly contradicts the statement you made to try to discredit and shame Mike and some of the commenters here?
Of course, if you feel discredited by that, that means you made a statement you could not prove in the first place, and are upset that Mike has pointed this out.
So I'll presume intelligence on your part, in that I'll presume you are not the one being discredited here, and ask you again, exactly who is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but if Mike can point at two posts, and without saying anything else, can say, "the same person wrote these two posts", discredit someone, is that actually Mike discrediting the person? Or the person discrediting himself? Mike here isn't even going that far, but only saying "this person has commented negatively before".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, I've got Tor fired up and I will be using it from now on. Shame on you Pirate Mike for not practicing what you preach. I think you're a slimball for exactly this type of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, from what Mike did say that day, I made the assumption on my own, that perhaps the reason so many IP addresses were from the D.C. area was because perhaps people with vested interest in discrediting Mike are working in tangent or at the behest of others to comment here. And do so more often when certain topics are discussed or brought up. But like I said, that was an assumption on my part that may or may not be true. But it does make a bit of sense.
We're glad you've got Tor fired up and will continue using it. It'd be a shame to not know who one of the many Anonymous Cowards who visit this site to insult and berate others (and Mike) is. Not that we care who you are to begin with.
May I make a suggestion to you, AC? Why don't you get off your cross, use the wood to build a bridge and get over it. ("It" being whatever it is you're complaining about in regards to Mike at the moment. Since "it" changes frequently and depending on your mood or whatnot, it seems.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Up here, we have a lot of political pundits and critics living in Ottawa, what a surprise . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation?
"Anyway, I've got Tor fired up and I will be using it from now on."
Will you also be using some software that enables you to discuss issues like an adult?
"I think you're a slimball for exactly this type of bullshit."
I think you're a moron and full of shit. I think you're incapable of formulating an actual argument and can't possibly comprehend the issues being discussed, so you resort to insults (which you can't even spell correctly).
But, unlike your masters, I'm not trying to take away from your ability to do such things. I only wish you understood what an idiot you look like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you lie? I've asked you REPEATEDLY to point out which AC I said was from DC. And you can't. Because I did not.
So, seriously, stop lying.
Anyway, I've got Tor fired up and I will be using it from now on. Shame on you Pirate Mike for not practicing what you preach. I think you're a slimball for exactly this type of bullshit
I have absolutely practiced what I've preached.
You're going around lying falsely claiming that I revealed someone's location when I did not.
The only slimeball here is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh geez, cry me a frickin' river you big baby! That's about the lamest complaint I've ever heard. I'm afraid people who are too chicken to have their comments linked together while still remaining completely anonymous don't generate any sympathy from me. If someone has issues with trusting Mike they're quite welcome to stop posting comments. It'll be a nice win-win situation.
"When I find time I'll reinstall Tor and start using that for this site."
I can picture you donning your tinfoil hat at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simply mentioning that the comment came from an IP maximist is not a violation of trust. It hardly reveals anything.
What is a violation of trust is when IP maximsits pose as IP critics in order to make IP critics look bad.
But, of course, your sense of morality tells you to only focus on Mike for doing nothing wrong and to ignore, and not to take the initiative and criticize, what the IP maximist did (ie: without being nudged by this comment here). The IP maximist did something wrong, but you don't care enough to say anything. Your only focus is on the IP critic for doing nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's noting that a moron troll is the same moron troll who regularly attacks him. No personal information has been released.
Your privacy is safe, except for the fact that we now know that you too are a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) The difference between the evidence:
Mike, comparing IP addresses to other IP addresses on techdirt. RIAA/MPAA comparing IP addresses to real people.
Now, to find out whether two IP addresses represent the same person, we have a variety of tools. First, we can look at whether they are the same. Mike can check the internet browser they use, some of its settings, which OS they use, etc. etc. If all of those match, it's a fairly close bet it's the same person. If this matching occurs again and again, you've probably identified someone.
Mike can also, humanly, compare the posts & writing styles, or run those through mechanical analysis to boot.
There aren't many false positives, since two people would pretty much have to be running the same setup, using the same software, and same software versions, and the same TOR exit node, in order to match each other.
To find out whether a single IP address represents real life person, we only have the comparison to an IP address that was assigned to a machine at the time. Those logs aren't always correct, we have to be concerned about proxys and TOR exit nodes, (whereas in Mike's case, we don't care since we're comparing an unknown identity to an unknown identity, here we're matching a real identity to a unknown), but we also have to be concerned with which machine was being used at the user-end, (the machine connected to the router may have been connected to another machine which used the connection), and who was using the machine; In a roommate situation, this usually proves impossible if they deny it.
Summary: Matching two unknown entities is easier than matching an unknown entity to a real person. This is true not only of the internet, but also of real life. We can tell if two break-in cases or two murder cases were committed by the same person/people; But we have great difficulty finding out who that person/people are.
2) Mike isn't charging someone in court, he's accusing them on his blog. He isn't accusing them of a crime, even, just of being someone on his blog who regularly comments negatively. We ask a much smaller burden of proof, (ie: We don't ask innocent until PROVEN guilty), because the consequences . . . are barely existent here. Fining or arresting the wrong person? Rather larger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's how U.S. media transformed from "fact reporting" to "balanced opinions" - who needs truth if most of people you reach believe a convenient lie. Your people aren't stupid enough? Scare 'em stupid! Proclaim war against invisible enemies and voila - your own people will start behaving like sheep. It's simple and tested - testing shit abroad and implementing it at home like real Chicago Boys. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is Mike's decision legally binding? Is he trying to cut the troll's internet connection, delete his URLs or fine him hundreds of thousands of dollars? Is he even trying to block the IP address, as he's entitled to do on his own blog? No? Then you have your reason why it's not a contradictory position.
"Your hypocrisy is truly breathtaking to behold."
Hmmmm.... funny how you're using the same arguments as the AC idiots....
"What an embarrassing douchenozzle you are."
...and using their kindergarten name calling tactics as well. I suppose congratulations are in order for finally giving yourself a handle.
[ 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: Re:
Seriously? Death threats? Care to provide a link or is this something known only to you?
Btw, the comment you're responding to? It's from someone who normally attacks us. Yes, that's right, it's someone on your side of the debate who posted that as an exaggeration pretending to be one of the people who support us.
While that sort of masquerade is a dirty trick, your willingness to assert this individual is one and the same based (presumably) by IP address makes a mockery of your objection to identifying an infringer by IP address. I think you are probably right about the identity of your detractor playing games but you really have damaged your credibility regarding correlating IP address to individual identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unlikely coincidence that someone else hijacked this persons IP address just to post on Techdirt, the same exact blog that the person who has been hijacked just so happens to post on. Furthermore, unlikely that the person who posted has the same 'attack IP critics' mentality and writing style that this poster has.
Also (though this probably can't be said so much for IP maximists) the people who post on Techdirt and other tech related blogs tend to be tech savvy and computer security conscious, so it's less likely that someone who posts on such blogs has security issues and would be unknowingly hacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, there is a difference between being able to casually identify someone and being able to identify them with enough certainty to fine them a ton of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow. I missed this comment.
I guess I have my answer. It's an agent provocateur, deliberately trying to make this site look bad, in order to discredit the opinions of the site expressly for the purposes of political gain.
I actually was thinking I might be paranoid. Apparently not.
On the plus side: Mike, your opponents are obviously running scared. That's good news.
Pity it isn't better news: that they actually listened to what you have to say. Oh, well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me elaborate - when people resort to dirty tactics like this (agent provocateur) it's ussualy bacause their arguments have no or little standing in reality and as we all know - what better way to hide the truth than discrediting its speaker. It's how a lot of our written history got falsified (and you can't do sh*t about it). But this manipulation got a lot more difficult in the Internet age - finding sockpuppets is a lot easier since you're just connecting identities, not revealing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Innocent" infringement has to be proved by the defendant. Since the defendant here didn't put on a defense, as a matter of law, $200 in damages was not available. So when you WHINE about Judge Howell not awarded $200, IT IS PURE FUD. The fact that you should know better makes it MANIPULATIVE LIES. Instead, she did in fact award the minimum, which is $750. So when you whine that she didn't award the minimum, IT IS MORE FUD.
That's a bit strange since it's not all that common to award attorney's fees in such cases, and considering that US Copyright Group is a factory of sorts, pumping out tons of these cases, and suing tens of thousands of individuals without much effort to ascertain the legitimacy of the lawsuits, it's difficult to see how it could have cost them that much at all.
Now, of course you're going to WHINE and spread FUD on the attorney's fees. That's a given. If Judge Howell rules in any way, shape, or form in a copyright case, Mike will WHINE about it no matter what facts, law, or reasoning are. Rather than look at the court filings to see how USCG justified the amount of attorney's fees being claimed here, Mike just goes with his gut. And WITHOUT ANY PROOF OR BASIS whatsoever, Mike has declared that the amount awarded here is wrong. Mike, if you want to understand how this number was arrived at, look it up. The fact that you don't PROVES (once again and for the millionth time) THAT YOU WORK BACKWARDS. Such idiocy. You truly are an IDIOT.
Another moronic hit-piece from Pirate Mike the Pirate Apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Do we really need the "angry swearing name calling" side of every argument?
I'm not sure we have enough trolls for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are enough trolls to accomplish anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So yeah, you are correct, but I dont have the energy for it.
Asshole.
The above swearing and name calling is included for educational purposes only, no emotions were wasted on this post, and no offense intended. No animals, humans or keyboards were harmed in the making of this post. This post is rated PG13 for foul language. Parental discretion is advised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean like how the mainstream media and big corporations abuse their wrongfully granted government established monopoly power over public airwaves and cableco infrastructure to present one side, and only one side, of the IP debate (the indefensible, pro-IP side) while refusing to allow critics, like MM, to respond?
For example, see
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091101/1818186751.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/article s/20100727/10432810380.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12204511290/why-won-t-univ ersal-music-let-you-see-the-20-20-report-from-1980-about-how-the-music-industry-is-dying.shtml
ht tp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/02385514537/why-is-federal-government-running-ads-secretly-c reated-owned-nbc-universal.shtml
Among others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike provides this forum and if some guy wants to come in with his rant against what Mike says, then that's Mike's call to let him/her to do so. Even if the person acts like a fool, there may be some insight into what they are saying. I'm not talking about this specific case, but in general.
Note: Calm down, buddy. I'm not on their side or your side. I'm just reading and seeing a lot of people who don't own the server space telling someone to go somewhere else. That'd be like me seeing some guy in a privately owned park and telling them to leave. That's up to the owner of the property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any examples of when this was not allowed, other than times when someone did so and was piled on for acting stupid? I've never seen examples of times when Mike has been proven to block someone for their opinion.
Bearing in mind, of course, that acting like a moron and then having 10 people saying "you're a moron" is not censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The IP maximist mainstream media blocks IP criticisms from seeing the light of day, abusing their government established monopoly power to do so no less, while IP critics welcome criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here. This is where people are telling him to go away. This is what I have a problem with. It does not say 'You're a moron'. It says 'GTFO'.
We're supposed to be better than this. I'm being attacked for no reason other than I think that people should be allowed to state their mind unless the person that owns the property tells them to go away.
I feel a strong need to include the words 'Leave Brittany alone!' in here somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are many sides to every argument that don't involve trolling, name calling, misrepresentation of others' opinions and outright lies. That we rarely get dissenting arguments here that don't consist of some (or all) of those is hardly Mike's fault.
Try presenting an opposing argument that doesn't contain any of those, and be prepared to back up assertions if challenged. That's all that's needed for a debate that includes "all sides".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I came off sounding like I was blaming The Maz, then I apologize. Didn't mean to come off that way.
I agree with you about the 'many sides to every argument', but I haven't seen Mike tell the guy that he needs to go away and be an asshole somewhere else. Until then, I assume he's a welcome commenter just like everyone else here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's only FUD if it's provably false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at your post, for example.
You scream and shout at Mike in all caps, which generally say nothing except LOOK AT ME I'M AN ATTENTION WHORE. Unless there's a word or two that need to be emphasised and you don't have time/knowledge to use html, there's no excuse and it makes you look obnoxious.
Then, there's the core of your argument. You take the (possible insightful) objection to Mike's opposition to the fees, suggesting that the defendant's failure to defend makes these fees impossible to avoid. But in doing so, you miss a couple of his central issues (the judge is a former RIAA lobbyist, these accusations are so scattershot and often so baseless that ordinary people can't effectively defend). and fail to address them in favour of your chosen narrative. A total strawman, and stupid childish name-calling to boot, not to mention exactly what you're trying to accuse Mike of doing in the first place - "FUD".
Once again, if you have a reasonable objection to the post, act like an adult. Point out your objection and cite the reasons why. Don't start strawman building or namecalling. Then, you might find more people willing to engage you, and perhaps even agree with you. As it is, you're driving away your own potential allies by your own actions, then pretending that Mike's controlling everyone and/or a pirate.
All this achieves it make you look stupid. Try subtlety and/or intelligence and then you might get somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PaulT, prim schoolmarm.
By the way, I seem to have suppressed a certain Techdirt "Insider" from making bizarre sexual references here, but do I get any thanks for it? Was there ever any of the regulars (say, Jay, who lectures above) who called for that to end? -- Did Mike? -- No, so long as one agrees with Mike, anything goes.
So phooey on your schoolmarm reprimands, PaulT, unless equally and PRIOR-LY directed to freetards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PaulT, prim schoolmarm.
Yet, you expect me to take you at your word. See how silly that is? At least, unlike the average AC, you provide a name that can be mostly tracked via Google (though not a login that can be looked at via a post history directly). You still commit most of the sins described above, though.
"freetards"
Oooh and you end with an ad hominem as well. How symmetrical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PaulT, prim schoolmarm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PaulT, prim schoolmarm.
Are you one of the guys who down-voted the bullshit A.C. post about the judge fucking animals, or whatever?
If so, then you have my thanks, at least. Whatever disagreements we have about her, there's no need for /b/tard tactics.
Of course, I still suspect it was posted by the other side trying to make Techdirt look bad... but I have absolutely no evidence to back up this suspicion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PaulT, prim schoolmarm.
No, no, ootb the pole smoking penis wang is referring to me. He apparently thinks I've somehow stopped making phalic related jokes, but he must have cocks on the mind because I'm as committed to mentioning man-sausages as ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PaulT, prim schoolmarm.
I found some explanations on Urban Dictionary and if you'll take the time and follow the link - which definitions do you agree with and which do you not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a hint: Every time you use a phrase like "Pirate Mike the Pirate Apologist," you are spreading FUD.
Having said that: I think the award is not even remotely unexpected. And under the letter of the law, it is not unreasonable either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's a hint: Every time you use a phrase like "Pirate Mike the Pirate Apologist," you are spreading FUD.
I believe that Mike knows that the $200 damages for innocent infringement are not even a possibility here as a matter of law, but he throws that in anyway to deepen the FUD. This whole article is just plain FUD, Karl. I don't know how you could consider it to be anything but. From the headline (which is just plain wrong and intentionally misleading) to the very last period. It's all FUD.
Having said that: I think the award is not even remotely unexpected. And under the letter of the law, it is not unreasonable either.
Right. She awarded the minimum statutory damages allowable, $750. The attorney's fees don't seem unreasonable, considering the expense of filing a federal lawsuit (this is a named defendant), pre-trial motions, discovery, etc. The number looks low to me.
Regardless. I would not write an entire article about how ridiculous and wrong these fees are without first understanding how USCG arrived at the numbers. Or at the least, I'd look up awards in other cases with similar circumstances for comparison.
Not Mike the Pirate. He's ready to go to print without bothering to let facts guide him. That's how you know it's FUD. Who needs facts when you've got FUD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If Al Capone nicely asks a store owner to pay for "protection" in a letter, and the owner does not receive that letter for some reason, his associates turns out and get their ransom anyway, but do they also complain that because of that damn store owner they had to buy additional guns and should be reimbursed for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Innocent infringement" can (but usually won't) be decided by a judge, even in default judgement cases. It's rare, but it does happen.
It is slightly less rare (but not by any means unheard of) for judges to award statutory damages, but not attorney's fees.
The fact that it is a default judgement probably determined damages more than anything else. Judges don't like to be ignored.
This whole article is just plain FUD, Karl. I don't know how you could consider it to be anything but.
Perhaps because I'm not paid to do so.
I agree that the article might be a bit alarmist. That's certainly debatable. What is not debatable is that Mike has never, once, advocated piracy, so claiming he is a "pirate apologist" or calling him "Mike the Pirate" is absolutely, positively spreading FUD.
You know, when you do this stupid name-calling bullshit, everyone can see right through it. You would really be much better off sticking to the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I believe that Mike knows that the $200 damages for innocent infringement are not even a possibility here as a matter of law"
You don't state what this is based on, you have no proof. It is an assertion that's based on an opinion. But then, you parley that into a further assumption:
"but he throws that in anyway to deepen the FUD"
You then launch into a tireade as if both of these assumptions are the correct, unvarnished and unmistakable truth, yet they're not. They're simply your own personal opinions.
Until you stop basing everything on your own assumptions, fail to take input from others and quit the childish name calling, your opinion is invalid.
"Who needs facts when you've got FUD?"
Your family motto, I presume?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. The accusation of FUD by whoever they disagree with.
2. The overcapitalization of WORDS throughout the POST in order to try and EMPHASIZE their point so that the reader won't have to THINK too much to UNDERSTAND what they are TRYING to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Numbers for Call of the Wild 3D (2009)
Gross
$28,024 (USA) (28 June 2009)
$24,691 (USA) (21 June 2009)
Weekend Gross
$987 (USA) (28 June 2009) (3 Screens)
$6,179 (USA) (21 June 2009) (12 Screens)
source - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192620/business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is nice that she quotes the law allowing the recovery of costs, can she quote the portion of the law that says they have had the case open for more than 4 months and there are still Does on the docket and that is a violation? She's only extended it several times and looks to do so again, why should the court cut them a break because they filed against to many people to process at once?
I'm trying to work through recap to see how Jason Smith was served, this would not be the first time that a copyright troll buried the notice to be overlooked. (The case of the woman in NJ who comes to mind who was able to get the court to reopen the case against her because the letters to her were unbelievable so she ignored them.)
I think there is something VERY hinkey here...
Can someone with PACER access please access Document #61?
"AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT re: Defendant Jason Smith by CALL OF THE WILD MOVIE, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit (Military))(Kurtz, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/20/2011)"
Is it possible he didn't answer because mail service to military personnel might be a little hit or miss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am more interested that they would personally serve someone rather than just mail it. Also troubling is its just one of the lawyers claiming its true and there is no proof of service other than his say so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64684718/10-Cv-00455-BAH-Document-65-Proof
And as you've said, it's just the attorney's word. These scumbags save even on mailing - summons were sent via first-class. My troll, Sperlein, bothered to send certified mail with a proof of delivery (signature), which he had subsequently filed.
Unfortunately, in civil cases the bar of proof is very low: as far as I know sending something via first-class mail is enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not think first class mail is actual real service.
It is an apartment building, and from a quicky Google search it has a bad bed bug problem, it could be possible Mr. Smith no longer lives there and did to get the letter.
They have no proof to show it was ever gotten, this qualifies as service? I think there is a real problem brewing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"mailing it to the person�s last known address � in which event service is complete upon mailing;"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule5.htm
But it is still possible the person no longer lived there as this case has been running for a very long time. It could be why he was picked for the special treatment. He is a defendant who is completely unaware of any actions against him, the perfect patsy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This may come to backfire on the plaintiff as well as Beryl...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally I don't give much credence to what any of the copyright troll lawyers say, we've seen time and again that they'll stretch the truth if not outright lie as long as it benefits them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still something really not right here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would suggest the EFF get involved.
You'll have to wait for Google to snap their fingers before that will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your routine is just old now, Bucko. Please. Get a new one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
Isn't that a clear conflict of interest?
I know, lets let a former rapist rule on rape cases. SHE DESERVED IT, DRESSED LIKE THAT! NO FAULT!
Yep, no bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF
MPAA/RIAA: Same wolf, different sheep outfit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF
Considering how much cash they burned trying to crucify their customers (and innocent bystanders/dead people/dogs) even they are coming to the conclusion that the open litigation tactics are a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a default fine is that low, being a defendant, I would expect that if I file an answer to complaint to avoid default, I would expect a lesser fine or no fine at all.
An yes, not replying to court (not a troll!) is stupid: www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I recuse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I recuse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I recuse!
she has ruled that the Does have no right to question this case on issues of misjoineder, lack of jurisdiction because they are not named yet.
She has extended the limit for the plantiffs to name Does and move forward an several occasions deciding the rules of federal procedure should be bent for people who attempt to sue more people than they can possibly handle.
She has refused to look at the questionable evidence and the agreement with the firm supplying the information, this same firm has had its "evidence" throw out of courts in Germany. The firm uses multiple names to appear to be different groups, which also might be a tactic to protect the business model if one of the cases collapses.
She has provided every opportunity for plaintiffs, while making it near impossible for the Does to have any consideration.
Her actions are "questionable" at best, and when framed with her former position lobbying in this arena there is the appearance of impropriety. Any Judge when faced with things looking improper should recuse themselves to remove any doubt about the case being handled properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I recuse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I recuse!
This is a mass doe case, where I believe 3 Does have been transformed into named parties in the same mass case.
The named parties appear on the same line as the Does.
Filing a new case would have required another $350.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I recuse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's title is FALSE.
Now, you freetards can defend your position -- actually you don't: 90 percent of freetard comment above is sheerly ad hom, "shut up", and prim lecture -- anyway, it's FACT that Mike began this with a title that is simply not true, not even with a stretch. That falsehood sets the tone here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's title is FALSE.
Ootb just saved 50% by switching his name to Mr. Pot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's title is FALSE.
Not surprising for someone who uses the term "freetard", which usually indicates kindergarten-level debating skills, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike's title is FALSE.
Man, this is the sort of snowballing wrongness that Techdirt fosters. First Mike inflates his claim. After I call him on it, you leap in to defend and only end up showing that you haven't even read the piece!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike's title is FALSE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike's title is FALSE.
Really, so what part of the article states that? I could only see the following:
"Judge Howell has apparently decided that the absolute minimum anyone could pay (is) $3,430, which is the $750 amount plus another $2,680 in lawyer's fees."
and:
"That's a bit strange since it's not all that common to award attorney's fees in such cases"
Could you point out what I missed, since you seem to be looking at words I'm not seeing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's title is FALSE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's title is FALSE.
Wow, you couldn't describe your own posts better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
Are there any honest judges anymore? I know that it reaches even to the SCOTUS, but it would be nice if there were some honest judges around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
So stop making stuff up, you're just making yourself look childish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Note the term "TechdirtBAG" as opposed to Techdirt. I think everyone (except perhaps you) understands that Thomas is just another apologist and does not speak officially for Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
The tide is coming and people are organizing in many fronts, open culture is becoming more wide spread, tools are being created to not only light the dark corners of politics but also to do something about it and if ever people are able to put a unified front and start voting on the issues instead of the people those idiots are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
I'm sad that it only costs $3430 to sell out certain inalienable rights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Am I missing something
Oh wait. I forgot. Apparently you buy a LICENSE to the movie. Which is something that is never actually told to you at the till. I always thought it was an out and out sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Am I missing something
It is a rental contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Am I missing something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judge said the minimum is $750 (as per the law). The lawyers fees are something that are asked for in a civil matter, and agreed to by the courts. It isn't a "minimum", because if they lawyer costs were only $100, then the total would have been $850.
Congrats Mike, you are about 4 out of 5 on punting shit today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don'#t know about you, but for a �350 filing, that's...what? 1,000% of the original cost? That's a massive profit margin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(Sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree with this. Not responding and accepting the default judgement is generally cheaper than hiring an attorney and fighting, and it's less convenient for those filing against you than a settlement. They still have to go to court (assuming they don't drop it), and the victim isn't likely to get hit with a Jammie Thomas $2 million judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If judges start awarding minimally allowed judgements, in defaults, Does will realize that a boogieman is just a clown and incapable of inflicting any serious harm. The entire trolling "business" will collapse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But of course no one can guarantee you anything, and at this moment in history knowingly allowing default to be brought on oneself is stupid.
Sorry for not being clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA claimed on the stand, and was not called on, that the act of ripping a CD was violating the law in their mind.
Jammie conveniently had a new hard drive installed in the machine, and then denied having done so.
It was a jury trial, where all of these "experts" were called upon to testify. Feelings were admitted as law, the instructions were bad, and the defendant changed her story early and often.
Even if it were possible that she were innocent in all of this, she set into motion a long series of actions that showed her as someone who was guilty.
The problem currently with the Tennebaum (sp) and Thomas cases is they are both arguing the damage awards are unconstitutional, the problem is neither one of them is that likeable to the average person. Tennebaum told the open court, yeah I did it... and? Thomas devastated her own case by her own actions and speech.
The average person does not think some 15 yr old who downloads a Bieber song to their iPod should have to pay $150,000... but that is the law of the land. The law was written for a time when then only people who might "pirate" things were people doing it for profit. To deny rightholders of income by putting out the copies of the material and diverting the cash to themselves. Now we have a system that refuses to catch up to the times, and infact has become more draconian acting that if you share something you have killed a baby seal...on national television...during a kids show...
The simple answer would be for the "fine" for noncommercial filesharing to be the cost of the item. This would free the courts up for more serious matters than large scale fishing trips, and the labels would have to actually adapt their business model to get consumers to stop sharing.
There will always be people sharing, but you can make it work for you. Or you can waste all of your time trying to get those darn kids who are downloading taken care of while you annoy your customers to the point where they understand the label has no interest in making them happy and its just easier and better to find other sources for the material growing the number of those darn kids. There are less restrictions and hassles with whats being shared than with purchased content. It is not always all about wanting it for free, sometimes its just wanting it free of the crap attached to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really amazing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbyist for the RIAA?
I guess next they'll start suing people for infringement for playing copyrighted music at a private party or watching copyrighted movies with friends over.
I wonder... are private letters now covered by copyright, seeing anything reduced to any kind of fixed medium (baby scribbles on the wall) is automatically copyright? You can be sued for infringement for reading a letter from your mum?
Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agent provocateurs...?
When this story first was posted, there were a couple of rather extreme comments about the judge. I didn't like them, and apparently nobody else did either, because they were quickly downvoted.
In response to one of them, I posted a link to Wikipedia's page about "agent provacateurs." It was kind of a joke. But now I'm not so sure that it actually is a joke.
My reasoning:
1. The posts are all anonymous.
2. They are completely out of character for this site, even among Techdirt's most vehement supporters. (We may use salty language, and we may get a little hot under the collar, but none of us are obsessed about our opponents' dalliances with non-human fauna.)
3. The usual A.C. detractors used these commenters to paint the entire site in these colors. They did so within minutes of the other A.C.s' posts. And at least according to one A.C., that has a political consequence:
Sorry, these kinds of posts are generally taken a face value by legislative staffs who monitor the discussion of proposed bills.
Could those obnoxious A.C. douchebags actually be people who are working for the other side (literally or metaphorically)?
And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch - no, I'm not talking about all Anonymous Cowards, or even most of them. I've had plenty of good discussions on this site with A.C.'s, even those I completely disagree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agent provocateurs...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]