Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
from the costing-money dept
Last week TorrentFreak had a post about a filing in one of many porn-related mass infringement lawsuits by a lawyer representing K-Beech. TorrentFreak's post focused on the fact that the lawyer, James White, admitted that it was dropping certain types of people from its lawsuits, such as undercover cops, military personnel and politicians. That certainly reflects the double standard we've seen elsewhere.But other parts of the same filing may be even more interesting. Xbiz picked up on the part where White whines about all the defendants he sued filing identical "kit" motions in response to getting sued... because it's too expensive for White to respond to each one. Most of these are motions to sever, noting that it was improper to join so many totally and completely unrelated defendants into a single case. So far, most of the courts presented with such cases have agreed to dump most of the defendants as unrelated, but White makes it out like this is some crazy concept because the defendants dare to file boilerplate/copy-and-paste documents:
Most of these motions, however, are filed by pro se litigants and cut and pasted from BitTorrent defense kits or otherwise copied...It kind of makes you wonder how anyone doing what White is doing could file such a thing with a straight face. His entire legal campaign depends on making his legal efforts "expensive to defend against," to try to pressure people into settling up rather than fighting. In fact, White seems to try to twist this abuse of the court system to force settlement in his own favor, claiming that the court should want more settlements, and thus it should encourage random joinder, because it makes White's costs lower, meaning he can allow lower settlement deals:
[....] These motions are expensive to defend against. Indeed, many such motions intentionally raise issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter before the court or matter which no court has ever held justify the motion. Consequently, Plaintiff has to spend substantial resources arguing against irrelevancies and abstractions.
Increasing the costs associated with this litigation by forcing Plaintiffs to file individual suits would only increase the settlement demands and make settlements less probable.If I understand this logic properly, it suggests that the courts should prefer more mass shakedown lawsuits, because it'll mean more settlements rather than court. But, of course, that leaves out the idea that many of the defendants might just be innocent.
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, infringement, joinder, lawsuits
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lowering My Standards
You freeloading freetards!
You astroturfing shilltards!
You Masnick-clone pirate scum!
You uninformed dinosaur bum!
Perhaps everyone should take
Sweet extra seconds to make
Their derisions come through in rhyme
That way when mocked
Or otherwise shocked
We can have some fun wasting time
Some come here to argue and prove polar points
While some here are willing to sway
I came to this site after cracking my joints
So I could consume 30 seconds today
With words most clever I would otherwise endeavor
To give you a poem with tact
But like James White, I'd rather spread shite
Than do anything with worthwhile impact
(at least that's the case this morning)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lowering My Standards
and to do it all in rhyme
I'd respond in kind, but it would be such a grind
And as you can see, I kinda suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lowering My Standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lowering My Standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lowering My Standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lowering My Standards
While some here are willing to sway
I came to this site after cracking my joints
So I could consume 30 seconds today"
We pinpoint arguments with the mathematical precision of polar coordinates. Refuting IP trolls is easy because their brains are inferior subordinates. Lawyers love to leave us laughing and lingering at their fallacious reasoning while politicians fumble with words during their election seasoning. The suffering public is stuck with a government that refuses to serve the republic while lawyers and lobbyists hurt the economy like misguided missile destroyers. Innovative employers get stuck with baseless lawsuits that make it on techdirt and these frivolous lawsuits form the basis of our baseless legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lowering My Standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lowering My Standards
Ahh, I can keep making edits all day I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lowering My Standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lowering My Standards
but I can't mock and flow 'cause I'm just a caucasian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lowering My Standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He, like everyone else involved in these kinds of lawsuits/shakedowns -- including Righthaven -- is the exact kind of lawyer that people make lawyer jokes about. He is the reason that people think of lawyers as ambulance chasers and snake oil salesmen.
He thought he could pervert a copyright infringement lawsuit into a massive shakedown scheme without anyone noticing or caring; now that people have noticed and proven that they care about this reckless and abusive use of the legal system, he wants to whine about how the courts aren't making it easier for him to shake people down?
These kinds of lawsuits and these kinds of lawyers must be challenged, because these are threats to the legal system that ordinary men and women must not allow to stand.
The courts have smacked Righthaven down, and rightfully so. This guy should be next on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey! It takes a lot of work to get the Senate to confirm a RIAA lobbyist to the federal bench!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone is guilty of something...which is why I'm now offering Sin Insurance! For an unlimited time only, you can give me your money under the illusion that your Sinsurance will protect you from guilt, lawsuits, and eternal damnation! Act now. The first hundred callers will receive the opportunity to buy me a sports car!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you purchased a license to this idea from the Catholic Church? They beat you by a few hundred years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only we could make it a tax and everyone would pay then nobody would have to pay very much and everyone could download what they want. Oh wait. We can do that now.
[ 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 ]
That's why I'd prefer going bankrupt fighting these trolls over paying up and settling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that Mike is also being a little hard headed here in not understanding the lawyers point of view on joinder. Without some way to group these lawsuits together, there is the potential that each of is filed seperately, and the court will have to do the same setup work, and assign court time to each of the cases seperately, and hear the same evidence over and over again, deal with the same objections over and over again, and in the end render a verdict over and over again. If a lawsuit was filed today for each individual who willfully shared part or all of a given movie on "da torrentz", you could easily see 20,000 or 30,000 filings.
Further, ISPs might actually have to answer 20,000 to 30,000 individual requests for information. Didn't they complain that the volume was too high already?
What the lawyer points out (correctly) is that the costs involved in filing and fighting these lawsuits to their conclusion is high, too high in fact. It's high enough that even if you win, you are unlikely to be able to collect the judgement. Consider the money spent to chase Jammie Thomas, and consider even the lowest settlement doesn't pay the legal fees, and is still non-collectable.
It puts plaintiffs in a position of "no win", which creates justice denied. You wouldn't stand up for it for the individual person, why do you think that the movie industry should have their justice denied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The court system is broken.
When ordinary people can't get justice from the courts, why should we care if some corporation isn't getting their money's worth from their fucking lobbyist judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah screw those people! How dare they, wanting their (constitutionally guaranteed) day in court to defend themselves! They should just accept the fact that they are guilty, and in exactly the same way as another 20,000 people and just fork over without so much complaining and fighting back. I mean, the nerve of people to actually expect due process and justice from our court system, sheesh! You are accused therefore guilty therefore fork over and stop being such a pain in the side of the courts! A-holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any case of this nature which involves 20,000 to 30,000 people is invalid on its face and can be summarily dismissed.
Why? Because the plaintiff does not have evidence which shows defendants sitting at their computers performing the acts of which they're accused. Plaintiff has -- at best -- log files, which might show certain actions which might be associated with their computer(s) which might be infringing. Plaintiff has no evidence whatsoever that shows that defendants were involved in any of that. Plaintiff is expecting a technically-illiterate court to accept the ludicrous supposition that log entries are equivalent to personal actions, even though anyone with even a minimal grounding this subject knows that's absurd.
What plaintiff is engaged in here isn't good-faith litigation in an attempt to seek justice. It's a shakedown, and it's predicated on intimidation (of defendants) and ignorance (of technology).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it's too expensive to sue non-commercial infringers, perhaps lawsuits should instead focus on commercial infringement. You know, what we were originally told these laws would be used for when they passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To a reasonable person, this argument would point to a problem with the original laws, no?
Abolish copyright in its current form, and these 'problems' go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What the lawyer points out (correctly) is that the costs involved in filing and fighting these lawsuits to their conclusion is high, too high in fact.
It's high enough that even if you win, you are unlikely to be able to collect the judgement. Consider the money spent to chase Jammie Thomas, and consider
even the lowest settlement doesn't pay the legal fees, and is still non-collectable.
So what, you have a right to sue and eventually win in court, but you have no right to recover money from expensive lawsuits initiated by your own volition.
In fact, copyright holders get a sweeter deal than other civil litigants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it's too expensive for him he should just stfu and go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean like how Evan Stone sent out subpoenas for Doe information to ISPs, even though he wasn't granted permission?
If that's your definition of justice, don't fault others when people realise that your definition of justice is based on "fuck all" procedure, never mind the laughable burden and quality of your proof. It's like trying to ban drug use; any possible sympathy for any legitimate concern you might have will be rendered useless when your approach is blatantly overreaching and collaterally damaging.
If you do want to speak justice, and treat corporations as individuals, then how about considering this - if one member of a corporation is found guilty of anything, punish the whole corporation. After all, if one part of the individual commits a crime (shoplifting), the whole individual gets the punishment (jail time). Why do you think that the corporation - which is considered an individual - should have their complete punishment denied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whaddya think?
[ 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: Re:
"ACS Law has already said it is moving out of the anti-piracy business, succumbing to financial pressure and threats against sole solicitor Andrew Crossley's family."
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/364987/acs-laws-file-sharing-case-news-roundup
While I think such threats are unacceptable, I think they show the fact that the anti-IP movement is gaining momentum. It's sentiment will continue to grow and IP maximists will have to deal with it because their lives are about to get a whole lot more difficult as they begin to have a much tougher time persuading lawmakers and law enforcement to pass and enforce their desired policies. The future is about to change for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those terrible people! ('ey 'ook err jearabs!)
Felony Interference with a Business Model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those terrible people! ('ey 'ook err jearabs!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly, I'm sure the lawyer just picked picked people at random and started adding names to his lawsuit, I'm sure ALL of them are innocent. Just like everyone in prison is innocent if you ask them. /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> 'innocent until proven guilty' thing
These are civil suits, not criminal trials. The presumption of innocence only applies to criminal charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The threshold isn't lower because the plaintiff might have a harder time offsetting his costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guilt isn't even a concept in a civil trial. No one is found guilty or not guilty. A civil trial is merely about allocating financial responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An IP address does not correspond to an individual person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup - that's exactly what he did (except he used a computerised random number generator to do it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here, let's take your idea to its logical conclusion: how about we KILL EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, because surely at least a few of them deserved capital punishment?
Oh, you don't like that idea? Well, it's just your idea after it grew up and took its vitamins. Either admit you're full of shit, or grow a spine and take your ideas to their logical conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm dying here... the irony. It's just too thick. Eyes watering. Gonna have to breath soon... but can't stop laughing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boilerplate Defense Uunfair to Boilerplate Lawsuits
It is really, really unfair for defendants to use boilerplate defense motions to defend against my massive boilerplate lawsuit campaign. It totally ruins my profit margin. Please make them stop.
k thnks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steele has come out from under his rock and filed and Amicus Brief supporting this "lawyer" or trying to keep the entire mass settlement scheme from being exposed fully.
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/10/18/trolls-in-panic-steele-hansmeier-files-an-amicu s-brief-trying-to-prevent-the-inevitable-downfall-of-the-us-trolls/
And the "lawyer" himself seems to be unable to understand the courts instructions and is in a panic.
https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/update-to-va-k-beech-case-311-cv-00469-jag-k- beech-inc-v-john-does-1-85/
Entertainment at its finest....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Virginia troll Wayne O'Bryan, who is in danger of being sanctioned by the court, wrote a response where he copy-pastes the same nonsense about copying and pasting motions.
There is an interesting development in his case, very-very interesting: http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/10/18/trolls-in-panic-steele-hansmeier-files-an-amicus-brief-tr ying-to-prevent-the-inevitable-downfall-of-the-us-trolls/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/copied-pleadings-show-theres-no-hon or-among-antipiracy-lawyers.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/antipiracy-lawyer s-pirate-from-other-antipiracy-lawyers.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/p2p-la w-firms-now-threatening-each-other.ars
Ah....memories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy may be sanctioned for frivolous conduct
http://ia600707.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.269663/gov.uscourts.vaed.269663.1 5.0.pdf
—
The Court ORDERS that a hearing will be held on Monday, October 24, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether the plaintiff, its attorney, or both are subject to sanctions for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, pursuant to the show cause Order entered on October 5, 2011.
—
Keep an eye on what happens next Monday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't wait
They want to believe the studios involved are just mislead by the big bad lawyers.
Piracy is not the problem, the problem is thinking in the age of the internet you can keep using the same business model you used for VHS tapes and consumers will not look for other content or easier ways to get content. If you charge a fair price, don't DRM it to high heaven, and meet the consumer half way the consumer will come to you. There will always be file sharing its how you react that makes it work for you or against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can't wait
Piracy is the problem, not because it has antyhing to do with out of date business models, but rather that it reflects a lack of morals in the population. If your business model depended on people having at least some moral idea of right and wrong, then you are sunk. People just don't care about anyone except themselves anymore. It's all "me, me, me!" and personal fulfillment for the individual only, regardless of the cost to others.
Trying to push this as a "producer problem" is like blaming the rape victim. It doesn't matter how short the skirt is, it's still wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can't wait
> the population
There's nothing inherently moral about copyright.
It's not equivalent to laws against murder or rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can't wait
Isn't that how all corporations work? Referring to the 2003 film "The Corporation", corporations have to operate like clinically-classified psychopaths in order to make a profit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_%28film%29) Sure, if corporations were run on the premise that people had a strong sense of morality (whatever that is), then yes, you'd be sunk - because competition would eat you alive. Corporations depend not on people having at least some moral idea of right and wrong; they depend on people being mindless consumers with no alternatives or options.
If this is the way corporations work, why fault consumers for disagreeing with how they work, or choosing to "join 'em" instead of "beat 'em" and act in same manner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can't wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
The only good analysis is an analysis of the dynamics. No doubt half a year ago no judge ruled that joinders were improper. Now it's a different picture.
Half a year ago it was unbelievable that any of you trolls would be sanctioned. What we have now? We'll see in a couple of weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
A couple of cases recently dismissed based on improper joinder:
2 cases Paul Grewal 5/31
0-cv-04381-CW Kaudia Wilken 8/11
11-cv-01738-SI Susan Illston 8/19
11-cv-02533-DMR Donna Ryu 07/15
10-cv-04472-BZ Bernard Zimmerman 9/6
3 cases 10/5 John Gibney
How is that "universal"???? And that's just a 10-min googling, I'm sure there are much more there.
And what about those cases when you trolls sensed the heat and dismissed your cases just before a judge was about to spank you?
And how many cases are dismissed because you trolls failed to serve defendants (so no joinder argument was even started)?
And how many your troll cases were dead upon arrival because of improper jonider (Shadur, Baker etc)?
You are full of shit, Steele, go away, hide under the bridge before you get disbarred.
"mumbo jumbo, chicken gumbo"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
If so, where's your homework?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
Been following these cases closely, and nearly all show joinder is improper. There are a *few* that are the reverse, but it's certainly not "universally" permitted. In almost every case we've seen, all defendants save one have been severed.
What makes you claim that it's universally permitted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
Who sued by day and by night,
But it went bad and backfired,
and the Judge got quite tired,
And now he's in deep legal shite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]