Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case
from the that's-not-going-to-go-over-well dept
While not everyone agrees with the EFF's position on various issues, the group is still pretty widely respected in legal circles. So it seems a bit odd that a copyright troll has apparently decided to spend an entire filing trying to block the EFF from filing an amicus brief ("friend of the court" brief) in one of its cases, attacking the EFF directly as some sort of "radical" and "quasi-anarchist" group. The lawsuit involves Prenda Law, who took over the cases formerly brought by divorce lawyer-turned-copyright troll John Steele. I hadn't been following it closely, but sometime last year, Steele apparently handed his practice off to Prenda -- though there have been some questions over whether or not Steele is still involved and to the legality of the transfers.Either way, Prenda clearly does not like the EFF and basically spends the entire filing insulting the organization based on next to nothing. A few examples:
- The EFF is opposed to any effective enforcement and litigation of intellectual property law, which seeks a platform by which to advance its agenda.
- The EFF is an anti-intellectual property group, which appears in the present action merely in order to obstruct or delay Plaintiff’s copyright infringement litigation.
- The EFF’s crusade continues, despite their lack of success, not out of any concern for proper application of the law.
- The EFF Is a Radical Special-Interest Group Generally Opposed to Any Effective Or Efficient Enforcement of Intellectual Property Law
- This mission is radical, quasi-anarchist, and intrinsically opposed to any effective enforcement of intellectual property rights.
- their history of advocating lawlessness on the Internet suggests that their purpose is not to help this Court administer justice, but to hinder and obstruct the process
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, copyright trolling, john steele, lawsuits
Companies: eff, prenda
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ 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:
Even you should know that, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes an AC become average? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of averageness, AC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope politicians are happy to have used this technique so often that basically everyone uses it for mudslinging now.
Yet another example of "when you do something stupid, and do it publicly, other people are going to copy it". On a bigger scale, I really hope politicians become more aware of idiocy like this, instead of "let's overreact again and let other people use it to their advantage".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zZzZz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyways, I wonder if a boy that designed and manufactured his own long board could get in trouble for "stealing" drawings from someone else, when I saw the drawings on the board, alarm bells started ringing in my head, is that drawing original? was inspired by something else? would anybody sue children trying to stop them from using those in their toys?
Also I saw the iModela 3D Printer which is a mini CNC router that can carve objects. In the table I was seeing a lot of adorable characters produced by it.
Would this people have the balls to sue people for producing illegal physical objects?
We are living in interesting times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I miss a new acronym announcement? All those capitalized letter scream out "Acronym", but RSIGGOAEEEIPL doesn't exactly roll off the tongue....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do they believe in Santa Claus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Daniel Jackson: "We have seen that a lot of legends and folklore have a-a strong basis in fact. Avalon, Atlantis..."
Teal'c: "The Easter Bunny."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd mention Mike and the TD shills but it's far too obvious by now ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd mention Mike and the TD shills but it's far too obvious by now ;)"
I'd mention Ninja and the MPAA/RIAA shills but it's far too obvious by now ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radical Special Interest Groups and Rogue Web Sites
Google, YouTube == Rogue Web Site
Yeah, that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Radical Special Interest Groups and Rogue Web Sites
if it's not supporting our interests, it's the devil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/p2p-porn-lawyer-charged-with-felony.ars
Anoth er copyright troll lawyer was hit with felony charges the other day, for not doing his work related to his previous family law practices and for forging a judge's signature(!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretenda (nope thats how I read it cope) is working in Florida so they can take advantage of the state law for a Writ of Pure Discovery. This allows them to ignore the rules about joinder and other things that are settled in the trolling cases. They often pile multiple works into 1 cheap $350 filing, where in the Federal Courts each one needs to be filed for each film.
SJD seems pretty sure that Steele is still connected to Pretenda, but they are currently getting their teeth kicked in.
A case was filed against Hard Drive for their shakedown, and asks the court among other things to rule that porn does not further the arts and can not be copyrighted.
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/01/31/defendant-strikes-back-sues-hard-drive-prod uctions-and-steeles-extortion-outfit/
I hope SJD has time to stop by and shed more light on this. Steele isn't one of my main targets so I'm not as up to date as I could be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As it always happens, I have very urgent errands that will keep me afk for the most of the day :( And I got to go now.
In short: yes, I do believe that Steele is still active and is actually behind all the Prenda operations, including this brief, he always was, but since he has been caught replying for Duffy, he is more cautious.
Actually it would be fun to out Steele with some more solid proof (and some of my readers claim that Steele is not in Florida, but never left Chicago), and I'm sure that we can do it soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://current.com/entertainment/movies/93610130_copyright-troll-john-steele-moves-into-pr endas-suite-despite-retiring-wanted-to-ask-him-about-it-but-prenda-intentionally-broke-its-own-conta ct-form-wtf-these-are-ip-lawyers.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/give-to-eff-today-and-your-do.html
It should be no surprise that they're big friends of whatever Big Search wants. Two days ago they applauded -- their word-- Google's newly found clarity. In other words, the EFF doesn't care when Big Search stomps all over your privacy as long as they're clear enough in your disclosure.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-google%27s-privacy-policy
Is this a proper way for a "charity" to be spending it's money? They're essentially a lobbying organization that goes after anyone who might threaten Big Search's business model.
So go ahead. Rail against the Big Media companies. They're pikers compared to the billionaires at Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
What have I told you about smoking up before you post here.
0/10 - Its not a paywall, its not Big Media, and your a moron.
Read the article and at least try to be relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
No! Let's be kind and say Flaccid Media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
The answer's obvious, even to you, boy.
Don't use "Big Search"!
If you don't like the show, change the channel.
As Bugs Bunny would say: "Wotta maroon!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
I think MegaUpload's staff might disagree with you, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
Yeah, get your pitchfork! Down with Big Civil Rights! Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
They don't applaud anything other than the clarity of Google's follow-up to the letter from congress and even when they do that they point out how ridiculous it is that it took that kind of action to get said clarity: "This is a great deal clearer than their original notification, so we applaud that. It’s unfortunate that it took a letter from Congress to get them to give the public straightforward explanations."
Then there's an entire paragraph about ways to keep your data separate in spite of the new policy ending with: "To help users who wish to keep separate accounts, Google should make the process simpler and easier."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
In other words, the EFF doesn't care when Big Search stomps all over your privacy as long as they're clear enough in your disclosure.
So what if they scolded them about the letter from Congress. When Google became clear enough for them, they started applauding.
If they cared about Google's privacy invasions in the same way that they cared about non-funders, they would be doing more than just offering the tepid solution of breaking up your non-private data into a few inconvenient parts. They would be asking why Google was keeping ANY of the data.
The rest of the press release is just beating Google with a wet noodle. Look how they treat other non-funding groups. Then compare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
They don't have to ask why Google is keeping the data because they know, just like you know and I know because Google says why they keep the data.
Maybe they treat Google different than 'non-funding groups' because Google acts different from the groups they treat differently and that same difference is what leads Google to fund them in the first place. Can you name a single issue where they sided with Google against the public interest? If repeating the word 'applaud' from an article clearly not in favor of the direction Google is heading is the best you can do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
I'll let the EFF speak for themselves.
"When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990—well before the Internet was on most people's radar—and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
I think "bob" might actually be an acronym for Big Organizations = Bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
"It should be no surprise that they're big friends of whatever Big Search wants. Two days ago they applauded -- their word-- Google's newly found clarity. In other words, the EFF doesn't care when Big Search stomps all over your privacy as long as they're clear enough in your disclosure." (emphasis mine)
You say they applauded as if what they were applauding was the new privacy policy when nothing could be further from the truth and that fact is clearly evident in the links you yourself are providing, I guess assuming no one will actually read them. The EFF did not applaud the newly found clarity in the privacy policy. They called it "vague" and said "Google’s original explanation left much to be desired." They lambasted Google for waiting for a letter from congress before making they changes clear: "It Shouldn't Take a Letter from Congress for Google to Give Straight Answers About Privacy Policy Changes" and they only applauded the clarity of the updated statements, which are clear, and then went on to point out how bad the updates could be for users and why. If the EFF really 'doesn't care' when Google stomps all over privacy then why do they devote so much of the article you link to explaining how users can restore the separation of data after the Google privacy policy update? If they really don't care then why is the rest of the article you linked the EFF mocking Google for not being more straightforward more quickly? No, you're more interested in making up a narrative you know to be false based on the materials you provide as if they back up your position. The only other alternative is that you didn't read the article (carelessness) or didn't understand it (stupidity).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
You're slipping, bud...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
EFF created: 1990
Google created: 1998
The only thing that surprises me why the hell they've been waiting for 8 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
I debunked this myth days ago.
That you are still repeating this utter lie is shameful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Big content: face meet palm :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/18/brin-wikipedia-grant/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No no, I know... Senator Wyden paid Reddit $2,000,000 so that they would tell Google to tell Wikipedia to tell Anonymous to black out everything for a day.
What am I saying! It was Dodd who paid Congress to black out Wikipedia who then bought Google who then pirated Reddit who then hacked Anonymous who then sold the Internet to North Korea!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I strenuously object!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when we have never had an example of one to oppose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, the EFF has hurt themselves, and are now are on par with the Moral Majority and Parents Television Council. They are not longer fighting for what is right, they are fighting for what they want, no matter how many people are hurt by it.
They had a good run... but just like Lessig's first amendment arguments about copyright, they are tired and less and less relevant.
[ 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:
and here's another, again from today, where the EFF commits to trying to help content creators: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/megauploads-innocent-users-deserve-their-data-back
and here's another, this time from last week, where the EFF again is helping creators: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/help-protect-gadget-jailbreakers-and-video-artists-legal-threats
I'm sure you've already written them off in some crazy narrative about piracy, hardware, and search where anything less than maximalism on copyright is part of some vast conspiracy instead of simply being against the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a thought: maybe those "content creators" (in reality: corporations that leech off of artists) should stop trying to do away with civil rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chicken or the egg?
You really think that the entertainment trade groups have given them warm fuzzies and puppy dog hugs for standing against them in support of little guy's rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a response to Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 8:03am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...That filing of yours was very entertaining (like watching a handicapped kid pretend to be a lawyer)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First person to actually be served with a summons over John's antics is one of his own clients. Gotta love it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its a good thing you don’t allow posts telling your sheeple reading this stupid site that all your efforts have netted zero success to date. Can’t wait to read more of your stupid shit (always enjoy a good laugh) and having it kicked out (as usual). Maybe you should just spend more time in your mom’s basement jerking off and less time embarrassing yourself in court.
(To preempt any doubts that this is just a forum troll and not the famous pirate-hunter, believe me - it's him)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For all those questioning EFF's commitment to having IP laws that make sense. Read the whole bio....take your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ss character gogogogogogogogoogogogogo. Could probably get whatever the legel equiv of unsporting conduct too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As the children are underage, that means(I think) any judgement would be levied against the parents, hence forcing them to either defend the same thing they've been suing other people for, and thereby destroying their trollish careers, or lose the case and go broke paying the fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]