RIAA Lobbyist-Turned-Judge: ISPs Deserve Copyright Trolls For Not Stopping Infringement

from the activist-judges? dept

Fri, Aug 24th 2012 10:19am — Mike Masnick

We've written about judge Beryl Howell a few times before. She's the recently-appointed judge whose immediate job prior to that was as a lobbyist for the RIAA. Before that, she worked for the Judiciary Committee and was apparently a key player in drafting the DMCA. It seems pretty damn clear that she holds a strong viewpoint on the nature of copyright law and copyright infringement -- but that hasn't stopped her from taking those cases, even when her rulings appear to be exactly the opposite of nearly every other court. For example, while most courts have been throwing out copyright trolling lawsuits for improper joinder, Judge Howell had no problem with the practice and ordered various ISPs to cough up names based solely on IP addresses.

The ISPs asked her to reconsider back in April, noting how pretty much every other court has ruled otherwise. The specific case involves well known trolling firm, Prenda Law, which is connected to one of the larger jokes in the copyright trolling business: John Steele. Steele's lawsuits have been laughed out of court and he's even been told to stop filing these bogus lawsuits, where the clear purpose is to use the judicial system as a weapon to force people (innocent or guilty) to pay up.

But apparently copyright trolls have found a friend in Judge Howell, who not only is welcoming them with open arms, but seems to be using these trolling cases to further the goals of her former employer. She's released her decision on the motion to quash the subpoenas, and it's basically a 42-page screed on the evils of infringement and how ISPs should be responsible for stopping piracy (much of which has absolutely nothing to do with the case at all). The only nod towards the other side seems to be a weak acknowledgement that "the Court recognizes that other Judges on this Court have reached different conclusions with respect to the legal questions posed by the ISPs" and thus she's agreed to stay her decision until the appeals court weighs in.

But she makes sure to get her arguments in for the appeals court to read, and it certainly feels like she reverted back to "lobbyist" mode, rather than "impartial judge."

She kicks off the polemic with a grand history of the DMCA, and how the task force that was created to write the DMCA originally wanted to pin liability on ISPs for actions done by their users. And while she admits that eventually the DMCA did include such liability protection, it seems clear she would have preferred it the other way. She then highlights the important court decisions from a decade ago, against the RIAA and in favor of Verizon and Charter, that ruled that the RIAA could not demand ISPs identify users without actually filing a lawsuit against them first. This, of course, was a basic recognition of basic privacy rights, and the fact that if you are going to expose someone's private info, you ought to at least file a lawsuit against them first. But, in the world of Judge Howell, apparently this was a bad decision. She approvingly cites the dissent in one of the key cases, claiming this somehow "unraveled" the balance struck in the DMCA. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. That's a total rewrite of reality.

She also seems to suggest -- contrary to the very law she was just citing -- that ISPs have some sort of responsibility to "deter infringing activity."

Other than barebones references from two of the four movant ISPs that these subpoenas impose “a substantial administrative burden,” the ISPs fail to present any witness or other evidentiary detail to demonstrate a burden to the Court, let alone what steps the ISPs are or could be taking to deter infringing activity on their networks to reduce any burden subpoena compliance engenders.

This is a fascinating interpretation of the law. Basically, she says that if they're going to claim that copyright trolls are showing up with tens of thousands of IP addresses, demanding they all be identified, then that means they also have to show that they've taken "steps" to "deter infringing activity on their networks." In other words, if it's burdensome to the ISPs to identify users to copyright trolls, it's their own damn fault for failing to stop infringement. Seriously.

Oh, and then she flat out misrepresents the GAO's findings from a few years ago that found that all of the entertainment industry's claims about the impact of "piracy" were complete bunk. Yet, in the world of former RIAA lobbyist Judge Howell, the GAO actually came to the opposite conclusion:

The plaintiff’s estimates regarding the amount of online infringing activity and the economic harm resulting from such activity is corroborated by a recent government report. See U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-10- 423, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: OBSERVATIONS ON EFFORTS TO QUANTIFY THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF COUNTERFEIT AND PIRATED GOODS 23-24 (2010) (estimating that U.S. economy annually loses $58 billion, over 370,000 jobs, and $2.6 billion in tax revenue as a result of copyright infringement over the Internet) (citing Stephen E. Siwek, THE TRUE COST OF COPYRIGHT INDUSTRY PIRACY TO THE U.S. ECONOMY, Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), IPI Center for Technology Freedom, Policy Report 189 (Oct. 2007)).

Uh, no. Go read what the GAO actually said. While the report does cite Siwek's widely discredited report of $58 billion in losses -- it does so only to say that Siwek did these studies and they claimed to show "ripple effects" beyond the immediate industry. However, most of the rest of the report highlights how those numbers, and others like them, cannot be substantiated and that most experts they spoke to found the methodology questionable. Furthermore, the report specifically calls out the reports that only try to calculate the negative impact, without even considering any possible positive impact, as being clearly misleading. That describe's Siwek's research exactly. Specifically, the GAO report noted:

Since there is an absence of data concerning these potential effects, the net effect cannot be determined with any certainty

In other words, sorry, but the Siwek claim of $58 billion is hogwash. And yet Judge Howell pretends that the GAO has blessed this number.

The ruling goes on to defend its position, but basically says that there is no burden on the ISPs and if there is one, it's their fault. It also says that there is no issue of improper joinder to consider until after everyone's identified (at which point it won't matter, since that's all the copyright trolls want, so they can then shift to demanding cash from them). The whole thing, once again, raises significant questions about why a judge who had such a vested stake in pushing for an extreme maximalist view of copyright now gets to judge cases where key decisions are made about the interpretation of copyright law.

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 trolls, dmca, isps, joinder, liability
Companies: riaa

138 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Interestingly, I would say that a person who was so key in writing DMCA might know a thing or two about it's intended application.

She was one of many parties involved in drafting the DMCA. She definitely has a very good idea what she wanted it to say, but nobody involved got everything they wanted out of the DMCA. She certainly isn't entitled to decide after the fact, against the clear letter of the law and the overwhelming concensus of many other courts, that it actually says what she wants.

—Kelledin

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:21am

Joy, now we're going to have this asshat making rulings that competent judges will have to clean up down the line.

Can't wait until she mandates that deep-packet inspection from ISPs is mandatory to stop infringement and protect the freedumb children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:27am

If the music industry cannot stop infringement without outside help, they should not be in business.

It is NOT the responsibility of the tech industry to act in the interests of a separate industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  "If the music industry cannot stop infringement without outside help, they should not be in business."
  
  We need to call them the gate keeper industry. The music business is fine and doing very very well right now. The gate keeper industries that are trying so hard to keep their income that they are willing to sue, humiliate, and bankrupt their customers to keep control of what they have.
  
  The harder they fight the farther they'll fall.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    True, I just get so riled up when I read stuff like this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:35am

Luddites who simply eschew technology I can almost admire. Luddites who legislate it (from the bench!) are damn scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  "This scares me. Nobody can have it."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attorney, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:39am

Where is this court? This polemic makes it clear she should have recused herself. A bar complaint is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benjo (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  This story should bother most Americans that believe (even weakly) in the Justice system. Wish there was something to do about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well Benjamin Franklin spent a few decades in England fighting the legal system over similar mindsets, except it was in regards to property/land rights and not copyright. When he'd had enough, he got together with a few dozen other "miscreants" (like those rabble rousers Jefferson and Washington) and wrote a document telling the British government where to go and how to get there.
    
    I think we're coming up on that point in history where people are going to start giving the same advice to the US government.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Donnicton, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  I believe some of the other linked articles state it, but it's in D.C.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:39am

Interestingly, I would say that a person who was so key in writing DMCA might know a thing or two about it's intended application. The judge seems to suggest that the ISPs and service providers weren't suppose to get a blanket free pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kelledin (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:48am
  
  Re:
  Interestingly, I would say that a person who was so key in writing DMCA might know a thing or two about it's intended application.
  
  She was one of many parties involved in drafting the DMCA. She definitely has a very good idea what she wanted it to say, but nobody involved got everything they wanted out of the DMCA. She certainly isn't entitled to decide after the fact, against the clear letter of the law and the overwhelming concensus of many other courts, that it actually says what she wants.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    So she has less understanding of DMCA than, say, EFF has of a secret trade negotiation, but you are willing to accept their infographic as good and this as bad?
    
    Got it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kevin H (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are comparing two complex and different things and simplify it to a single point. The issue is far too complex for such an analysis.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Machin Shin (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm not even sure what to think or say about that. I have been sitting here reading this and trying to get my mind to comprehend your logic.
      
      Your actually trying to support a judge that is twisting laws to make them into what she WANTS them to be not what they REALLY ARE. Yes, she was part of writing the laws, but she was far from the only person and she did not get her way when writing it and is now pretending she did.
      
      To make this argument you bring up that bull shit trade agreement that is being treated like some major secrete vital to national security. Well fuck you very much, laws should NEVER be make in secrete if it is going to affect me I should have the right to see it and voice my opinion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Your actually trying to support a judge that is twisting laws to make them into what she WANTS them to be not what they REALLY ARE."
        
        This presumes that YOU know what the laws really are better than a federal judge involved in the law's drafting.
        
        I think that's a questionable presumption (especially if you're relying on Mr. Masnick's descriptions of the law to form your opinion).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or we could just read the text of the law and observe a decade of case law on the subject.
        
        You're not seriously arguing that she's ruling with the existing case law on joinder cases are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe the prior commenter was talking about the DMCA (i.e., "she was part of writing the laws").
        
        I don't think Howell had any part in writing the FRCP, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JEDIDIAH, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:45pm
        
        Running off the rails.
        Unless she was a sitting legislator, her opinion on the matter is worth as much a soiled bit of toilet paper. Any "original intent" argument needs to come from the actual source rather than some industry shill.
        
        She was never a congressman or senator.
        
        She has no "inside insight". She's just another obnoxious judge trying to tell other people what they were thinking when they were doing the real work.
        
        She's not entirely unique in this regard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Running off the rails.
        While her intent does not matter, that doesn't mean that her experience affords no insight on Congressional intent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Running off the rails.
        Her experience doesn't excuse her for contradicting the law and the facts as they are written either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kelledin (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This isn't a matter of her not understanding the intent of the DMCA. It's a matter of her understanding it quite well, then trying to misrepresent it to fit an agenda.
      
      The DMCA was written by a group of legislators, of which she was only one part. The letter of the DMCA clearly reflects the group's intent in this case, and the group as a whole clearly sided against her on this issue. You (and she) need to grow up and live with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JEDIDIAH, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:46pm
        
        Huh?
        She was a legislator? I thought that she was at best someone's errand girl.
        
        If anything, I thought that she was a lobbyist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Some Anonymous Guy (profile), 25 Aug 2012 @ 1:14am
        
        Re: Huh?
        She went to work lobbying for the RIAA for the better part of 6 years while still working for the federal government prior to being nominated for her seat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And yet, that's not a conflict of interest the size of Texas. That's an...interesting...view of conflict of interest. You lobby for a law, then you become a judge and seem to lose all impartiality in one area of cases? There's a simple solution for this....don't let them preside in cases where they were involved in writing the law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your concern for the EFF's ability to understand a secret trade negotiation is admirable. I agree, we should end the practice of negotiating trade agreements in secret.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 26 Aug 2012 @ 5:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So she has less understanding of DMCA than, say, EFF has of a secret trade negotiation
      
      Says who? You? Did you read the leaked drafts and really came to this conclusion?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  Hey Mike,
  
  Why was this comment censored? I don't understand why you tolerate your readers censoring posts they don't like.
  
  And before you all chime in how reporting a post is not censorship, of course it is. Under Mike's own extremely broad definition of the term, it is. If Google removing autocomplete suggestions from its search engine is censorship (even though the results still showed when searched for), then hiding someone's post is censorship. You're hiding it away from view, making it more difficult to access. Just like Google.
  
  Are you all really that immature that you can't even stand to see a dissenting view? And Mike, why don't you discourage this sort of behavior? Shame on you. You should encourage folks to speak their minds, not hide away anybody's thoughts that happen to be different than the TD norm. I don't get it. I thought you guys believed in freedom of expression, yet all I see, day after day, is any expression that you disagree with gets reported and censored.
  
  I'm sure this post will also get censored. God forbid anyone say anything that someone else doesn't like. If you all really believed in free speech, you wouldn't hide other views away. You'd counter those views with your own views. You'd fight words with words. Instead, there's this whole "report it, I don't like what they're saying" attitude. That attitude comes from the top down, Mike. Again, shame on you for fostering an environment that is so incredibly hateful of anyone who says anything that isn't popular. I don't think you practice what you preach.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Benjo (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    It says this comment was flagged by the community. It hasn't been removed, and most people (myself included) choose to expand and read them. Even though the comments themselves are irritating.
    
    Keep fighting for your rights buddy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, flagged and hidden away. What's the point of reporting dissenting views? It's immaturity at its worst. And why doesn't Mike discourage such behavior? I can't imagine letting people censor posts in the first place, and then not say anything when that feature is abused. Why does he tolerate it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Benjo (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even if its a shill trying to derail your conversation and the entire topic by making fallacy filled arguments?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "present minority views" = "derail your conversation"
        
        Nice. Stay classy, Techdirt commentariat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice discussion tactics, certainly fits the bill of someone with a low maturity level.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sorry, is calling out BS not allowed here? Wait, don't answer that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Calling out BS is what people did when they reported the post laden with wall to wall fallacies so I'd have to say that yes, it's very much allowed here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Calling out is great. Flagging is BS.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Techdirt commentariat."
        
        This calling out BS? You're obviously trying to goad someone into a fight.
        
        That or you're really butthurt your comments got flagged.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        None of my comments have been flagged (as far as I know).
        
        I don't understand what is inflammatory about referring to to the Techdirt commentariat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Argument from authority is a fallacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed. How is that relevant?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The comment you're defending is an argument from authority. Fallacies derail the conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Fallacies derail the conversation."
        
        If only pure, perfect comments without any logical leaps, gaps, or fallacies went unflagged, there wouldn't be much of a conversation to take part in.
        
        Flagging derails the conversation much more than hiding anything that is logically imperfect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 6:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All you people do is accuse us, attack us, and skew the debate. Flagging is a service to anyone that doesn't want their eyes assaulted by your verbal diarrhea. It's not censorship. In fact, the flagging of the comment actually draws attention to it. I would think an attention whore such as yourself would be ecstatic with joy for all the response you're getting. But you go ahead and keep pretending it's censorship so you can continue to make false accusations of hypocrisy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who, exactly, are "you people?"
        
        I don't know if you are interested in learning, or just interested in reinforcing preconceived notions.
        
        If you are legitimately interested in learning, I would suggest not treating everyone who disagrees with your opinion as falling into some monolithic "other" category and shares all the same opinions/attributes/etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's a consdierabel difference between "differing views" and "censorship".
        
        HINT: Censorship implies an appeal to authority. The pink text says "This comment was flagged by the community. click to show it."
        
        Stop pretending you're persecuted and get on with life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Censored!? You're kidding with that crap, yes?
        
        I can read it. I don't know what your problem is.
        
        Flagged and collapsed and expandable if desired is pretty far from censorship.
        
        I don't know if you visit other sites or not, nor do I care, but this site is the epitome of one that is free and "open".
        
        case in point == "fuck" or TechDirt. is a bunch of puss ass freetards or "some US judges suck sometimes". Put that shit up on msnbc or a cnn and see what comes of it.
        
        Censored. Get a grip maximalist whore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By your logic everything google returns in search results is 'hidden' because you have to click on it again in order to read the full text...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This post contains an imperfect analogy. Flag?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Aug 2012 @ 5:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good luck with that. Maybe people will join in once you explain the flaw in the analogy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws (profile), 26 Aug 2012 @ 5:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's immaturity at its worst
        
        Nope. That's you whining about being "censored" while everyone clearly understands you're simply flagged for being a jackass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Benjo (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In fact I'd almost say that flagging/reporting without removing the post brings more attention to the comment then it would receive normally, as they are clearly distinctive and stand out.
      
      It's almost like flagging it brings it to the top of search results, so your auto-complete comparison is IN MY OPINION flawed.
      
      And now I'll stop before anyone points out how I'm being swept in to an argument with a likely troll. There's no argument like no argument.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Zakida Paul (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    "So she has less understanding of DMCA than, say, EFF has of a secret trade negotiation, but you are willing to accept their infographic as good and this as bad?
    
    Got it."
    
    If this was you, and people saw that you were just baiting others into a sarcastic strawman, then maybe you deserve the "censorship."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    So when it happens here you are against it, but when it happens elsewhere via DMCA takedowns you vehemently support it. Got it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "So when it happens here you are against it, but when it happens elsewhere via DMCA takedowns you vehemently support it. Got it."
      
      Which is exactly why they are called hypocrites. He's one of the same ones applauding decisions and actions to seize websites, violate due process, and go after these terrorists... I mean pirates... at any cost. Even if it means stripping away the rights of citizens.
      
      BUT HEAVEN FORBID ONE TROLL/SHILL TYPE AC HAVE HIS COMMENT FLAGGED BY THE COMMUNITY! CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT MIKE! STOP ENCOURAGING THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR!
      
      The levels of hypocrisy they bring here are so high I'm surprised we all haven't gagged from the irony of some of the comments they have the nerve to post.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    See how mad they get when they don't have control.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, it's a pretty good indication of "the community's" maturity level.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or their ability to spot a spurious argument and mark it as not worth reading but hey, why address that when you can argue ad hom?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If that were the case, a *lot* more comments would get flagged.
        
        Don't get me wrong, there are some intelligent regular commenters that share the majority opinion here, but there are also a lot of numbskulls that never seem to get their nonsensical comments flagged (which just so happen to support the majority view).
        
        As for your "ad hom" comment, I am addressing the subject matter of the prior commenter's comment: flagging dissenting comments by the community.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, you're 'addressing it' by making an argument to the man by impugning their maturity level instead of, you know, actually addressing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think my comment makes a valid point. It is an immature person who would want to hide a comment he disagrees with, and would only want to hide those comments he disagrees with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Aug 2012 @ 5:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So enjoy your maturity while us childs keep on flaggin moronic comments. Have fun.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fair enough on the spurious arguments not being equally flagged though. That's certainly true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree that the post was not deserving of being hidden. But since the copyright maximalists don't think that collateral damage is a big deal when it's caused by overbroad copyright laws (and it's more severe), I'm not going to lose much sleep over the occasionally misflagged comment here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's getting reported by the community because it's an argument from authority that's arguing from imaginary authority. Plenty of thoughts that happen to be different than the TD norm don't get reported.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's getting reported by the community because it's an argument from authority that's arguing from imaginary authority. Plenty of thoughts that happen to be different than the TD norm don't get reported.
      
      If you think someone's point is incorrect, respond with your reasons why. Hiding posts that you don't think are correct is just immature and idiotic. If you all really valued free speech, you'd recognize the value of dissenting views. There was no good reason to censor that post, and the fact that Mike provides the means for censorship and fosters an environment where posts like that are hidden from view is just disgusting.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I did respond with my reasons why and reporting posts I feel derail the conversation because they're pure fallacy is neither immature nor idiotic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and I can't help but notice you ignored my reasons why and changed the subject rather immediately to other matters...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Someone responded to your point and you responded with a strawman.
        
        Great way to facilitate discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The comment is not censored. If the comment were deleted entirely, that would be censorship. But the comment is still up and can be expanded and read by anyone; it's just hidden by default for the benefit of those who don't want to deal with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 6:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe Mike should just change the whole text of the flagged comment to light pink instead, or even white, instead of collapsing it. :)
      
      I still think it sounds like people getting butthurt because so many people dare disagree with them. Next thing, they'll be complaining that they are being 'censored' by not getting Insightfuls, Funnies, or First/Last Words!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Evidence suggests this dichotomy you've presented between "counter those views with your own views" "fight words with words" and "report it" is totally false but don't let that slow you down or anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Evidence suggests this dichotomy you've presented between "counter those views with your own views" "fight words with words" and "report it" is totally false but don't let that slow you down or anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Why was this comment censored? I don't understand why you tolerate your readers censoring posts they don't like.
    
    While I don't necessarily agree that this equates to censorship (it's flagged by the community as a whole, not anyone in authority and it's still available with a click), I will agree that the report button shouldn't be used on dissenting comments simply because they are different views.
    
    Mike - I have a thought on this - is there some way to place an "unreport" button on the flagged comments that would be available to logged-in users that could bring the comment back after x amount of clicks? I think making it only available to logged-in users would be required to curb abuse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's a good idea.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 7:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The threshold to activate needs to be raised.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RD, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I'm sure this post will also get censored. God forbid anyone say anything that someone else doesn't like. If you all really believed in free speech, you wouldn't hide other views away. You'd counter those views with your own views. You'd fight words with words."
    
    Yes, so you can wave your hand dismissively when those counter arguments challenge your views, fail to answer any of them, fail to respond with specifics or citations, and then deflect any other criticism by claiming "censorship" and "free speech" are being used against you.
    
    "Instead, there's this whole "report it, I don't like what they're saying" attitude."
    
    Yes...so? In case you haven't noticed, these posts are all opinion. People aren't required to like what you are saying, agree with it, or even give you . They like what they like, they comment how they feel. Don't like it? Can't handle the criticism? Fine, feel free to find a discussion more to your liking, where you won't get called out (or "reported") for your specious, misleading, and incorrect comments. The bootlickers there will treat you how you feel you should have your ass kissed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Archillies, 24 Aug 2012 @ 9:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Is there a point to your missive? Preferably one that pertains to the subject at hand which is the court ruling?
      
      *sigh* Bottom feeders....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Monkey (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  ...and your fallacy is :The Strawman
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  First sentence: Argument from authority.
  
  Her part in writting the DMCA does not mean her opinions or statements about it are accurate. It's also worth noting that the intended application is completely irrelevant in 2012. What's relevant now is what the text actually says and how that has been interpreted legally over the last decade.
  
  Second sentence: Straw man.
  
  No one argued that ISPs and service providers were supposed to get a blanket free pass under the DMCA. The DMCA has a massive number of strings attached to safe harbor provisions of which we're well aware. The issue is that you can't ignore the safe harbor provisions when it suits you, even if you're a judge. Especially then actually.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:57pm
  
  Re:
  I'd like to highlight one itty bitty tiny problem I didn't see touched on.
  
  The cases brought by the Copyright Trolls have NOTHING to do with the DMCA, in fact the trolls have a history of not working in their client's "best" interests by filing DMCA notices because that would dry up the gravy train.
  
  So now that your done fapping to the DMCA, would you like to actually discuss the Copyright Law this Judge is ignoring?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:42am

Get some, Judge Howell! I *love* this judge! She gets it. Can't wait for the appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:46am

anyone able to find out who put her forward to be a judge? anyone able to report her for not being impartial, but for using her position to not only rule in favour of her former employers but also for ruling on issues that she was once a part of and has preconceived ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  anyone able to find out who put her forward to be a judge?
  
  Senator Pat Leahy. Author of PIPA.
  
  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464057751&slreturn=20120724134947
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kevin H (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Doesn't this have the odor of "regulatory capture" that you are so fond of pointing out?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    You see, the fact that she's there stunk heavily. Now that you mentioned her supporter it rotten eggs with rotten cabbage smell like perfume when compared to this. Obviously no1 in the Govt seems to notice the smell.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kelledin (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  Officially? Nominated by Obama, confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Somebody with some White House influence might have made the initial suggestion behind the scenes...
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_A._Howell
  
  In any event, with the apparent blatant disregard for the letter of the law AND misrepresentation of the GAO report, it seems to me she just crossed the line from unintentional bias to a deliberate attempt to subvert justice from the bench.
  
  I suspect whatever higher-level judge ends up calling her out on this will be too polite to ascribe her fuck-up to anything worse than accidental misreading. Malice vs. incompetence and all that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Some Anonymous Guy (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't understand how you can appoint a former lobbyist for what's essentially a massive union with a boatload of cash to a federal judgeship in the District of Columbia. She is hardly impartial. She worked for Leahy (Democrat), who's a friend of Obama (Democrat), so one would surmise that her nomination and and subsequent Senate confirmation was political in nature. No lobbyists in my administration says Obama. So what does he do? Hires a bunch of lobbyists to work for him and nominates a former lobbyist to a seat on the DDC.
    
    Based on her, well, outspokenness on the topic of copyright infringement and all of her decisions basically align with her comments, not to mention her blatant misrepresentation of the GAO report, only an idiot would call her impartial. I don't understand why she makes these asinine rulings that will end up being kicked to the curb by an appeals court...judges (except Shadur who's overturned once a year by the Seventh) HATE that so they usually err on the side of caution and don't make any radical rulings. Howell's JD came from Columbia University so she isn't an idiot by any means. Have you read her ruling in the AF Holdings v. John Does 1-1058 (1:12-cv-00048) case? It's ridiculous. She says basically says IP geolocation is useless in court, that joinder of Does is "efficient" (what the hell?), and basically stated that Prenda/other trolls can do whatever the hell they want as long as they have an IP address. Who cares if they live outside the jurisdiction of the District which is like 99.999% of the IPs. She has clearly stated that she is well aware that while these cases continue, trolls extort money from frightened Does...and that it's not her problem.
    
    Between this ruling, Judge Wilkins' rulings contradicting, well, all of Howell's rulings in various cases, Facciola's ruling in the HDP v. Does 1-1495 case directly contradicting his own ruling only 13 days earlier in the West Coast Productions case, and Judge Walton's order to name or dismiss which relied on Facciola's West Coast ruling, there's a GIANT split in the Court. The issues raised causing the split will be decided by a higher court and that ruling will carry great weight and district judges will likely use it as precedent.
    
    Howell, through her decision, has certified an immediate interlocutory appeal, which is surprising since the party seeking the appeal while the case is still open has to satisfy a very high legal burden, the ISPs have done so. The higher court will rule on all of the issues that are in question: joinder (Howell says it's "economical" to file lawsuits of this size), jurisdiction (not an issue until defendant is named), the issue of not allowing unnamed defendants to file anything (since they're not named), compelling ISPs to comply with subpoenas and the burden associated, allowing trolls to send out settlement letters without naming a single Doe, and who knows what else. It's an issue of whether to follow the letter of the law (Howell) or a fair application of the law in order to prevent exploitation of the court system. Here's to hoping that the Circuit sides with the ISPs or at least comes up with a compromise.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Some Anonymous Guy (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  Obama put her forward in 2010, she was confirmed by the Senate a few months later.
  
  http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Beryl_A._Howell
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ld, 25 Aug 2012 @ 11:40pm
  
  Re: judicial appointment
  President Obama put her up for it in July of 2010
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:47am

Oh yeah, Howell's write up is now a sacred text for the trolls. I see references to it here and there in filings already.

Based on my experience I believe that this particular Memorandum has inspired John Steele to stick his penis into a bee hive: to sue AT&T and Comcast in one of the most frivolous shakedown lawsuits ever filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:52am

Follow the money... My guess is it's very interesting trail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:59am
  
  Re:
  Just because her car is actually owned by EMI, and her home is listed as being property of Sony BMG proves nothing. Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am

What good is a gatekeeper, when all the fences have been taken down?
What good is having a guard on the gate when there are no walls or fences stopping people from walking 'around' the gate...

Oh, I see, that's the real problem and why the gatekeeper industry is failing.

Lets send them to China, they have some great walls over there, I'm sure there are still some gates left to guard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 7:03am
  
  Re: What good is a gatekeeper, when all the fences have been taken down?
  Even their walls fall down when it rains hard enough! :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:02am

she acts like judge Roy Bean, aptly named the hanging judge because of the number of people he convicted, having already made up his mind on their guilt before the case began.
as other judges know exactly what this biased bitch is doing by ignoring everything that has gone before and giving sensible judges much more work, why the hell isn't she pulled to one side by someone of authority to have her fortune read? if she then doesn't toe the line, let all her dirty laundry get a public washing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:04am

(sarcasm)
On the other side of the coin:
It's the Mother's fault that there are drunk drivers, after all they didn't put enough effort behind prohibition.
(/sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  It's the Mother's fault that there are drunk drivers, after all they didn't put enough effort behind prohibition.
  
  I think that is one of the founding principles of D.A.M.M. (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:13am

These businesses deserve copyright infringers for inciting the infringers in the first place.

To correct this, simply don't make things people want to infringe if you don't want them to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:32am

$58 Billion
That $58 billion number doesn't even pass the sniff test. Where did it go if it was lost?

Oh wait, must be something like this.

"I just downloaded that new album for free and saved $10. So what to do with it...I know, I'll burn it."

That's how it got lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am

Looks like their evil plan is coming together nicely.

Stage 1 - infiltrate the legislative branch
Stage 2 - infiltrate the executive branch
Stage 3 - infiltrate the judicial branch
Stage 4 - take over the world!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, but the only problem is that the RIAA seems to full of bunch Pinkys and no Brains.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:44am

By the same logic that theis judge uses to blaim third parties, the Government and Police etc. are responsible for all crime, as they did not do enought to prevent it. [sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aboynamedsue, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:51am

I think these people that are saying that yes we have lost 58 Billion need to watch this TED talks video.
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html

Once you see the math, maybe you will realize your claims that piracy is costing alot is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  No, that just inflates the number.
  
  Soon they'll be claiming that every ipod sold is another $8 billion loss.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:57am

I haven't undertaken a rigorous numerical analysis, but I'm not sure if most courts are throwing these cases out for improper joinder.

Some are, but not most. I know several District of D.C. judges have allowed subpoenas on ISPs and have rejected improper joinder motions.

Mike, do you have any support for your claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re:
  Mike, do you have any support for your claim?
  
  I've asked him this in the past, but to no avail. I think he's pulling "most" out of his ass. There is no foundation for his claim.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hell, I've advised some people on the receiving end of these suits, so it would be nice for me to be able to say that most judges are throwing these out due to improper joinder, I just don't know if that's actually true.
    
    I've got to worry about things like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:30pm

1. Here is what honest judges do.

Apparently this judge has stock of Liberty Media Corporation, not infamous (thaks to its counsel) gay pornography purveyor Liberty Media Holdings.

Nonetheless to avoid any ambiguity, she recused herself immediately.

2. Here is what corrupt judges do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pbarker (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:11pm

AC, and you AC, and that one over there....
Far too many trolls posting comments as AC. If your comment is on point and has any validity, why post as AC?

Oh... I get it. So you can rant and slam others while hiding.

Ass-hats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:17pm

This lady is a corrupt piece of shit (sorry for the swear).I get very angry knowing that this is just what MONEY & MAFIAA buys.She is totally in favor of and in the pocket of those who would love to Censor Us, Control Us, and No Surprise at all about the Copyright Trolls.
And no one is going to clean up her mess.Why should they ? As they are all Paid-Off quite well from the Corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:25pm

If only we could get this person removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American people, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:00pm

Another crooked judge
Another crooked judge bought and paid for by the RIAA. Corruption seems to have invaded all levels of government and now we have a crooked judge making decisions to appease her corporate master.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
revolving door, 24 Aug 2012 @ 2:32pm

There's definitely a need for tough laws prohibiting this "revolving door" between the government and commercial interests. (and how long have people been asking for that?)

But what can you do? Every time citizens get disgusted enough to kick out a few of the corrupt politicians, the new ones turn out to be just as bad -- or worse, as with "Mr. Change" Barack Hussein Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
martin halstead, 24 Aug 2012 @ 3:12pm

Recusal
Absolutely time for a motion to recuse on the grounds that this judge cannot fairly judge the matter, and there is a clear appearance of partiality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 8:24pm

Beryl Howell is a fucking moron! She was probably dropped on her head from the 2nd floor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 24 Aug 2012 @ 10:37pm

Ya know, it's only a matter of time before some poor guy with not much of anything gets a raw deal and a stray. 308 finds its mark on an attorney......it's happened before but most attorneys have forgotten those incidents from years ago. Some cases were never solved.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:01pm

DoJ is now stocked with lawyers who worked for different cartels, the most recent one to show how bad an idea this was was the former (? one does wonder) BSA lawyer who brought the indictment against MegaUpload who has somehow decided that a clear civil law has criminal punishments and is fighting battles that other countries have to follow US law but the US doesn't need to and violated the law stealing evidence.

There are more of these timebombs waiting to be discovered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2012 @ 4:13am

Big question is just how much is Steele and the other copyright scum paying this judge in brown envelopes to say all this crap?

Yes thats right, Judge Howell, someone is directly and actually accusing you of taking bribes from copyright firms to identify people BEFORE the case is assessed for reasonableness, followed by a cut of the profits once the defendants pay up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Manson, 25 Aug 2012 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  Amerikan corruption at its' finest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 25 Aug 2012 @ 4:45pm

Little Devils
It has been clear enough that the US Administration has not so long ago promoted certain people into key jobs to better aid their War on Infringement.

Judge Beryl Howell is clearly one of these people being a pro-copyright shill now working hard to turn back the court rulings of other Judges. A nice position for her to hammer away at evil infringers, innocent or guilty, or just people who get in her way.

I can only hope that other Judges see Beryl Howell for who she really is and they take steps to minimise her political interference in the Justice system.

To make matters worse Judge Beryl Howell is clearly disillusional where as seen above many things is quotes is totally against known reality. I am not even sure if that makes her dangerous or harmless when that depends on what other Judges let her get away with.

In any case I hope people do vote out Obama just so we can get rid or Joe Biden and other people like Judge Beryl Howell would soon be replaced as well. That is US politics for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2012 @ 7:03am

I can only begin to wonder what praise would have been heaped upon Judge Howell had she sided with the ISPs for the reasons articulated by others of her judicial colleagues. Would that have made her an insightful and impartial judge? Almost certainly "yes". Yet, because her analysis of the FRCP is different, she is a mere copyright shill incapable of being impartial, and thus deserving of a shrill and insulting screed.

Contrary to the numerous statements in this article attempting to portray the judge as nothing more than a judicial advocate of copyright law, irretrieveably biased in favor of righs holders, all of her decisions were based entirely upon points of law associated with interpretations of the FRCP, pure legal issues, and certifying them for an interlocutory appeal for appelate court guidance is precisely what should have been done.

The truth be known, members of the judiciary can in good faith hold different opinions of how to interpret a provision of law, and I see this as a good thing as it places focus on areas of law where reasonable minds can differ and applelate guidance is entirely appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Some Anonymous Guy (profile), 26 Aug 2012 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re:
  So you're saying that her ruling is a fair application of the law? Strict interpretation, who cares what other judges have said that directly contradict her? Judges who see what these lawsuits really are. It'll get hashed out in the appeals court anyway.
  
  Yeah, so Howell's analysis of the FRCP is "different." I wouldn't consider "strict interpretation" to be synonymous with "analyzing." She is well aware that she is facilitating extrajudicial extortion, yet she couldn't care less. Why? Who knows. Maybe she's hell-bent on "sticking it" to copyright alleged copyright infringers, or maybe she's just following the letter of the law. I highly doubt the latter since last year involving three USCG cases, she consolidated them because they were substantially similar. Then she ruled that forcing the plaintiff to file individual lawsuits (against a few thousand Does) would cost too much money which would "further limit their ability to protect their legal rights" so she did not ruled against motions to sever. Where is "rulings shall be based on saving the plaintiff money by joining as many defendants as possible" in the FRCP? Where are the legal rights of Doe defendants in these cases? Oh, yes, they have no rights and Howell has explicitly stated that more times than I can count. As far as IP geolocation goes, that's not accurate because she says so. However it's accurate enough for the plaintiffs to use in justifying their complaints but not for the defendants to use to argue lack of personal jurisdiction. Right, not defendants because they haven't been properly joined and served. She also doesn't follow Rule 4(m), ever. Some of these cases on her docket have been going on for almost a year, well past the 120 day "name and serve process or dismiss" rule. Does she seem to care? Nope. If she was truly following the letter of the law, these cases would have been dismissed months ago. She conveniently adheres to certain Rules contained within the FRCP, and conveniently ignores others.
  
  You completely ignore that she has a massive conflict of interest, lobbying on behalf of the RIAA directly to members of Congress, meeting with members of the Obama administration, and possibly meeting with Obama himself. Then Obama nominates her to the bench and she breezes right through the confirmation process? She was paid $60k in 2005, $140k in 2006, $110k in 2007, and $105k in 2008 for her RIAA lobbying efforts. In case your math is fuzzy, that's $415,000 over four years. Just based on that, she should be recusing herself from any of these lawsuits that hit her docket because of any possible conflict of interest or bias, even if it doesn't exist. But no, it doesn't stop at RIAA lobbying. She also helped draft the DMCA and was also very involved with the PATRIOT Act, as well as other laws involving wiretaps, amending the CFAA, TEACH Act, and numerous others involving intellectual property and copyright/patent/trademark infringement. One could also argue that she's violated the rules of recusal. By not recusing herself voluntarily, she's created this problem that has racked up massive legal expenses and will be required to be heard by an appeals court. More legal expenses for a frivolous lawsuit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 5:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Niether the RIAA nor a member organization is involved in this suit.
    
    Are you saying she has to recuse herself from any copyright suit?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Aug 2012 @ 9:52pm
  
  Re:
  The fact that she flat out lied about the GAO report says quite a bit, doesn't it?
  
  This was not just about her ridiculous and laughable interpretation. Furthermore, much of her discussions was on the DMCA's safe harbors, which is meaningless here because the plaintiff did not even make use of the takedown process.
  
  Look, there are plenty of judges whose rulings I disagree with whose motives I don't question. But when a judge gets things so obviously wrong... and has the history she has... it seems reasonable to raise the questions, don't you think?
  
  Oh wait. You don't think. I remember.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 2:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    it's ok Masnick you dont think either, AND your a GOOGLE SHILL.. !!!!! :D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 7:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    Did you by change catch the part of her opinion discussing the "evidence" presented by the defendants concerning "undue burden"? She could have stopped there, but at the motion hearing apparently gave the ISPs the opportunity to present a "live" witness to further elaborate on their arguments. This was not a mandatory requirement, and yet she did it anyway, which to me cuts against the grain of the article and the conclusions drawn by its author.
    
    Certifying a decision for interlocutory appeal lies within the sole discretion of the presiding judge. Such certification likewise cuts against the grain.
    
    As I noted, the issues were all procedural matters associated with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Just because other judges may view some of them differently does not mean they are right and she is manifestly wrong.
    
    I have no problem with anyone mentioning a person's legal curriculum vitae. It is quite another matter, however, to immediately conclude that such a person must be biased and his/her decisions are not to be trusted. That is a leap of "logic" resting upon an infirm foundation.
    
    Sadly, you conclude with a gratuitous aspersion that has nothing to do with the merits of the judge's decision on the cross-motions. It ill serves encouragement of further discussion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 7:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Looks to me like there's plenty of "further discussion" here. It's just that you don't like the direction it has gone it, which fits with your usual commenting MO on this site. The second people start proving your pet theories wrong, you lash out with something that's generally flat out wrong and then pretend you never said that.
      
      I'd argue, frankly, that it's you who "ill serves encouragement of further discussion" around here by always stating things that are blatantly wrong.
      
      I wonder if you do that on purpose, or if you're really just that clueless.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, there has been "further discussion" here, but precious little of it deals with the case itself. Of the comments that do talk about the case, most appear to be little more than screeds against the judge herself, questioning her judicial compentency on bases having nothing to do with the case at hand.
        
        As for the remainder of your comment, it bears no relationship to this particular article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By which you mean, "precious little of it" agrees with the distorted world view I believe in.
        
        You're so transparent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Some Anonymous Guy (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        She may have given the ISPs an out, but given the fact that, earlier this month, Prenda has sued two of the ISPs involved as well as an employee of each firm. How is performing 1,058 IP lookups NOT an undue burden? Do you know how much that costs? Comcast had to set up a new division to comply with all of these subpoenas flooding in. Time Warner has stated that it costs them $45 per IP and it's been estimated that it costs AT&T $100 per IP, not to mention the time, computing resources, and extra employees needed to do all of this.
        
        She may have certified an immediate interlocutory appeal but the genie's out of the bottle. I would be happy if she had stayed the issuance of third-party subpoenas until a decision comes down from the appeals court. She knowingly hands over thousands of peoples' personal information to lawyers who will harass the hell out of them for a year or more, even if dismissed. Then she says "well, I'm gonna let you appeal the decision I just made to let Paul Duffy and John Steele have the personal info of 1,058 people." Another alternative, she could have allowed limited discovery. Names and addresses only, no phone numbers or email addresses. Enough to name and serve since that's the purpose of these suits, right? I would be fine with that. Since they hardly ever name and serve, no big deal there.
        
        The only reason why I question her CV is because if you're doing something for so long, you develop a bias. Such as myself. I didn't care about regulation until I began doing audit work...now I HATE regulation because it makes my job so much more taxing. I'm not saying she was indoctrinated. I'm saying that she could possibly be biased and that is enough for a recusal.
        
        "Sadly, you conclude...." Really? Do you believe that my vocabulary consists of 200 words or less? We disagree which is fine since it's been civil up until now. Why do you feel compelled to insult my intelligence now? You have NO IDEA who I am, how educated I am, or have any other detail about me except that I'm not an attorney (no shit?) and that I'm obviously biased in favor of the defendants in these cases because I got caught up in one of these cases that has long since been dismissed and maintain my innocence to this day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Some Anonymous Guy (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Never mind the part about the staying of the case until the appeal. I just checked the docket. Extract foot from mouth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Footnote 15 to the decision on the motions reflects the suspension of discovery until the appeal is heard. I have not seen the docket, but by your comment it sounds as if the case is currently stayed.
        
        Threaded view shows that my "Sadly,..." comment was directed to another person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Some Anonymous Guy (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, there's an entry by her deputy on the docket stating that the case has been stayed.
        "Case Stayed. (tg, ) (Entered: 08/07/2012)"
        
        Apologies for going off. I was in flattened view and when I saw the comment, I assumed it was directed toward me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 5:10pm
  
  Re:
  Welcome to Techdirt. You new here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 5:44am

The people at the Real Ignorant Assholes of America deserve to be boiled in oil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Aug 2012 @ 6:36am
  
  Re:
  we all know who are the real ignorant assholes here dont we LOL..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2019 @ 6:15pm

You lose, Slonecker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]