Copyright Troll John Steele May Be A Lawyer, But He Doesn't Seem To Know Much About The Law
from the every-pull-quote-lowers-IQ-by-10% dept
Copyright troll to the (porn) stars John Steele is no stranger to the pages of Techdirt. His m.o. combines the subtlety of a Mafia shakedown with the careful targeting of a Publishers' Clearinghouse mass mailing. Simply put, Steele tracks IP addresses, then leans on the court system to get ISPs to cough up names and physical addresses of alleged infringers to whom he sends letters full of vague legal threats and potentially embarrassing porn titles.For a guy with a dubious legal strategy and an ever-growing list of judges who aren't willing to humor his fishing expeditions, he sure talks a big game. Confidence can be an admirable trait, but generally not when it's combined with a Lionel Hutz-esque grasp of any legal matter outside the "shakedown letter" arena.
On the subject of IP addresses not actually equaling a person, Steele offers up this non sequitur:
“Just because wrong person arrested for murder doesn’t mean murder shouldn’t be a crime.”Innocent people getting arrested for crimes they didn't commit happens way more often than it should. It doesn't nullify the criminal act. It just punishes the wrong person while allowing the guilty party to roam free. There are very real consequences to "arresting the wrong person." Lives get ruined. Civil suits are filed. Careers end. Thousands, if not millions of dollars, are paid out to the victims. And at no point does any normal human suggest that criminal activity should be legalized in order to prevent the innocent from being accused.
If anything, false accusations generally lead toward calls for better investigative work and punishment of those responsible for the miscarriage of justice. However, if Steele falsely accuses someone, he'll likely just move on to the next name on the list. After all, he's got thousands of other targets. Whatever collateral damage results from a porn shakedown is just a problem for the falsely accused to deal with. It's highly unlikely that Steele will ever have to write out a large settlement check to any innocents caught in the crossfire. He may be dealing with some judicial setbacks here and there but, for the most part, he seems to be operating without fear of reprisal.
Steele expounds further on the IP address issue, attempting to tackle the "open wi-fi" issue :
“Don’t let people commit criminal acts on your network,” he says. “If you lend your gun to someone who commits a crime, you’re responsible.”Wrong. Completely wrong. A person cannot be held criminally responsible for the actions of others, no matter whose weapon it is. With the right lawyer, it's conceivable that the weapon lender might find himself on the losing end of a civil lawsuit (like a wrongful death suit, for example), but these are two very different things. I'm sure Steele feels an open wi-fi connection makes someone an accessory to the illegal act, if not actually aiding and abetting. But the legal stipulations tied to these charges require evidence that the person lending the weapon knew that it would be used in the commission of a crime, or actively aided in the criminal activity. At the very most, lending out a gun would violate the conditions of your permit, which is hardly the same as handing someone a gun/wi-fi connection and inviting them to do bad things.
As much as Steele (and other copyright trolls) would like to believe that not securing your wi-fi should be considered at the very least "negligent," if not actually making the accused responsible for the actions of others, the courts aren't willing to entertain this argument. The latest rejection, courtesy of the California district courts, points out that "negligence" requires a "duty to protect," and your average internet user simply does not have the legal responsibility to protect porn producers from acts of infringement.
On Comcast refusing to turn over subscriber information:
“It’s a business decision for them. They don’t want to lose their clients. But if you step into shoes of your subscribers, you become responsible. Comcast is sheltering people so they can make money."Wrong again. ISPs are not responsible for the actions of their customers. This is more wishful thinking from copyright trolls who wish to hold someone, anyone, responsible for their clients' woes. ISPs can certainly attempt to regulate their customers' internet usage (if they don't mind angering those customers) and, as the "Six Strikes" plan draws closer, it appears they're going to do exactly that. But under no circumstance should Comcast be held responsible for supplying the connection that allowed John Q. IPAddress to torrent some porn. Not only that, but the accusation that Comcast shelters file sharers in order to "make money" has no factual basis. It's a myth that copyright maximalists draw on again and again, assuming that internet users only pay for a connection in order to pirate content and would instantly disconnect their service if piracy was no longer an option.
“At least my wife loves me."Well, bully for you, John. Do you suppose she'd love you as much if a threatening letter appeared out of the ether accusing you (perhaps falsely) of downloading a variety of pornographic titles? Would that make any unwelcome waves? Because if you, in any small way, feel that indiscriminately accusing people of downloading porn and relying on the threat of public shaming to expedite payment might possibly be damaging the personal relationships of others, maybe, just maybe, your chosen line of "work" is more "problem" than "solution."
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 trolls, john steele
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A person cannot be held criminally responsible for the actions of others..."
Surprisingly to many, the is a longstanding legal doctrine knows as the Felony Murder Rule. Positing an extreme scenario, you and your compatriot decide to rob a bank (a felony). In the course of the robbery the police show up, look upon your compatriot, who has no weapon, as a threat and shoot him deader than a door nail. You, of course, have no weapon other than the pen and paper you used to inform the teller to hand over money. Result? A likely indictment for first degree murder of your compatriot because he died during the commission of a felony, even though his death was completely at the hands of the police. Obviously, the law works in mysterious ways and has wholly unexpected quirks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, what is amusing is you claiming Tim is wrong somehow without a citation or even an example of what he got wrong.
Although, on second thought that looks kind of fun, let me give it try:
It's pretty damn amusing that the AC I am responding to, who has no cognitive reasoning skills and knows, well, nothing is implying that Tim is somehow wrong. Sad, but amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A dialog from the The King�s Speech:
Lionel Logue: [as George "Berty" is lighting up a cigarette] Please don't do that.
King George VI: I'm sorry?
Lionel Logue: I believe sucking smoke into your lungs will kill you.
King George VI: My physicians say it relaxes the throat.
Lionel Logue: They're idiots.
King George VI: They've all been knighted.
Lionel Logue: Makes it official then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm aware of these type of laws. Someone gets killed in a bank robbery and the unarmed getaway driver who wasn't even in the bank can get charged with 1st degree murder.
I'm not sure, but don't those cases need a conspiracy element to be present? You know, the driver and robber where in cahoots together in the first place.
That wouldn't seem to apply with open wifi. Even if one has permission to use the wifi, do you really think they would ask permission to download hard porn from account holder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> need a conspiracy element to be present?
> You know, the driver and robber where in
> cahoots together in the first place.
Nope. All that's necessary is that the defendant have known about the crime. No need for him to form a legal conspiracy to commit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Got it.
Still, Mr. Steele's comparison of a felony with a firearm to copyright infringement is just plain silly. The infringement that he is talking about would be a civil infraction anyways.
What about a case of something more serious, like child porn and open wifi, could the Felony Murder Rule be applied there? Would the account holder have to have knowledge of what the accused was actually downloading? Or would general permission to use the wifi be enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> child porn and open wifi, could the Felony Murder
> Rule be applied there?
No, there has to actually be a death involved for the FMR to apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, yeah, Ok. That makes a lot of sense. It's right there in the name isn't it? Duh.
Sorry. I was tired and bit distracted by the ballgame when I posted that. I should know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, in the case of child porn and stolen wifi, there was an example a year or two ago of exactly this. The FBI tore down somebody's door, raided the home, confiscated the equipment and found nothing. They later found it was some guy down the street piggybacking on the original suspect's wireless connection. First suspect got an apology. Second got time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given the language used (who has no weapon) I can safely conclude there is no weapon at all, other than the guns held by the police. Given that neither bank robber is holding an actual weapon, police, as I understand them, are supposed to shoot to disable only. It is only in a situation where the police can factually say they felt there was a real threat that they can act to shoot to kill.
So long story short, the police are the ones getting slapped with a wrongful death lawsuit. The second bank robber clearly has nothing to do with his compatriot's death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The surviving robber.
> How would this fly in court?
Exactly as described. The Felony Murder Rule makes all members of the group responsible for any death that occurs in the commission of the felony, even deaths caused by the police.
The theory being that if you commit a felony and participate in creating a situation where someone dies, it doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, you're guilty of murder.
> In the information provided, you don't say
> whether or not there is a real threat of harm
> from the bank robber to the bank personnel.
Doesn't matter. All that matters is that the robbers were committing a felony (robbing a bank) and someone was killed during the commission of the felony (one of the robbers). That makes all the other perpetrators (in this case, only one surviving guy) guilty of murder.
> Did the robber just write "Gimme the
> money or I'll press this magic button
> and detonate a bomb" all without having
> an actual bomb prepared?
Again, doesn't matter. He committed a felony by robbing a bank. That's all that's required.
> police, as I understand them, are supposed
> to shoot to disable only.
That's absolutely wrong, at least in the U.S. Police are not required, or even encouraged, to shoot to disable. The Use of Force Model requires police to use deadly force to stop the threat to innocent life-- either their own or someone else's. And anyone who knows anything about it, from soldiers, to cops, to doctors, knows that means you shoot for the center of mass: the chest/torso. If shoot in the arm or the leg, not only is that a more difficult shot where the risk of missing and hitting someone else is greater, the threat is still alive and can retaliate.
Bottom line, if you shoot, you shoot to kill. If you're not legally sanctioned to kill, you shouldn't be shooting in the first place.
> It is only in a situation where the
> police can factually say they felt
> there was a real threat that they can
> act to shoot to kill.
Again, wrong. There's no requirement that a cop be factually correct about the threat of death or severe bodily injury. So long as the cop reasonably believes, based on the information he/she has at the moment, that there's a threat of death or severe bodily injury, use of deadly force is legally justified. So, for example, if someone points a fake gun at a cop, and the cop shoots him, it's still a legal shoot even though there was never any actual threat.
All of that doesn't really matter in the case of the bank robbers, though, because even if the cops are later found to have shot badly, the guy was stilled killed during the commission of a felony, which makes the surviving robber guilty under the Felony Murder Rule. The cops might *also* face charges if it's a bad shoot, but that doesn't let the surviving robber off the hook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that's not what we're talking about here. A more accurate analogy is this...
I own a mall. It is a 24/7 establishment. There are many legal things people can do in my mall. Maybe there is a store where people can buy stuff. There might be a library. There might be a movie store. I leave the doors on my mall unlocked, so people might be able to come in and use it for mallsy type stuff. This happens every day all across the country.
But by this extension of logic, if somebody comes into my mall to steal from the video store, I should be held liable for failing to lock the front door.
It is actually a remarkably similar scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[@McDonalds: The resaurant manager and a friend conspire amongst themselves to download porn on a laptop through McD's open wi-fi]Cops: There he is! (BAM BAM BAM)
[Staff are startled from their burger-flipping by the gunfire and stare slack-jawed at the manager's friend slumped on the keyboard; the manager looks up from the shattered screen (that was somehow still displaying fragmented porn) and notices his compatriot's bloodied corpse; he is then taken into custody and the laptop seized as evidence][Later @Courthouse]
Jury: We find the defendant guilty of first degree murder of his friend...
Judge: (bangs gavel) Life with no parole!
Jury: ...and copyright infringement.
Judge: PLUS $TATUTORY DAMAGE$! (more gavel banging)
Bailiff: (hauling the manager to prison) That's what you get, filthy porn pirate!
Me: Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True Story
One of my friends who lives in a very small town always used to leave his car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. One day a criminal whom he had never met stole it and used it for criminal activity. No charges were ever filed against him because he was *not a party to any crime* but an *additional victim*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: True Story
> him because he was *not a party to
> any crime* but an *additional victim*.
In many states, it's illegal to leave the keys in an unattended vehicle. Your friend should feel lucky he wasn't in one of those states when he acted so stupidly or he wouldn't be a victim, he'd be under arrest also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
> and the rest is your opinion.
No, it's not opinion. It's a fact. If your friend had acted stupidly and habitually left his keys in his car in a state where it's illegal to do so, he *would* have been arrested and charged if someone stole his car and did crime with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
> what one considers acting stupidly is a matter of
> opinion.
That's why I said he should feel lucky he wasn't in one of those states. And then you falsely claimed it was only an opinion that he would have been arrested had he done his stupid key-leaving nonsense in one of them.
> and what one considers acting stupidly is a matter
> of opinion.
No, it's pretty much a fact that unless one *wants* their car stolen, purposely and continually leaving the keys in it is stupid. That's not an opinion.
> For example: I consider replying with the same
> thing you already said only to get back the same
> reply back from me as before acting stupidly.
May I momma dog face in the banana patch?
> But hey "Stupid is as stupid does."
And there's never more evidence of that than your own posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
You without complete knowledge of the entire situation or string of events say my friend acted stupidly and claim it to be a fact. I say it is but an opinion coupled with ignorance.
Fact 1: His car was unique and easy to spot.
Fact 2: It was in a very small town where every one knows everyone else and what they drive.
Fact 3: The town he lived in was more than a hundred miles from the nearest city.
Fact 4: There were only two paved roads out of town.
Fact 5: His car had extremely low ground clearance.
Fact 6: It was located in a difficult to access place out of sight back in his field in trees on his property.
Fact 7: It was many years ago when leaving your keys in the car was commonplace.
Fact 8: Most residents of the town also left their keys in their vehicles
It is reasonable to assume that a criminal would not choose to take an easy to spot, low to the ground, difficult to access car from a town where someone will ask the owner who was driving it at the same time it is being reported involved in a crime. When the town is full of plain vehicles that were easier to access also with keys in them including four wheel drives which would offer better escape routes than a choice of only two long drives trying to out-run radio waves.
The criminal didn't get too far out of town when a sheriff deputy and a state trooper got him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
> that a criminal would not
> choose to take an easy to
> spot, low to the ground,
> difficult to access car from
> a town where someone will
> ask the owner who was driving
> it at the same time it is
> being reported involved in
> a crime. When the town is
> full of plain vehicles that
> were easier to access also
> with keys in them including
> four wheel drives which would
> offer better escape routes
> than a choice of only two long
> drives trying to out-run
> radio waves.
And yet after all that, the car was stolen after all, wasn't it? Which makes purposely leaving the keys in it pretty stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
> had no claims with his insurance.
In the states to which I am referring, it is a *criminal offense* to leave the keys in an unattended vehicle. That means arrest and prosecution, genius. Not just a fine and some insurance hassle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
Don't know about anyone else, but I definitely put much more weight to the words of an armed Federal agent who deals with this kind of stuff every day for a living over some anonymous internet commenter with a 2nd party anecdotal story. Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
Lol. Unfortunately, the USG does actually do that way too often for my tastes.
But, that wasn't what I was really getting at. I was just pointing out that someone who deals with stuff like this for a living might be a better gauge than an anecdotal story that is many years old and probably not really relevant today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
I still think the use of another's car is a good analogy for Wifi both with permission and unauthorized.
Every day more laws get passed and I have no doubts eventually there will be third party liability for virtually everything including, that someday it will be illegal to leave your keys in a car anywhere in the US. I am also sure that the day will come when a person will be held liable for anything anyone else does with their Internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
You are right. Yours and the other AC's gravatars look almost identical on my screen and I thought you were the author of the snarky comment I responded to. My apologies.
And yeah, the expansion of third party liability worries me too. Wouldn't surprise me to see hardware stores being held liable for selling tools that were used to commit a crime in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
> and the other AC's
> gravatars look almost
> identical on my screen
> and I thought you
> were the author
> of the snarky comment
> I responded to.
> My apologies.
I too didn't notice the difference between the little blue squares. Thought they were the same person. My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> legal doctrine knows as the Felony Murder Rule.
Many states also hold the owners of firearms responsible if they fail to properly secure their guns and a minor gets ahold of one and kills someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> on a weapon used in the commission of any
> other felony.
It's called being held criminally responsible for the acts of another. Negligence is a civil tort, not a crime. I'm talking about penal code sections that make it a crime to leave a firearm unsecured and holds the owner responsible if a minor gains access to it and commits a crime with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, dumbass, telling people to be afraid of things which are not real doesn't help anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A borrowed comment
-----------------------------------------------------------
[...] I think it was also good that the article title included (Sometimes Innocent) as the headline is all many will see of the article and that means John Steele is associated with pursuing innocent people and that is never a respectable enterprise.
While there is plenty to dig into for an investigative reporter, I do not think Kashmir fits the bill and while I would like to have seen some exploration of his habit of filing fraudulent documents (i.e. cases requesting statutory damages without a copyright registration), the intensity of harassment, and the incestuous relationships between Steele and the many shell companies that are parties in his lawsuits, I�m not surprised it wasn�t very deep. I do object a bit to the extent that she takes many of his claims at face value, even if she does provide a general counterpoint, but I think it�s too much to expect mainstream media to publish scathing, foaming at the mouth anti-Troll articles until there have been some more interesting and decisive developments like their losing some cases or becoming the target of criminal prosecution. I do believe that there will eventually be an American Greed episode that features Copyright Trolls, it�s going to be a while.
On the other hand, by using a soft touch she got a couple of real gems out of Steele:
* Seeing an attorney conflate criminal and civil law is always a riot, definitely not good for their credibility. It really speaks for the standards set by law schools, bar exams, and state bar associations. This is really fundamental stuff, IMO the kind of statements John made should be grounds for immediate disbarment, appearing that clueless about your own profession brings it into disrepute.
* Some great examples of Troll Math (i.e. they have sued almost everyone who hasn�t settled. But they have 20K Does and 5K settlements� and have maybe sued a couple hundred either as single Does or by name). Not that I take any Troll-provided numbers at face-value, but it�s still fun to see these massive inconsistencies even when they are trying to make FUD.
* The statement that they don�t track the amount they have recovered� OMG. Bombshell. OK, so maybe that�s an off the cuff remark, but how does that sound to his clients (are they confident they are getting their cut of each settlement after reading that?) and the IRS (are they confident they are getting their cut of each settlement after reading that?).
* Also an interesting bit about the calls from eight Attorneys General. Very interesting if true. I doubt when an AG calls someone to investigate it�s as simple as explaining everything and they go away. Oh, they may be perfectly polite and go away (for a while) but do you really think if an AG has decided someone is up to something worth investigating, they are just going to take the perpetrator at his word and that�s it? Please, these guys have heard it all, they deal with criminals! Of course it�s possible that is just complete BS, or FUD to try to discourage people from complaining to their AGs. Remember how John used to spread FUD about how MTQs were so pointless, they were just going to get dropkicked into the garbage, he was going to charge you more to settle after you filed an MTQ and it failed, etc., etc. Well MTQs pretty much killed mass-Doe BitTorrent cases and you haven�t heard John talking down on MTQs for a while. I�m only willing to give John credit for being so crafty but he may be saying that so people think it�s pointless to complain, in which case everyone should send in their complaints.
John was also allowed to give himself a bit of credit he doesn�t deserve. The original Copyright Troll was Harry Wall, a 19th century English gentleman who made a habit of trying to collect statutory awards for unauthorized performances of often-dead composers� works. John is way more BG than OG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the case of John Steele Murder is not a Crime.
John Steele is not a Human Being but he is a lowly insect.
Is it a crime to step on an Insect ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These people aren't harassing individuals for their own fun, they're doing it to intimidate hundreds or thousands of others who may come into the same situation.
They don't care about the innocents they hurt, only that the fear of being their target is felt.
As I recall, there's another "T" word that fits their actions perfectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the FBI, CIA, AGs office, need to be arrested?
So the AG's office committed mass murder by giving those guns out in Fast and Furious. FBI for giving terrorists boomy things need the death penalty, and the CIA needs a spanking for just being them. Got it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
considering that the 'independent experts' in file sharing cases is actually a former RIAA lobbying group, Stroz Friedberg. according to CCI, Stroz Friedberg completed its initial review of MarkMonitor�s methodologies and found that the system is accurate and works properly. and how many times has that been stated, only to be proven extremely quickly to be nothing other than a load of bollocks? i am quite sure the ISPs were aware of this but were too scared to admit that they knew for fear of offending the 'industries' further. as if the industries had any thoughts of going into this without having the dice loaded in their favour! what a shame ISPs dont have the fear of losing customers and having their business fail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" what a shame ISPs dont have the fear of losing customers and having their business fail!"
Well because the government has handed them virtual monopolies in many areas, so you can no long vote with your wallet to express displeasure.
The fact the WH has signed off on the CCI plan really is telling, normally when corporations start doing things to benefit themselves by circumventing the law they are supposed to stop that.
Not the wording the Memorandum of Understanding talks about the ISPs duties under the DMCA, except none of the notices being sent out are DMCA notices. So how can they pick and chose what parts of the law they get to abuse in thei way with no one saying shit about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
Tell that to this guy, who was convicted for lending his car. The Felony murder rule extends liability, but it would be quite hard to apply it to torrenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
"Holle, who had given the police statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary,"
Which is why he was convicted. The Felony murder rule requires that the person that the charge is being extended to, like this guy loaning the car, are aware of the crime and are thereby colluding in it with the actual offender. Having an open Wi-Fi does not apply, any more than leaving your car unlocked makes you guilty of what a car thief does with it after they steal it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ooh, ooh, how can this be done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every single case by morons such as John Steele show no actual proof who was downloading what at what time or who was even in the house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The simple fact he has violated so many of the highly vaunted ethics of being a lawyer and the IL bar has yet to even think about taking action says something.
The FL bar is pursuing him and his minions for their actions, and Steele is now fleeing to NV looking for greener pastures.
Steel is a liar and a thief, what he does makes the horrible "crimes" that file sharers commit look pale by comparison.
Sending out a letter threatening to have the police come and seize your computer... that really is a bold lie.
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/08/03/a-disabled-victim-of-a-copyright-troll-threatens- to-kill-himself
Put a "face" to the harm Pretenda Law creates, then tell me their actions are justified and correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty people not getting arrested for crimes they DID commit happens way more often than it should. It doesn't nullify the criminal act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]