TorrentFreak Pulls The Switcheroo On Copyright Troll That Cited Them In Threat Letters
from the trolling-the-trolls dept
Torrentfreak notes that Prenda Law, one of the more well known copyright trolls out there these days, which has run into a series of skeptical judges lately, has been using a Torrentfreak article in its recent threat letters. The article in question is one we wrote about as well, concerning a default judgment against someone who didn't just share some random works, but had a specific watermark on the files that corresponded to his account. Of course, in the threat letter, all of the additional context about much greater evidence and a variety of other factors that made this case unique aren't mentioned at all.Feeling that was unfair, Torrentfreak changed that page to something that Prenda might not appreciate:
Trolling the trolls. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to have too much of an impact. It's doubtful that Prenda expects too many people to actually go read the article. They just want the basic "be afraid, settle now!" message to get through.We redirected the URL referenced by Prenda to a page with information about these mass-BitTorrent lawsuits.
So, instead of being scared by an article about a $1.5 million judgment, Internet bill payers can inform themselves about the steps they can take to respond to the settlement letter.
The page in question explains that increasingly judges are condemning the practices of copyright trolls, and that many mass lawsuits have been thrown out. Just recently a judge designated Prenda's ways as a “bad faith effort,” and dismissed one of their mass-BitTorrent lawsuits.
In addition to some much-needed balance we also included links to attorneys who are familiar with these lawsuits, plus links to other useful resources.
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 troll
Companies: prenda, torrentfreak
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
If I provide you a direct link to infringing content, knowing that it's infringing, then I can't avoid liability by arguing that some third party might change the content the link I posted points to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
This (Google) is a multi-billion dollar corporation that derives it's revenue from ads- gazillions of which are on illegal content sites. This behemoth of a corporation has exactly zero interest in giving up any of that revenue. Their stock price is all they care about; it's what their future yacht and vacation home purchases are dependent upon.
So yeah, steal some more music and movies, and keep pretending you're stickin it to "the man" when you do that, all you fake anarchists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
What parts in that post were fantasy or "lying"?
None of them. Not one single thing.
The truth stings, doesn't it angry man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
I mean it's not like the copyright industry is providing google with all the licensing deals they've made. So how could they know?
Then there is the small matter of their being billions of links... The only practical solution is an automated script to filter, but no one has provided anyone with an algorithm that works anywhere close to accurately enough to implement. So the only practical thing to do, is assume they are all legitimate until someone can prove they are not.
If you can provide an algorithm that proves a link is legit or not, then please do so. I'm sure it would be put to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Some uses depend on the location of the user, and as you mentioned, even people within the same corporations can't tell the legitimacy of a file. All that's just the things applicable to sites where Google has direct control (such as YouTube), not even considering the many places where all Google may have access to is a link and nothing else (e.g. a link to a password protected file with a non-obvious filename that doesn't indicate its contents).
To think that Google can know all this just by examining a link is one of the many ways in which we can tell that these people are full of shit and literally have no idea what they're blathering on about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Well, apart from the delusions you people have about Google, let's try this:
"So yeah, steal some more music and movies, and keep pretending you're stickin it to "the man" when you do that, all you fake anarchists."
If your head wasn't firmly lodged up your anus, you'd understand that most of the people you're attacking (like myself) are people who legally purchase content and are trying to point out where the industry is going wrong. Yet, all you do is attack a strawman who doesn't exist, because you can't face reality. The people you're arguing against aren't pirates - unless you can provide proof that we are. Go on, prove I'm a pirate via something other than your own delusions. Hint: you can't, because I'm not. Don't start with the "waah! prove you're not" bullshit either, because I've done that many times, yet here you are making the same lies yet again.
On top of that, who are you arguing against? You're making a positive claim of that AC's actions, yet I bet you can't tell who he is. If you're making positive claims about a person's actions without even being aware of his identity, that's a lie and a fantasy. Feel free to present evidence, but I bet you have none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
The thing about Google is, it's a hyperlink indexing site. Computer algorithms run on the servers and work out what people actually want when searching for certain terms. Notice the term 'people want', if Google stop serving people the links they want then Google don't have a business. People are searching for free downloads, google is not forcing them on people.
What you are effectively arguing is that instead of adapting to the new opportunities the internet has to offer you (and the legacy industry) insist that Google ruins its own service and goes bust instead.
I can see your flawless logic there......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Do the Yellow Pages have the numbers for pot dealers? Or contract killers, etc.?
Pull your head out of your ass pronto, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Try again, idiot, this time not with an emotive argument. Try one that actually makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
You know that J. Smith, 12 example avenue, Example city is a pot dealer. You look up his phone number in the phone book of Example city. You dial the number and order some pot.
Is the phone book now liable for you and the dealer breaking the law? I don't think so.
But that's what Google does now.
You are looking for song Q, you go on Google and search for Q. You find a link to a website that offers Q for download, and you download Q.
Google is not responsible for you potentially breaking copyright law in that situation, neither is Google responsible for the website potentially breaking copyright law.
Google can't magically know that that offering of Q is legal or not. Just the same way that the phone book can't magically know that J. Smith is a pot dealer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
I wish I could bash this message into your thick skull, or wherever your brains are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
"No different than garden variety theft".
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Ah but here's the rub.. Infringing where? Just because something is unlawfully infringing (which in itself needs to be proven under lawful process - but that's a separate issue) in one jurisdiction (most likely the USA) does NOT mean it is somewhere else, and also linking to that unlawful content (in one jurisdiction) might not be unlawful (whether knowingly or vicariously or not) either.
The intent (mens rae) in context with all elements that need to be fulfilled for the action to be considered unlawful (or illegal even) is a pure and absolute doctrine that has to be looked at when considering third party liability no matter what the US DoJ state or you may think. Also you need to understand, I will make the informed assumption that you are an American, or even Canadian citizen. Litigious liability that someone needs to always answer for butthurtness of REASONABLENESS is a purely US export.. sadly Germany has, due to its association with the USA after WW2 tries to outdo this doctrine of "someone needs to pay for my boo boo".
As for your analogy regarding Drugs - Since high category illicit drugs (not marijuana) come under international criminal statutes/treaties and are classified as major crimes (not like IP is even in its criminal area) the analogy is not just irrelevant but absolutely misleading. Unless your talking about the purchasing of LEGAL medicinal drugs online from lawful Canadian pharmacies/chemists by US citizens? BUt again that is a purely US quirk of stupidity and coporate/political pandering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
That link went to legal content in the beginning, but is now pointing to illegal content. Are you saying that all those News outlets should have known better and are now all liable for copyright infringement?
*I know that it would be hard for that link to be re-directed, but some guy at Disney or their PR department could be stupid enough to release the domain that hosted the link, allowing a 3rd party to be able to then register the domain and re-direct the link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Let me assist you .........
So if I tell you where to buy lollipops and puppy dogs, take you there and complete the deal at the push of a button, I can't be guilty of trafficking in drugs simply because down the road someone might mess with the button and redirect it to point to illicit material.
This has and will continue to occur, so dont bother with the denials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
This has and will continue to occur, so dont bother with the denials.
The conviction is because of where the link originally pointed to. That the thing linked to later was changed is irrelevant. You can't avert liability for linking on the argument that the thing linked to might have changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Feel free to cite an actual law that stipulates that such links are in fact illegal. I'll wait here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
If the charge is "knowingly linked to xxx that says blah to do whatever" and the link has changed, the onus is on the plaintiff/prosecutor to prove that the original intent was before the link was changed.. Which means you need to have absolute authenticated proof that the link was ever changed or was even what you said it was. And believe me that is the hardest if not near impossible thing to do especially f you have no jurisdictional or other legal ability to make the owner of the thing that the link links to preserve it. Big problems.. and Google cache is NOT evidentially admissible .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does make a point, though
I thought you learned to STFU when it came to the web after people pointed out naming people merely accused of crimes and painting them as being guilty was bad form.
But then you've been making and changing twitter accounts in your less than sober moments, railing and screaming. If we were so wrong, why say anything? If your so right, why resort to personal attacks over facts?
Maybe because you know how screwed you are, and you might have gotten away with it if not for us meddling kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
I thought you learned to STFU when it came to the web after people pointed out naming people merely accused of crimes and painting them as being guilty was bad form.
But then you've been making and changing twitter accounts in your less than sober moments, railing and screaming. If we were so wrong, why say anything? If your so right, why resort to personal attacks over facts?
Maybe because you know how screwed you are, and you might have gotten away with it if not for us meddling kids.
I honestly have no idea what or who you're talking about. If you have a point to make, I'm not understanding it. Try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
Not new, although the fact the Judge seemed less than pleased and was angry enough to lay out actions being pursued was nice.
Stealing someones name for an offshore entity that exists just to hide the ill-gotten gains of his extortion mill?
Suspected for a while, was always curious who was the name on the papers... of course the submitted papers always seemed to have other companies names on them for the transfer to, but not to the suing company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does make a point, though
You're either incredibly stupid or dishonest. Take your pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does make a point, though
These people tend to demonstrate quite conclusively that it's possible to be both at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a normal MO to fight scum with serious faces, and that what we do 99% of time, but IMO the most devastating blows villains get when their to-be victims stop perceiving them seriously. We need to use fun warfare more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You underestimate how many people these morons terrify.
I dealt with an entire wave of terrified people after Randazza's $250,000 "win" was making headlines. See while the "win" of $250,000 was wildly/widely reported, no one shared the context of that win. I somehow think xbiz won't carry a story I wrote... go figure.
A Corbin Fisher customer, allegedly (is it still allegedly after he settled to avoid a court case getting him thrown out of school? Funny his name was made public, seems underhanded to me.) shared files he downloaded from the CF website. Using the records of logins at the CF website they managed to match a user against an IP seeding the files within a short time frame. When in doubt sue your paying customers, cute the debate about the immorality of copyright infringment and I'll just counter with outing customers, telling them to lie, and imaginary experts.
They pressured him into settling, using his background and position against him, for a $250,000 paper settlement.
The actual amount to be repaid was $25,000 (or less), paid in installments monthly. As long as he makes his payments on time and is never naughty again (no really read the terms, the full amount kicks in if he ever violates copyright ever again... on average the standard person violates copyright hundreds of times a day.) and the total owed will be reduced by an amount covered by an NDA and not entered into the court records.
I got a 2nd and 3rd wave of people panicked about this dollar amount when Steele added it to his letters as an example of what is going to happen to you if you don't just cough up a few thousand.
Every little bit those of us who are fighting copyright trolls do counts. DTD, SJD, and others have made the case #'s Google hits, so Does get informed instead of scared. Tons of money has been spent on Pacer, to free the filings so people directly effected by the rulings can see what is happening - because some "Judges" consider them non-parties to the case seeking their identities. People are being denied access to cases where the outcome is they get extortion demands, how is that fair? People are being told they don't have standing to challenge anything the trolls claim... funny I do not see a single court raining hellfire down on Steele and Malibu Media, who does not have ANY cause of action for infringement in a majority of their cases. They are defrauding the court, but Does can't make a motion pointing this out.
So yes, changing 1 web page might not seem like a big deal. But keeping 1 person from fearfully paying extortion, and giving them the information they need is enough of an impact. And the more coverage these things get, the more people learn. The more people learn, they more angry they get. Angry people use what they have to help the next poor soul targeted.
I've met many Does who arrived terrified, learned the truth, and now speak loudly. They are learning the ins and outs of the cases, giving us more eyes to catch small cases trying to slip under the radar.
They call us pirates and anti-copyright, they are extortionists and liars. Who are the bad guys again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ie: "Have you come here after reading a letter from Prenda Law? If so have we got some great information for you!"
Fight the letter specifically thereby also annoying the hell out of Prenda Law - Prenda might then be stupid enough to start screaming and threatening actions (defamation or some other bullshit interference claim) which would then be even better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am sure that SJD and DTD could look up metrics for hits from that page to give an indication of the impact it had.
TF isn't fighting the battle, its a news site. They hate trolls to, but there is no reason to reinvent the wheels we already have turning. They just refused to be a cog in the theater of fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems like it might have had an impact beyond a couple people. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
myself this is what id have done
haha and id put that at the bottom of the page
prenda is about to be sued for using this text without expressed written permission in a money making lawsuit for which i have no compensation.
then id use that cash as donations to those sued to hep get them lawyers.
Grins ....Oh i'm just getting started folks....i been a studying law for a long time now....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: myself this is what id have done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]