Judge Wright Sentences Prenda To Poetic Justice
from the a-little-something-extra dept
Yesterday we covered Judge Wright's order against Team Prenda, noting the key points and the healthy serving of Star Trek references. However, in that post we left out one beautifully comedic bit of just desserts that Wright placed in the ruling, which H. Poteat was kind enough to point out. In the introduction, Judge Wright clearly lays out the basics of copyright trolling and why it's so nasty. In particular, he calls out the nefarious nature of the "settlement" offers:Then they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defenseOkay. Remember that line. Because then, at the end of his order, where he awards the attorney's fees of $40,659.86 and then doubles them "as a punitive measure" to $81,319.72, Judge Wright adds a little footnote after that amount, which reads:
This punitive portion is calculated to be just below the cost of an effective appeal.Well played, Judge Wright. Well played.
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 trolls, john steele, otis wright, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel for our trolls. Some of them are unemployed now (if the amount of fail means something regarding their employer).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I pointed it out in the comments before that: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130506/16340322966/judge-wright-tells-team-prenda-to-pay-80k-refe rs-their-activity-to-state-bars-feds-irs.shtml#c145
Pats self on back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
Because according to ootb, the arrow of guilt only points one way: infringers/pirates/sharers. These are the only guilty parties in any copyright dispute. The robber barons, the *IAA's and all the other corporate fraud and malfeasance is just hand-waved away as "outliers" and "anomolies" but a SINGLE instance of infringement is painted as a foolproof example of utter devastation to entire creative entities and industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
Though it makes sense when you think about it.. Blue is basically Comfortably Numb (or is that dumb???)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm grateful this ruling isn't copyrighted so it can be shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raining on parades
Don't want to rain on anyone's parade right now, when y'all are erecting statues of Judge Wright.
But perhaps, oh, maybe next week —when everyone's sober again— can we discuss whether this is exactly proper? Oh, sure, it's probably fair, very fair, I don't dispute the fairness here.... But is it proper? I have a doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raining on parades
Is it actually improper? That depends. Did he decide on the amount and then calculate that, by coincidence, it would be just below the cost of an appeal? Or did he calculate the cost of an appeal and then set the punitive damages?
Since the punitive damages are exactly equal to the fees, I think it's the former instead of the latter. Which makes it just funny and not an improper amount.
Kind of like how he incorporated Star Trek references into the document. Making the references is fine. But setting the damages equal to the star date on his favorite episode would not be fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raining on parades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raining on parades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
News via Popehat comments...
XBiz reports:
As I said originally, we can discuss this later. There'll probably be a story when they file their appeal, and we can discuss their arguments then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
But, yeah, it'll be interesting to see if they actually appeal this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
There needs to be laws written on how to deal with evidence gathering in relation to P2P. At the very least, it needs to be set in stone that you can't simply grab a log of IP addresses and say that that alone amounts to guilt on the part of the accused. At that point, you're seeing the licence plate number on a camera and suing the car's owner, without bothering to check who was actually behind the wheel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
Not "send letter demanding money or else we will sue you for illegal download of porn and have your name associated with porn on public record"
Lawsuit cost substancial money
Letter costs just a few dollars condidering envelope, paper and certified delivery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
Not "send letter demanding money or else we will sue you for illegal download of porn and have your name associated with porn on public record"
Lawsuit cost substancial money
Letter costs just a few dollars condidering envelope, paper and certified delivery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raining on parades
I could see an effective appeal easily running into the six figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Raining on parades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raining on parades
It's also possible that, on appeal, it's determined that the original $80k was too low, & Judge Wright could've fined them more, but erred on the safe side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raining on parades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raining on parades
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what about Six Strikes
In the US, we should be concerned with Six Strikes and educating judges about these issues of copyright. The problem comes in that copyright continues to hamper innovation and learning while giving publishers immense incentives to pervert the law and get money from people.
But we've seen that the trade industries will go through any lengths to try to conflate piracy and their poor business sense with being entitled to money, whether that's Chris Dodd using the same stump speech to argue for more legal wrangling in how the movie industry works against public interest or Germany's unions suppressing artists and making Youtube ,difficult to work with in that country.
For me we have to ask how does this affect Six Strikes? How can ISPs be told to prevent piracy with soft-SOPA while HADOPI didn't work nor did it work with other types of piracy alternatives?
Does this kill Six Strikes? Expand it? Is public wifi in danger? How about the public's right to decide how they want content?
At this point, there is a major victory for the side of common sense, but the battle is far from over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what about Sick Strikes
So the RIAA, realizing the failure earlier than doofuses like Prenda, switches from copyright trolling to the Sick Strikes plan.
It won't be that long however before this ends up in a court, and judges get wise to it.
The RIAA / MPAA want anything but actual judicial review and due process. Copyright accusations cannot stand the bright light of day. All of this, like much of their business, must be done in secret in the darkness. I'm sure they try to keep Hollywood Accounting as opaque as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what about Six Strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Jidge should gone a step further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Jidge should gone a step further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Jidge should gone a step further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Jidge should gone a step further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Jidge should gone a step further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Nexus (Judge Wright is my new hero)
Judge Wright pretty much sums up the main complaints on patent and copyright law right there. And throwing in Star Trek references is just plain awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slightly OT - how does the finding of fact impact Cooper?
Can he introduce that as evidence? How much weight will it carry with the judge? Will the judge in that case be required (or predisposed) to accept it as fact, or can Steele argue it away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember that statue idea?
I mentioned the idea over at Ars as well, and apparently someone over there has started a campaign on indiegogo for that very statue!
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-unofficial-otis-d-wright-ii-statue-fundraiser
I' d be pretty amused if this project actually met its goal, to be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember that statue idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd let him knock up of wife because we need more people like him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]