Copyright Troll Lawsuit Ends Badly Because Very Dumb Defendant Lied To Court, Destroyed Evidence

from the you-don't-do-that dept

Mon, Jun 17th 2013 3:32pm — Mike Masnick

We've pointed out before how stupid it was for people like Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum to fight the copyright infringement lawsuits launched against them. In Tenenbaum's case it was monumentally stupid, because he flat out lied to the court and then had to admit it in court. You don't do that. Lying to a court is not only stupid in general, but it completely taints any underlying issues that may actually be important, and predisposes the judge against you. There are often good reasons to fight back against copyright lawsuits, but if you actually infringed and then lied about it that's a really bad reason to fight back.

Unfortunately, it looks like there was a similar situation in one of the big copyright trolling cases last week. Last fall, we wrote about how Judge Michael Baylson decided to force a group of Malibu Media copyright trolling cases to trial, after it became apparent that Malibu Media didn't seem particularly interested in going through with a trial (similar to most copyright trolls). Unfortunately, it then came out that one of the "selected" defendants lied, committing perjury, and (on top of that) destroyed the evidence. This is just ridiculously stupid.

In the end, all of the defendants "settled," but the case still had a sort of sham trial. Yes, there was no reason for the trial, since everyone basically settled, but the lawyer for Malibu, Keith Lipscomb, asked the court to enter a "final judgment." That basically allowed the judge to rail against the stupid defendant who lied and destroyed evidence (who deserves to be yelled at by the court for his actions), but it also now allows Lipscomb to use the "judgment" of $112,500 to threaten many others who are not in the same situation as the guy who lost. There's a good summary from lawyer John Whitaker, who found the whole thing baffling.

In sum, all of the defendants stipulated to liability before the trial. Plaintiff had already agreed not to seek damages against two of the three defendants. The third defendant stipulated to liability. Malibu Media and the third defendant asked the judge to enter a finding on damages, even though they had already agreed on what he would pay.

So there was absolutely nothing at issue during the trial. Not liability. Not damages. Nothing.

Then there was the 'trial' itself. The only party to actually put on a witness was Malibu Media. None of the defendants even cross-examined a witness. Really?

What kind of trial is it where the defendant doesn't challenge any of the plaintiff's witnesses or even put on any witnesses of its own? A sham, that's what.

So why was there even a trial? I have no idea.

Well, actually, he points out, everyone knows why:

It was all about Malibu Media trying to get Judge Baylson to write a document that Malibu Media could use in all its demand letters from now on. I'll point out that, to his credit, Judge Baylson had to tell Lipscomb numerous times that he would not be Lipscomb's advertising spokesman. I think what he said was he wasn't interested in writing anything that was "commercially valuable" to Malibu Media.

If the goal wasn't to be "commercially valuable" to Malibu, it looks like it failed. In the aftermath of the ruling, Malibu Media filed dozens of new trolling lawsuits. Yes, the defendant deserved to lose. Infringing by downloading the work, then lying about it to the court and destroying evidence should be punished. But it's a shame that all it's doing in this case is enabling more copyright trolling shakedown behavior.

Bad cases make bad law, and this was clearly a bad case, which was made even worse by the actions of that particular defendant. I'm not saying he should have gotten off free, but the end result here is going to lead many others to feel obligated to pay up when they probably shouldn't.

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. bellwether, keith lipscomb, lying in court
Companies: malibu media

78 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 3:48pm

Really, Mike?? You're going to block my posts??

Guess you want to escalate this then. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re:
  Really? You are going to delete all my replies to your post that completely proved Mike is right and you were lying?? Why have you done that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re:
  I guess you're going to start ranting about yogurt now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:28pm
  
  Re:
  At some point, SPAM gets blocked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah Mike that's what it is. It's not you running away like a little girl who can't stand behind anything that she says. It's not that at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 10:43pm
  
  Re:
  Jesus, threats now? I didn't think you could go so low.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 11:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike has clearly angered the Gazebo. Its retribution will be righteous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 3:49pm

Bad law comes from bad legistlators and bad judgement.
Bad cases are a given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shadow Dragon (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 3:51pm

I bet in the next half hour
I bet in the next half hour,We'll have the usual out_of_crack making his usual distorted delusional rants for the sheer attention just being hated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 3:53pm

It's on now, Mikey. Hello whac-a-mole. Lol that you'd rather block me than discuss things on the merits. Total coward move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PopeyeLePoteaux, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re:
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c1210
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You don't have to remind us. We all know that Mike is a complete and total coward who can't back up anything that he says. What a joke.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PopeyeLePoteaux, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
      �Mark Twain
      
      Thats why Mike or me or anyone else dont want to try to have a reasonable debate with you, you are irrational, and debating with irrational people only makes the whole debate irrational.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wise words. But now I'd like to coin a new quote:
        
        "Never replace an argument to a fool with an explanation for a lack of argument to a fool; the fool may not be able to tell the difference."
        
        ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?" -Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love the excuses. Excuses excuses excuses. You don't debate me because you know I mop the floor with you and you know that you're too scared to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PopeyeLePoteaux, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You don't debate me because you know I mop the floor with you"
        
        "Don�t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
        �Greg King
        
        Yeah, you will mop the floor with me in this idiocy contest of yours, you got the experience. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 2:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I prefer these rough versions (don't recall original quotes):
        
        "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
        
        "Arguing with a fool is like wrestling with a pig in mud. You with only get dirty and the pig actually enjoys it."
        
        Both are usually applicable to the trolls here, although I admit to arguing with them anyway sometimes just to point out how wrong/pathologically lying/borderline insane they usually are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re:
  Yogurt yogurt yogurt yogurt!
  
  Keep yogurting this! Yogurt that!
  
  YOGURT!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't go down to there level. It only makes you look as bad as they do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re:
  You were blocked? Then.... how can I read your inane idea of a conversation? You add nothing to the discussion except pain for the lactose intolerant. Get ye gone, spawn of milkman-satan!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - no name, 18 Jun 2013 @ 12:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually there is a lot of blocking going on. Generally Generally it's called censorship.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 2:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      On this site? I'd like to see a citation that any comments have actually been blocked or removed (no, hiding them one click away at the request of the community doesn't count).
      
      At worst, there's been some whining that some comments haven't show up immediately due to them ending up in the spam filter, but these usually turn up eventually and have real acceptable reasons why the filter would have caught them (several links in an anonymous comment, for example).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 3:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, it wouldn't qualify as censorship even if it really were going on. You see, this is Mike's site. Mike has control over what does and does not get printed on his site. That is his right, like it or not. Of course, he chooses to let you 'people' keep posting your nonsensical attacks, and leaving the hiding of these comments (note, that still doesn't qualify as censorship) to the rest of the community.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re: "whack-a-mole"
  Timely ~ LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCP, 18 Jun 2013 @ 11:06am
  
  Re:
  What's the problem? YOUR totally misguided comments normally have no merit at all, so why publish them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:24pm

Darwin at its finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:30pm

Poor little Mikey. Too scared to stand behind his own words. Can't take it when somebody challenges him on the merits. Nobody is more scared than you buddy. And you so fucking know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:38pm

Cluck cluck cluck cluck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:39pm

Mike is so scared at the thought of having a debate with me that he's now resorted to blocking my IP address. LOL! Now that's one scared little chubby dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David Lowery, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re:
  At least Mike is man enough to use his own name and not hide behind a cowardly veil of anonymity. You will never have any credibility as an AC. Punk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Masnick = Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    At least Mike is man enough to use his own name and not hide behind a cowardly veil of anonymity. You will never have any credibility as an AC. Punk.
    
    Says the idiot using a fake name. I'm anonymous and I can sweep the floor with Mike. He's such a little chicken shit that he's too scared to ever try and match wits with me. I don't even have to log in and everyone knows it's me. I fucking own Mike. He's so fucking scared of me he has to block my IP.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David Lowery, 17 Jun 2013 @ 8:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not a fake name idiot. I don't know why you come here, your incendiary ranting only drives eyeballs to this site. Mike calmly, directly refutes your inane, profane, blathering screeds, making you look like the raving lunatic coward that you are. Do you think you are changing anyone's mind? You are just a pitiful object of derision.
      I, however, look forward to your posts. Because no matter how bad things are for me, at least I'm not you. Apparently you get off on being belittled, hated and ridiculed. If that is what you seek out every day, you are a sad little sociopath. I pity you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 10:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are a sad little child.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re:
  When do you ever argue ANYTHING on it's merits. All I ever read is you whining about Mike not arguing you on the merits. Try forming a cogent argument sometime. You might be surprised. I know I would.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Masnick = Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    When do you ever argue ANYTHING on it's merits. All I ever read is you whining about Mike not arguing you on the merits. Try forming a cogent argument sometime. You might be surprised. I know I would.
    
    I discuss the merits all the time. See, e.g., https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130614/23172323482/al-gore-says-nsa-surveillance-is-unconstituti onal-not-american-way.shtml#c275
    
    It's Mike the Coward that has to block my IP address because he HATES how I can discuss the merits and he can only spread idiotic FUD.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Loser.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AC Unknown, 17 Jun 2013 @ 8:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Really? I thought ad-homs and "WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME?" weren't ways to have an honest discussion with someone.
      
      Try again, you pathetic failure of a person.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:50pm

Stupdity
The only lesson here is not to tamper with evidence especially. It will make you look a slime and cause a harsher sentence.

When I read that the harddrive was wiped the verdict does not surprise me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 17 Jun 2013 @ 4:51pm

I've said MANY times that awards are excessive.
112,000 -- though guess we don't know much defendant actually paid -- is too much. Sould be in the range of traffic tickets.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/17431520668/judge-calls-copyright-trolls-bluff .shtml#c106

This is the famous "bellweather" case! If you'll take the link, you'll see that I wrote there was WITH Mike on view.

But I do have questions here: "Infringing by downloading the work, then lying about it to the court and destroying evidence should be punished."

1) Should infringement on its own be punished? Not THIS much, but you loaded it with conditions up there, so YES OR NO on just PLAIN infringement?

2) IF Mike answers yes, then a far more serious one for the fanboys: MIKE SUPPORTS COPYRIGHT! What are you pirates doing here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:24pm
  
  Re: I've said MANY times that awards are excessive.
  Regarding #1, I'd say yes, but unless someone is literally making money from the infringement(in which case fine them for 150% of how much they made and be done with it), never for more than say 10x as much as the sale price of the item in question(statutory damages of course are right out, prove the damages or like any other crime the charges should be dismissed).
  
  So download an album that sells for $15, max fine would be $150, not the thousands(if you're lucky) that it currently is.
  
  Put simply, the act of simply downloading a file should not be considered a crime serious enough to financially ruin someone for the rest of their life; people who commit crimes with verifiable harm get off lighter than that.
  
  Regarding #2, yes, he does, so what? What he, and almost everyone here other than the copyright abolitionists are against is not copyright itself, but abuses of it and how insane it has gotten, not the core idea itself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 7:55pm
  
  Re: I've said MANY times that awards are excessive.
  You continuing to make an assumption that everyone who reads this site and is against the likes of Lipscomb is a pirate is frankly unbecoming. It's as fair as calling you a corporate cocksucker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 18 Jun 2013 @ 3:41am
  
  Re: I've said MANY times that awards are excessive.
  Blue, he never said he didn't, and no amount of ad hominem attacks will make you right about anything. Mike is reasonable, not an all-or-nothing extremist.
  
  Few of us regulars differ with him over his reasonable, fair-minded approach. We just get annoyed when the maximalists go over the top.
  
  NOW do you get it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:04pm

An interesting discussion is going on on my blog: even X-Art/Malibu Media co-owner chimed in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:14pm

Wanna block me? I will now post more than ever. It's your choice. Think I've been a pain before? I haven't even started. Your choice, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:39pm
  
  ...
  Did... did you just pull the digital equivalent of threatening to hold your breath until someone pays attention to you?
  
  That would be funny if it wasn't so very sad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re:
  In what universe is the community blocking your punk ass a pain?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:14pm

Wanna block me? I will now post more than ever. It's your choice. Think I've been a pain before? I haven't even started. Your choice, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:36pm
  
  Re:
  TechDirt - I know you block spam, but, for some reason, you have not blocked this crap.
  This AC's posts are repetitive, not related to the content of the blog, irritating, and irrelevant! They seem to be a very bad personal promotional campaign for for a deranged individual. The posts certainly meet my definition of spam.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The TD spam-blockers take care of the usual, sales-pitch crap, it's left to the visitors/commentators to deal with and report jokers like this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:43pm

the end result here is going to lead many others to feel obligated to pay up when they probably shouldn't

No it isn't.

It isn't going to do anything of the sort. You just made that up. No intelligent lifeform is going to pay/admit guilt for something they had no connection to.

If they're guilty tho, they'll pay.

And that's what really upsets you and your paymasters at Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  Are you daft?
  
  When you can just settle why would you go to court and take huge risks?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jjmcubed (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 12:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry, but you do know you just asked this "interesting fellow" if he was daft? Is that even something we have to discuss given his history?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 2:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Huge risk of what? Winning and being able to sue them back?
    
    Stop pretending there aren't infringers and that no one is getting caught.
    
    You people are so intellectually dishonest; it's hilarious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:25pm
  
  Re:
  So in your world no ones ever been fired from a job based on allegations alone.
  No one has ever been terminated for their porn habits.
  
  The burden is on the accused to prove a negative, that they did not infringe. And when lawyers start talking about bothering all of your neighbors asking if they downloaded some of the "high quality art" using your connection... yeah.
  
  You really suck at this. I mean kudos for getting me to respond, but in the end your still just an impotent little man raging as loud as you can about a world you don't understand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 7:22pm
  
  Re:
  You've started with a legit yet incorrect statement, and I considering replying, but you finished in a tinfoil territory, so I decided not to bother.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 8:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Tinfoil my ass.
    
    Masnick and Google are thick as thieves. In more ways than one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:01pm

Talking about ending badly.

Glenn Britt's told in public that they dowright pay or threaten content producers to keep content out of reach of competitors, now the DOJ is apparently looking into the matter, it probably ends with nothing, but it shows you just can't run your mouth bragging about how anti-competitive you are.

https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Justice-Department-Eyes-Cable-Industry-Practices-1246 51

At least not for now, we have fallen a lot but you can't just say you are a monopolist and will do whatever to stop competition from rising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Masnick = Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:07pm

What are you so scared of, Mikey??

Cluck!! Bawk!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:34pm
  
  Re:
  AJ, get off the computer, you're drunk(again).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Masnick =Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 6:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope. Sober and ready to kick Mike's ass on the merits. But he's too chicken shit to ever even try. He's know how embarrassing it would be for him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 7:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just to be clear, I post the following to educate others as to why debating with you would be a complete and utter waste of time, as I realize you are beyond hope in your delusions.
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments -week-techdirt.shtml#c1210
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Masnick = Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 7:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Post away. I love that link. That's just Mike making excuses. Why won't Mike answer even the most simple question about his posts or his beliefs? It's not because of me. It's because Mike is a total fake and a total coward. He is scared shitless of me. Mike could prove me wrong by having one honest discussion with me where he doesn't run away and use weasel words. It won't happen. Ever. Why? Because Mike is incapable of honesty. All he knows how to do is pump out FUD for clicks. He can't hold his own in a debate with me on the merits. I know it. He knows it. Everyone knows it. It would be so easy to prove me wrong. Yet he doesn't. Hmm... I love this place. I shit all over Mike right in his own home, calling him out and challenging him, and he's just too scared to take me on. I love it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 7:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *looks down*
        Does that sad excuse for a hardon come in the adult size?
        
        I am assuming your the same asswipe who runs around demanding Mike debate you then mocking him because you claim he won't... but when he challenges you directly and answers things you keep moving the goal posts trying to pretend he isn't actual paying attention to you.
        
        So other than getting your nut off this evening did you have anything to add or did you just stop by to blow your sad little troll load and fuck off?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AC Unknown, 17 Jun 2013 @ 8:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know what, I think Mike should just go ahead and block AJ's IP address. AJ is no longer even trying to persuade us. It's just attack after attack after attack after attack after "WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME?".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        David Lowery, 17 Jun 2013 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I kind of agree, but I don't know what these threads would look like without all the troll scat strewn about the place...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Jun 2013 @ 8:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Given how trivial it is to change IP addresses, wouldn't do anything at all but set a bad precedent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 18 Jun 2013 @ 3:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pathetic troll is pathetic. He thinks "Debate" means "agree with."
        
        I'd have blocked him ages ago, but as I pointed out on another post, I think Mike lets them roam free here to prove his point: maximalists have no better arguments than the trolls who pop up here making animal noises and spouting tinfoil hat FUD when they're not dismissing genuine concerns.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 10:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Job search not going well?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2013 @ 11:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        why won't you admit that you cheat on all of your exams.
        
        You still have not proven that you are not a cheat.
        
        Your understanding of copyright and it's associated laws suggest that you need your mommy to read them to you. you should get her to explain what it means as well as just read it to you
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 17 Jun 2013 @ 8:52pm

You're just repeating their lies
Yeah, Mike. The behavior of the defendant would make a lot more sense if you weren't just parroting the RIAA's long disproven talking points as a factual version of events, a version of events that's only ever brought up again by people who believe their million-dollar legal team's poetic interpretation of the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 9:11am

Word!~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick Smith (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:17am

Someone needs to investigate...
Given my suspicious nature (which is in overdrive at the moment) I would really make sure that there is not a prior relationship between Malibu Media and this "selected" defendant just to make sure that nothing hinky was going on. The outcome of this was just a little too good for the copyright troll, my experience is that luck like that just doesn't happen naturally, it usually has help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re: Someone needs to investigate...
  It is always suspicious when such incredible luck strikes a troll (instead of a well-deserved lightning :) ... yet since I watched this case carefully, I'm pretty sure there was no foul play. Lipscomb is smarter than Steele, but not smart enough to pull such machination. I read all the Doe 16's motions (attny Ron Smith) and there is simply no way they could be faked.
  
  Lots and lots of Lipscomb's douchebaggery took place during these months, and I'm stunned that he emerged unpunished. But we did not forget, and certainly did not forgive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DP, 18 Jun 2013 @ 11:12am

Meds
Has OOTB taken his medication recently? Oh - I forgot. There is no cure for bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Whitaker (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:24am

Judge's Ruling nails it.
First, thanks for the plug. Second, I think the judge's ruling today puts a final nail in this puppy. There is basically nothing new in it.

Personally, I guess I'm happy this is finally over. I'm pretty sure this 'ruling' is going to be trumpeted by Lipscomb for years to come. Still, it doesn't mean anything to those of use who understand what actually happened. The problem is, most of the people who receive these threatening letters don't understand what really happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Judge's Ruling nails it.
  FYI: the Report is here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Whitaker (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re: Judge's Ruling nails it.
    Thanks!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]