Prediction: Eventual Appeal In Key Prenda Case Will Be One Worth Reading
from the just-saying... dept
Joe Mullin has the details of the latest in a long line of setbacks for John Steele and Prenda Law, in which the Ninth Circuit appeals court has rejected Team Prenda's attempt to reduce the bond amount that they need to put up, consolidated the various appeals, and set a briefing schedule for later this year. The ruling is short and sweet and basically is an indication that the appeals court isn't interested in Prenda's usual game of trying anything and everything to create a distraction. But, what caught my attention, and which I hadn't realized before, is that it appears that the three judge panel handling the appeal is headed up by Judge Alex Kozinski (see update below) -- perhaps one of the most well known and entertaining judges on the bench today. We've written about Kozinski many times before -- and while I don't always agree with Kozinski (to be fair: I very often do agree with him), he is almost certainly the most entertaining, both when speaking live and in his rulings. And, equally as important, he's one judge who really does seem to make sure he really understands what's going on, beyond the superficial level that we've seen elsewhere. Given that, the Kozinski-fanboy in me is already anticipating the turns of phrase that Kozinski will spin in any eventual ruling involving Prenda... District court judge Otis Wright's original ruling against Team Prenda was impressive, as many folks have acknowledged, but there's an opportunity here for Judge Kozinski to produce a sequel that will be a delight. Update: Bah, procedural error on my part. This is the motions panel, not the merits panel, meaning that we don't yet know which three judge panel will handle the actual case. Let's just hope that Kozinski is on it, though...
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: alex kozinski, bond, john steele, ninth circuit, otis wright
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Steele has done nothing more than what most copyright enforcers do and have to go on. Who would take copyright seriously, if not for the threat that you can at any point have your life ruined based on an IP address? If innocent John Does have anyone to blame, blame it on your neighbors. Blame it on strangers passing by, jacking the access you should have paid an expert to protect. But never, ever dare you blame the enforcement companies who pay good money to maintain a 30% error rate. Be grateful that it isn't any higher. Never dare you blame the pornographers who make product for you sad single parasites to jack off to. Never dare you blame the lawyers and lawmakers that fight on their behalf.
Otis Wright has gone too far in his misguided attempt to publicly defame a fine, upstanding individual in copyright enforcement, at the behest of Internet trolls of all things, for which Techdirt has become a cesspool. All you can do is post useless, speculative bragging like this, and only out_of_the_blue and average_joe have the keen insight to call you out on this (whom you insist on censoring too).
It's truly sad that Techdirt has gone this far, such that only pirates and teenagers rotting away in their mother's basements are allowed to make their voice heard.
Anyone else claiming otherwise (or to be me) is a troll, and is attempting to shamefully smear my good name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Such a problem that he took the unusual step of ordering discovery, after 3 1/2 hours of listening and asking questions.
But hey, when Prenda hires a lawyer that tries to tell the judge what Federal wiretap/recording laws are, AND gets them wrong, it's not going to go down well with a judge that used to sit on the FISA court (1980-87).
The first batch of subpoena's have already gone out, and preservation orders went out a while back (oh, did you think you actually deleted that account Mr Steele, what a shame Google was already preserving it, guess we'll see what the judge says on spoilation)
Having fun, and I didn't even NEED to testify to point out the many and varies flaws in the complaint, the 83yo judge could see them for himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In any case, it's Mike's blog and he can run it as he sees fit. People have a right to free speech, but they don't have a right to be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The lengths at which you will go to silence those defending the rights and revenue of maligned creators is staggering. Make no mistake: John Steele is doing no more than he is entitled and legally empowered to do, ever since the RIAA began their campaign to reign in the damage you reckless pirates continue to deal to the entertainment industry. Is a 30% error rate too big? You should be grateful it isn't 40%, but on the other hand, it's too much to expect pirates to be grateful for anything.
You constantly complain that laws have not been updated for the digital age, and it happens to work both ways. If judges do not permit copyright holders to stop piracy of their works en masse their enforcers are perfectly entitled to use all resources at their disposal to stop this insidious crime. Judges have never questioned the RIAA before, why should they start now? Because it's pornography? Because Otis Wright clearly has an ax to grind and is taking it out on this defender of morals and the right to profit? Mark my words, this will not stand. If content creators are not allowed to threaten consumers charged with theft the entertainment industry will collapse, and it will be on all of your heads.
It's truly, truly sad to see what Techdirt has become. A bastion of censorship-toting thieves with no regard for content creators who merely request for barely enough repatriation to support themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In defending Prenda, and all those involved, you have defended a group of people who were willing to threaten people, innocent or not, with hundred, if not thousand dollar 'settlement offers', if they didn't want their names publicly linked to downloading fetish-porn films(which are quite likely to have been uploaded by Steele himself).
In defending Prenda, and in particular Steele, you are defending someone who had no problem at all using someone else's name as a cover for multiple shell companies to use to extort people, to avoid being liable himself for their actions. Someone who had no problem using that person's identity to register sites, domain names, and sign legal documents unknowingly in his(Cooper's) name. Not only that, when confronted by this he had the sheer gall to sue Cooper for daring to call him out on his actions and to try and get him to stop.
In defending Prenda, you are defending a group who has done everything in the power to avoid even the slightest scrutiny in their actions, who are regularly caught in lies, to Judges no less, and who's actions were so questionable, and likely downright illegal, that they collectively refused to say a word when asked to answer the simplest questions when under threat of perjury should they lie.
After having defended 'people' like that, you don't have a good name to smear, so get off your holier-than-thou, 'how dare you attack these paragons of virtue' high-horse, and realize your actions put you in the mud right along side the scum you so regularly defend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: horse with no name on Jul 15th, 2013 @ 9:15pm
If I'm reading this, how has it been withheld? Logic win right there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is your good name?
and perhaps, you are smearing your own name.
sht, no wonder you are loosing. Your logic is idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Satire "horse" or not, are you saying that most copyright enforcement lawyers actually own the copyrights in the porn works sued upon -- works which were likely never "published" per copyright law or ever made for sale, but instead likely posted by the same lawyer on torrent sites to bait potential defendants -- and machinate elaborate subterfuges to obscure the lawyers' ownership of the works from the Courts and public using forged documents, and simultaneously brag about all the money they make, and then respond to legitimate concerns of defendants regarding this activity by carpet bombing most anyone who would formally claim they are doing what they are doing with accusations and retaliatory lawsuits, and then lie like the dickens to the Courts and everyone to brazenly attempt to foist their own cognitive dissonance on everyone else in the face of, you know, reality? Is that what you are saying?
(I know, I know: Don't feed the trolls. But I couldn't help but post this epic sentence after it popped into my head.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Otis Wright has gone too far in his misguided attempt to publicly defame a fine, upstanding individual in copyright enforcement, at the behest of Internet trolls of all things, for which Techdirt has become a cesspool"
And then I knew that there was no basis to anything you wrote just your effort to put forth a lets all feel sorry for poor John Steele.
Sorry but if you want absolution for John Steele, better go see a priest, because I doubt your going to get it from any of us.
Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy long ago lost touch with why they became Lawyers and have long forgot what the rules of court are and about.
They have all collectively used copyright litigation not to uphold anyones lawful rights as a way to protect their creative work. but as a bolierplate lawsuit factory designed to do nothing but enrich themselves.
Never mind that soome poor bastard who happens to have an IP address gets a settlement letter from the Prenda gang telling him he infringed some alleged copyrighted work and he need to pay up and settle or be sued and pay untold thousand of dollars and left with legal bills that may no know end.
Never mid that whether this person did it or not, it was your IP address so pay up. Truth be damned, if they dragged some poor bastard into a lawsuit innocent or not, pay up.
And what of thos who did retain counsel and fight? Prenda tried to withdraw rather than fight, they were not concerned with a fight just a quick buck.
If it wasnt for those few who did fight and the defense counsel's who exposed the P[renda gang and their "litigation" and the facts behind it, thios would still be going on and it is under a whole new name.
Sorry but Judge Wright as well as other Judges had defense lawyers bring the facts of the case and the companies and copyrights and tactics in these cases to the courts attention and rightly so as defendant counsel and as officers of the court.
The mere fact that all across the U.S. Judges have chastised and asked hard questions about Prenda litigation is all fair and Steele, Duffy and Hansmeier have no one to balme but themselves for their troubles.
They all stopped long ago in my opinion about upholding the laws and abiding by them and have chosen to use the law to achieve unjust enrichment at the hands of those innocent and not.
I have no respect for Steele, Duffy or Hansmeier, karma is a bitch and they are just seeing their share come back to them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you agree that most of them are breaking the law and creating situations where things with no value (their words not mine) are being used to create vast piles of money tax-free (their words not mine).
So when the copyright enforcers are clearly breaking the law on several levels your perfectly okay with this because ZOMG someone got a copy of the work we put online hoping they would download in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds about right, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every month, three judges of the Ninth Circuit are designated as motion judges - judges to hear motions in cases not already assigned to a merits panel. This ruling was from the motions panel. (Kozinski may be the chief judge, but he doesn't exempt himself.)
It means nothing in terms of whether Kozinski will be on the merits panel. We won't know that for quite a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aha. Good to know... adding to the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess this is another example of where you didn't do your homework and you didn't do actual journalism. But it's OK because people can just correct you in the comments, right? LOL! Why should anyone take you seriously if you're relying on others to do your homework for you? You can't have it both ways. Either you're a trustworthy source who does his homework, or you're an untrustworthy source who relies on others to do his homework for him. You can have a middle ground where you're trustworthy even though you don't actually earn that trust. Classic Mike post. Totally baseless excitement built upon a fundamental error on your part. I'm sure you'll cite this article later as the foundation for another mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgive my clone - he doth not know what he sayeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]