Team Prenda Keeps Trying To Convince Judges That The Lawyers Who Exposed Them Are The Real Scammers
from the nice-try,-guys dept
We've discussed in the past how Team Prenda loves to use the "I know you are, but what am I" defense, in which they accuse opposing counsel of doing all sorts of nefarious things to game the legal system -- something that they themselves have been accused of by multiple judges. In the past few days, two more examples popped up. The same day that John Steele was getting reamed by Judge Otis Wright, Steele submitted his latest "reply" to opposing attorneys Morgan Pietz and Nick Ranallo, arguing in vehement language that those two need to be sanctioned. Not surprisingly, Judge Wright didn't bother with that one at all, because it's ludicrous. The focus of the hearing made it clear that Steele's attempts to pretend that Pietz and Ranallo are concocting some sort of fraud is not convincing anyone. Still, it's hilarious:The extent of the fraud that has been committed on this Court by Respondents [Pietz and Ranallo] is slowly, but steadily, emerging. The first category of fraud--failing to serve any of the pro se persons with any of the papers they have submitted over the course of this entire proceeding--has been definitively established by the papers before the Court; Pietz and Ranallo do not dispute they engaged in this fraud.It goes on and on. Of course, it's almost all entirely bogus. Pietz and Ranallo do dispute that they engaged in fraud, because they didn't. They explained, quite clearly, that Steele clearly had knowledge of what was going on, and then proceeded to do a variety of things -- including deleting his email account -- to claim that he was not being served and was somehow unaware of the proceedings.
Meanwhile, in the Navasca case in Northern California -- where a similar set of events appears to be playing out for Team Prenda, as judge Edward Chen seems to be recognizing what Team Prenda is trying to pull -- Paul Duffy has filed a similar attack on Pietz and Ranallo, once again trying to argue that it's those pesky lawyers who should be sanctioned. This is the case where, as we'd mentioned, Brett Gibbs filed a deposition to show that Mark Lutz was lying about the claim that Gibbs sent him documents, which Lutz signed as "Salt Marsh" (if you don't know what this is about, click the link to dig into the details).
Duffy is arguing that this is all some scam by Pietz and Ranallo to pay off Gibbs to lie to get Team Prenda in trouble.
There are however, two aspects of Defendant’s Motion that are highly troubling and suggest that if any sanctions are appropriate they should be imposed upon Defendant’s counsel [Pietz and Ranallo]. First, counsel has produced a declaration of former Plaintiff attorney Brett Gibbs (the “Gibbs Affidavit”) that Defendant’s counsel appears to have procured through a quid pro quo, in which Defendant’s co-counsel would assist Gibbs financially in the matter under appeal from the Central District of California before Judge Wright in exchange for Gibbs’ agreement to provide the Declaration. Leaving aside for now the many ethical infirmities arising from an attorney who offers a declaration against his own client, disclosing privileged communications and confidences, for his own personal gain, Defendant’s counsel knows, or should know, that statements in the Gibbs Declaration are, at a minimum, directly contrary to Gibbs’ sworn statements in other proceedings. Defendant’s counsel fails to notify the Court of that fact. Defendant’s counsel has also failed to inform the Court that, the Monday after Gibbs dated his Declaration, he and his co-counsel in the Central District filed in the Central District of California a motion seeking to relieve Gibbs of the obligation for a sanction in the amount of approximately $101,650 for which he was jointly and severally liable. (A true and correct copy of that as Exhibit “A” hereto and made a part hereof). The only purpose of counsels’ otherwise-inexplicable stipulation in the Central District is that they agreed to file it with that Court in exchange for a declaration that suits their interests in this matter. Indirect payment for testimony, and counsel’s failure to point out that Gibbs’ current declaration directly contradicts his prior statements, is conduct that the Court should sanction, at minimum, by denying the Motion in its entirety.Duffy also goes on to attack the EFF, as if a court -- in Northern California, no less -- is unfamiliar with the EFF or thinks of it as some sort of "vigilante group" as Duffy claims. I realize that Duffy is from Chicago, and perhaps isn't that aware of the EFF or its reputation, but pretending they're some crazy vigilantes just makes you look silly. Even folks who disagree with the EFF, for the most part, recognize the group's reputation and legal prowess. And, I'd imagine that goes doubly for judges in Northern California, EFF's home turf.
Defendant’s Motion is a dizzying accretion of conspiracy theories, invective and inadmissible evidence that betrays a motive on the part of his counsel other than representation of the Defendant. Indeed, Plaintiff is informed that Defendant’s counsel is a panel attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), an anti-copyright vigilante group whose panel attorneys have filed dozens upon dozens of similar filings throughout the country. The EFF panel attorneys have taken to attaching mass numbers of filings and transcripts of other court proceedings as exhibits to their filings, apparently in an attempt to lend the appearance of legal and factual gravitas otherwise missing from their arguments.The motion goes on to suggest, strongly, that Pietz and Ranallo (a) effectively "paid off" Gibbs and (b) tried to pressure Duffy/Prenda into a settlement by claiming that it would file Gibbs' deposition claiming Lutz lied if they didn't. According to Duffy, this was a form of professional misconduct in trying to "induce a settlement."
Oh yeah, in the middle of all that, he also tosses in a bit claiming that Gibbs' deposition -- which shows that Duffy's client flat out lied to the court -- is "not credible." The "proof"? Gibbs, in the deposition, claimed that he believed Salt Marsh was a person, yet in Paul Hansmeier's now infamous deposition in this same case, Gibbs represented Hansmeier, where Hansmeier denied that Salt Marsh was a person. Of course, this ignores the timing of all this. The "Salt Marsh" signature came well before that deposition. To get around this, Duffy claims that it's somehow incredible that Gibbs believed Salt Marsh was a person -- though, anyone who's been following this case knows that's not incredible at all. Hansmeier and Steele insisted to him that Salt Marsh was a person, according to Gibbs, and (as has since come out), Steele's sister's boyfriend was named Anthony Saltmarsh. So, why is it so crazy? Duffy then tries to claim that if Gibbs had (a) believed that Salt Marsh was a person back when the ADR was submitted, and then (b) heard Hansmeier claim otherwise months later, then Gibbs "had an obligation to do something" to "correct any misunderstanding." Of course, Duffy is now using pretzel logic, suggesting that Gibbs had a duty to sabotage his own side (at the time) by publicly stating that he had filed falsified documents. Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Basically, Duffy's filing shows just how obnoxious Team Prenda is. From all of the information and details from Judge Wright's order, it appears that Steele, Hansmeier and (to a lesser extent, Duffy) had Brett Gibbs handle all the dirty work, insisting that various things were legit, when it turns out they weren't. Now that it's come out that things weren't legit, Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy are effectively blaming Gibbs for taking their word on the documents it seems likely they falsified. Talk about chutzpah. "Your honor, we didn't commit fraud on the court, but if we did, the real blame should go towards the guy we used to commit the fraud, for not telling the court about the fraud he was a part of." Yes, that appears to be the basic argument.
These guys really are quite incredible.
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: brett gibbs, edward chen, john steele, morgan pietz, nicholas ranallo, otis wright, paul duffy, salt marsh
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Censorship
I know I should ignore this, but I have this nagging tendency to feed trolls, mainly because I don’t care about getting down‘n’dirty with the poor bastards.So, let me see what came out from under the bridge today…
Right on cue, the apologist army censors the only voices of sanity on Techdirt.
Nobody has censored you, Out of the Blue, or anyone else who manages to get caught behind the ‘This comment has been flagged by the community’ bit. The term ‘censorship’ implies that someone has disallowed you from speaking your mind in any way whatsoever, typically via government interference. The term implies that you don’t have either the right or the platform to speak your mind and express yourself.
Censorship does not happen when a blog ‘hides’ your comments, either by community vote or moderator decision. The blog’s owners/moderators offer you the use of the comments section as a privilege, not a right. They have no obligation to allow you to use that platform to attack them, other commenters, or people discussed in the blog’s articles.
You have plenty of other platforms available to you if Techdirt’s moderators or regular commenters flag your comments and you still wish to have your voice heard.
You will jump on any possible error that content creators make, but when judges, defense counsel and defendants collude to make a witch-hunt out of content creators and their advocates, you laud these criminal efforts.
Copyright leans so far in favor of copyright holders and content creators that it should have a background spot in Michael Jackson’s music video for ‘Smooth Criminal’. The system bends in favor of those two parties because of how the major media conglomerates and their ‘supporters’ within the government (i.e. their bought-and-paid-for Congresspeople) have crafted copyright in the past few decades.
When the law becomes so inequitable as to allow groups such as Prenda to proceed damn near unchecked by the legal system (because you can bet your ass that this sort of trickery won’t end with Prenda’s destruction), the legal system has a duty to make the law as equitable as possible.
But let me put it in a way you can understand: you will jump on any possible error that judges, defense counsel, and defendants make, but when content creators collude to make a witch-hunt out of judges, defense counsel, defendants, and their advocates, you laud these criminal efforts.
And make no mistake: Prenda has committed a criminal effort, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of ‘felony’. Prenda tried to use the legal system to defraud people out of money under the guise of ‘protecting copyright’, and all of the evidence that has come out in the various cases where Prenda has lost have shown that the major players in the group had at least some level of knowledge about the fraud they attempted to commit.
How do you expect us to respect all ‘rightsholders’ and ‘content creators’ when you lump them in with a bunch of frauds such as Prenda?
Did it not occur to you that if not for how you continue to cheat and steal from content creators, John Steele would not have to create offshore companies and forge signatures as you have ruthlessly alleged?
‘If you hadn’t broken the law, John Steel wouldn’t have had to break the law to stop you from breaking the law!’
Nothing about this case indicates that Steele or the other Prenda players had any real interest in ‘protecting copyright’. Their entire act reeks of trying to defraud both regular people and the courts in an attempt to make as much money as possible off the ‘rubber stamp’ that they believed the courts would give them in regards to enforcing copyright.
Steele and Co. didn’t break the law to stop everyone else from doing it (which would still make Steele and Co., y’know, lawbreakers). They did it to fill their bank accounts. At least the MPAA and RIAA try to excuse their overt reaches into the legal system as ‘protecting copyrights’; Steele and Co. have no such excuse.
Otis Wright is going on a personal, misguided crusade against copyright enforcement, and has only become emboldened by the court's refusal to remove him.
Prenda broke the law, Prenda knew it had broken the law, and Prenda tried to cover up how it had broken the law. Otis Wright has, if anything, a grudge against a group of people who tried to exploit copyright law for financial gain. In his position, I’d probably hold that same grudge.
What proof can you offer that Wright has a legitimate grudge against all copyright holders, though?
I stand firmly on the position that Otis Wright will get the punishments he deserves and John Steele must be exonerated, for the betterment of the global entertainment industry.
You stand on the less-populated side of the line in this case, then.
John Steele and his co-conspirators at Prenda probably did more to poison the well against copyright holders within the legal system than help them. Courts who have paid attention to the Prenda cases will likely scrutinize the actions of other copyright-enforcement groups far more than they would have pre-Prenda. The entire Prenda saga will likely make it harder for the MPAA and RIAA to present specific findings as factual evidence (e.g. single IP addresses which they claim as absolute proof that someone downloaded content).
How did that happen? Otis Wright called Prenda out on its bullshit and turned the group’s entire act on its head by helping to expose Prenda’s fraudulent actions.
Whenever you complain about copyright holders having a harder time proving their cases in the future, remember that you can blame Prenda for making the legal system warier of Prenda-style shakedown tactics.
My guess is that you'll try and hold this post for moderation, too, because Mike is too busy blocking mobile IP blocks in Hong Kong. Censorship, plain and simple. It's truly sad to see how low Techdirt has sunk, and how you'll stop at nothing to silence those who would point this out.
Techdirt allows people who disagree with them to post all the time. I’ve seen people on opposing sides have rational discussions in the comment sections of this blog. You could even have a similar discussion one day…
…if you could cut out all the ad hominems and bring some form of logical and cohesive argument to the table, of course.
Until then, the Techdirt commenter community will continue to flag your submissions as not worth showing. They don’t have to change. They don’t hold the blame for what you or anyone else considered a ‘troll’ around these parts write in the comments.
The one who has to change is you.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
ZOMG! Yet another item on Prenda Law! A staple in the soporific "At The Bench" series. Mike sez (short version): "Wow. Wow. Wow. ... The story is gripping."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130303/23353022182/prenda-law-sues-critics-defamation .shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
I'm not concerned about new readers; that's Masnick's job, but even he can present readership levels that you'll probably ignore and futilely dispute. I'm concerned about watching one of copyright laws' best and brightest enforcers flail, lie, cheat and struggle their way to keep the unquestioned status quo of "anything the rightsholders say, goes" and failing miserably.
You're just mad that due process is being enforced, and it's finally starting to catch up to copyright. Too damn bad, go cry Prenda a river.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
'There's nothing here to look at, go away. I said there's nothing here to look at, stop looking! Get away from that curtain, there's nothing behind that for you, and stop looking!'
I must say, outside of a lack of smoke, fireworks and a giant bald head, the resemblance is startling, though about as effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
School-yard logic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Censorship
Did it not occur to you that if not for how you continue to cheat and steal from content creators, John Steele would not have to create offshore companies and forge signatures as you have ruthlessly alleged? Otis Wright is going on a personal, misguided crusade against copyright enforcement, and has only become emboldened by the court's refusal to remove him. I stand firmly on the position that Otis Wright will get the punishments he deserves and John Steele must be exonerated, for the betterment of the global entertainment industry.
My guess is that you'll try and hold this post for moderation, too, because Mike is too busy blocking mobile IP blocks in Hong Kong. Censorship, plain and simple. It's truly sad to see how low Techdirt has sunk, and how you'll stop at nothing to silence those who would point this out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Might I suggest for bonus reading you locate the Merkel (sp) Declaration.
If your not up to speed, it is a sworn statement from a named defendant in one of their cases.
Merkel agreed to not put up any resistance to the case, allow them to add a bunch more people in exchange for walking away without getting hammered.
Needless to say, they screwed up and sent him the standard threat letters they send to parties in their cases.
So Merkel informed the court of the scheme, feeling possibly double crossed.
So when Pretenda does it, its not wrong.
But if anyone they dislike allegedly does it, its a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
Long explanation: If the post by OOTB were censored, would you still be able to read it by clicking on a link? I would think not. The post in question has been downvoted by the community for ad-homs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
Bravo, sir/madam. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censorship
Goes as follows...
If Mike was indeed 'censoring' posts based upon nothing more than IP addresses, then that would be entirely Mike's fault, leaving the blame to fall squarely on him, and the 'censored' poster innocent.
If however the 'censorship' was nothing more than the community as a whole voting and declaring the various posts that are hidden to have no redeeming value, or not enough to counterbalance the utter rot and/or ad homs that they are filled with, then the blame would rest squarely on the one making the comments, leaving Mike innocent.
And as they could never be at fault themselves, then obviously it must be the first possibility... /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lol ok...
Team Prenda's current filings remind of the Marx Brothers Contract Skitt.
:-3
Groucho Marx: Now pay particular attention to this first clause, because it's most important. There's the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part. How do you like that, that's pretty neat eh?
Chico Marx: No, that's a no good.
Groucho Marx: What's the matter with it?
Chico Marx: I don't know, let's hear it again.
Groucho Marx: So the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part.
Chico Marx: Well it sounds a little better this time.
Groucho Marx: Well, it grows on you. Would you like to hear it once more?
Chico Marx: Just the first part.
Groucho Marx: What do you mean, the party of the first part?
Chico Marx: No, the first part of the party, of the first part.
Groucho Marx: All right. It says the first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the first part of the party of the first part, shall be known in this contract - look, why should we quarrel about a thing like this, we'll take it right out, eh?
Chico Marx: Yes, it's too long anyhow. Now what have we got left?
Groucho Marx: Well I've got about a foot and a half. Now what's the matter?
Chico Marx: I don't like the second party either.
Groucho Marx: Well, you should have come to the first party, we didn't get home till around four in the morning. I was blind for three days.
Chico Marx: Hey look, why can't the first part of the second party be the second part of the first party, then you'll get something.
Groucho Marx: Well look, rather than go through all that again, what do you say?
Chico Marx: Fine.
Groucho Marx: Now I've got something here you're bound to like, you'll be crazy about it.
Chico Marx: No, I don't like it.
Groucho Marx: You don't like what?
Chico Marx: Whatever it is, I don't like it.
Groucho Marx: Well don't let's break up an old friendship over a thing like that. Ready?
Chico Marx: OK. Now the next part I don't think you're going to like.
Groucho Marx: Well your word's good enough for me. Now then, is my word good enough for you?
Chico Marx: I should say not.
Groucho Marx: Well I'll take out two more clauses. Now the party of the eighth part --
Chico Marx: No, that's a no good, no.
Groucho Marx: The party of the ninth part --
Chico Marx: No, that's a no good too. Hey, how is it my contract is skinnier than yours?
Groucho Marx: Well, I don't know, you must have been out on a tail last night. But anyhow, we're all set now, are we? Now just you put your name right down there, then the deal is legal.
Chico Marx: I forgot to tell you, I can't write.
Groucho Marx: Well that's all right, there's no ink in the pen anyhow. But listen, it's a contract isn't it? We've got a contract, no matter how small it is.
Chico Marx: Oh sure. You bet. Hey wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here?
Groucho Marx: Oh that? Oh that's the usual clause, that's in every contract. That just says, it says, 'If any of the parties participating in this contract are shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified.'
Chico Marx: Well, I don't know.
Groucho Marx: It's all right, that's in every contract. That's what they call a sanity clause.
Chico Marx: You can't fool me, there ain't no sanity clause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Censorship
And yet horse with no brain blames everybody but the poster who always stoops to insults and "your wrong!" with nothing to back it up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thinking he's smarter than everyone else while failing all the time. Sounds like AJ to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
Are we gonna report a jackass that's lying and using baseless ad-homs all the time? Are we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
So, let me see what came out from under the bridge today…
Right on cue, the apologist army censors the only voices of sanity on Techdirt.
Nobody has censored you, Out of the Blue, or anyone else who manages to get caught behind the ‘This comment has been flagged by the community’ bit. The term ‘censorship’ implies that someone has disallowed you from speaking your mind in any way whatsoever, typically via government interference. The term implies that you don’t have either the right or the platform to speak your mind and express yourself.
Censorship does not happen when a blog ‘hides’ your comments, either by community vote or moderator decision. The blog’s owners/moderators offer you the use of the comments section as a privilege, not a right. They have no obligation to allow you to use that platform to attack them, other commenters, or people discussed in the blog’s articles.
You have plenty of other platforms available to you if Techdirt’s moderators or regular commenters flag your comments and you still wish to have your voice heard.
You will jump on any possible error that content creators make, but when judges, defense counsel and defendants collude to make a witch-hunt out of content creators and their advocates, you laud these criminal efforts.
Copyright leans so far in favor of copyright holders and content creators that it should have a background spot in Michael Jackson’s music video for ‘Smooth Criminal’. The system bends in favor of those two parties because of how the major media conglomerates and their ‘supporters’ within the government (i.e. their bought-and-paid-for Congresspeople) have crafted copyright in the past few decades.
When the law becomes so inequitable as to allow groups such as Prenda to proceed damn near unchecked by the legal system (because you can bet your ass that this sort of trickery won’t end with Prenda’s destruction), the legal system has a duty to make the law as equitable as possible.
But let me put it in a way you can understand: you will jump on any possible error that judges, defense counsel, and defendants make, but when content creators collude to make a witch-hunt out of judges, defense counsel, defendants, and their advocates, you laud these criminal efforts.
And make no mistake: Prenda has committed a criminal effort, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of ‘felony’. Prenda tried to use the legal system to defraud people out of money under the guise of ‘protecting copyright’, and all of the evidence that has come out in the various cases where Prenda has lost have shown that the major players in the group had at least some level of knowledge about the fraud they attempted to commit.
How do you expect us to respect all ‘rightsholders’ and ‘content creators’ when you lump them in with a bunch of frauds such as Prenda?
Did it not occur to you that if not for how you continue to cheat and steal from content creators, John Steele would not have to create offshore companies and forge signatures as you have ruthlessly alleged?
‘If you hadn’t broken the law, John Steel wouldn’t have had to break the law to stop you from breaking the law!’
Nothing about this case indicates that Steele or the other Prenda players had any real interest in ‘protecting copyright’. Their entire act reeks of trying to defraud both regular people and the courts in an attempt to make as much money as possible off the ‘rubber stamp’ that they believed the courts would give them in regards to enforcing copyright.
Steele and Co. didn’t break the law to stop everyone else from doing it (which would still make Steele and Co., y’know, lawbreakers). They did it to fill their bank accounts. At least the MPAA and RIAA try to excuse their overt reaches into the legal system as ‘protecting copyrights’; Steele and Co. have no such excuse.
Otis Wright is going on a personal, misguided crusade against copyright enforcement, and has only become emboldened by the court's refusal to remove him.
Prenda broke the law, Prenda knew it had broken the law, and Prenda tried to cover up how it had broken the law. Otis Wright has, if anything, a grudge against a group of people who tried to exploit copyright law for financial gain. In his position, I’d probably hold that same grudge.
What proof can you offer that Wright has a legitimate grudge against all copyright holders, though?
I stand firmly on the position that Otis Wright will get the punishments he deserves and John Steele must be exonerated, for the betterment of the global entertainment industry.
You stand on the less-populated side of the line in this case, then.
John Steele and his co-conspirators at Prenda probably did more to poison the well against copyright holders within the legal system than help them. Courts who have paid attention to the Prenda cases will likely scrutinize the actions of other copyright-enforcement groups far more than they would have pre-Prenda. The entire Prenda saga will likely make it harder for the MPAA and RIAA to present specific findings as factual evidence (e.g. single IP addresses which they claim as absolute proof that someone downloaded content).
How did that happen? Otis Wright called Prenda out on its bullshit and turned the group’s entire act on its head by helping to expose Prenda’s fraudulent actions.
Whenever you complain about copyright holders having a harder time proving their cases in the future, remember that you can blame Prenda for making the legal system warier of Prenda-style shakedown tactics.
My guess is that you'll try and hold this post for moderation, too, because Mike is too busy blocking mobile IP blocks in Hong Kong. Censorship, plain and simple. It's truly sad to see how low Techdirt has sunk, and how you'll stop at nothing to silence those who would point this out.
Techdirt allows people who disagree with them to post all the time. I’ve seen people on opposing sides have rational discussions in the comment sections of this blog. You could even have a similar discussion one day…
…if you could cut out all the ad hominems and bring some form of logical and cohesive argument to the table, of course.
Until then, the Techdirt commenter community will continue to flag your submissions as not worth showing. They don’t have to change. They don’t hold the blame for what you or anyone else considered a ‘troll’ around these parts write in the comments.
The one who has to change is you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
For the last few years, copyright terrorists have colluded to make a witch-hunt over file-sharing. It's only fair and only right that they get a little of what they've been dishing out over the years.
"...if not for how you continue to cheat and steal from content creators,..."
The only people cheating and stealing in these cases are all the people filing these illegitimate lawsuits. You're lying.
"John Steele would not have to create offshore companies and forge signatures as you have ruthlessly alleged?"
Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when one side has comitted both wrongdoings. Steele has shown himself to be a craven fraudster, just like the rest of the pro-terrorism advocates.
"Otis Wright is going on a personal, misguided crusade against copyright enforcement, and has only become emboldened by the court's refusal to remove him."
No. Prenda broke the law. Prenda has comitted fraud to hide their dodgy dealings and to make their acts of extortion difficult to defend against.
These people are only now being found out. How many innocent people have they blackmailed and extorted from to feed their greed?
The only "crusade" here is one for justice. I know you hate such a concept, but justice is what must be done. Prenda literally *needs* to be punished, to show other groups of similar low morals that their actions will have righteous consequences in the future.
"Otis Wright will get the punishments he deserves and John Steele must be exonerated..."
You have that the wrong way around.
"for the betterment of the global entertainment industry."
If Steele gets away with his crimes, there will be no betterment, only more injustice meted out by unscrupulous and greedy thieves in the copyright industry.
You keep claiming that the advocates of responsible copyright laws on these pages are defending theft, and that Steele and his ilk in the RIAA/MPAA should get away with at least a decade of extortion, fraud, terrorism, the list goes on.
Every time you make these arguments, it cannot be disputed that you're lying.
I'm asking you politely to please stop lying for a change. Who knows, you might even like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
It is meaningless to even try to defend these guys by defaming of a single site covering the case. It is very desperate to pretend that the entertainment industry as a whole supports these guys in any way, just as having the audacity to demand more proof from the side of the case that is on dry land objectively while the conjecture of team Prenda seems more than a bit suspicious in terms of the objective evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
Spamming Mike's blog with conspiracy theories about Google and how mean and cwuel we are to pick on the anomalous Prenda is her idea of "pushing back" against the commie pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: School-yard logic
Out parting all night how do you think they did it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
these guys...
just sayin'...
(not that there is anything wrong with coke -i personally don't like it much- but, these guys are giving normal cokeheads a bad name...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
Longer version - To engage a troll at all is a harmful to you and the community for two reasons:
[1] The troll loves attention. Any attention at all results in more troll posts. The troll doesn't care what you post, it just wants to suck as many people possible into its little game of ego-stroking. Your logic is useless against the troll, because it doesn't care about logic. Engaging it only encourages further trollish behavior.
[2] By engaging the troll, you take away your time from contributing to the actual conversation/debate at hand. Furthermore, as more and more people get sucked under the trolls bridge, less and less of value is actually said. Take a quick look at any thread on TD where people are engaging trolls. It's all chaff and no wheat. This destroys community.
For trolls and the TD site, simply click REPORT and move on. I know you think you're helping by engaging the troll, but you are not. Without exception, you only make things worse.
If you don't validate their behavior, most of them will go away. The one's that don't will get more and more furious as no one says anything to them. It makes it easier and easier to see them, and thus easier to REPORT their posts.
PS: If you want to get all conspiracy theory on trolls, you might posit that a fair share of them are hired guns designed to side track every conversation about their employers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cat teasing ankle-biters. Last word by out_of_the_boldface
I debate every time whether my protesting these BORING Prenda posts won't cause more of them by ginning up fanboy flames in simulated support! But on other hand, I truly think they don't draw lasting new readers and put some off, so it's fine with me either way. I have no influence over Mike except to point out facts.
@ "JohnnyRotten": YOU TOO WILL FAIL. I myself have TRIED to get the stoopid stopped -- believe it or not -- but then I gave up, just post what I want and usually ignore responses, truly don't even read them. The fanboys here just can't ignore anyone who disagrees. -- And flaming is all they're up to.
Note: I know MY "last word" in boldface can be superseded: I'm mocking the notion and proving how easy it is to make a post stand out even better than do the all-blue "First Word", "Last Word" ones that fools pay for.
* I'm only in this topic again trying a new web browser. -- This site is nearly unusable if allow javascript and cdn.techdirt.com isn't hosted out. Without those measures, the stories are chopped so can't read all on front page -- giving Mike a pseudo-click to "Read More" -- and the ribbon at bottom is just annoying, as all are. I don't see any advertisements at the moment beyond devsbuild.it and Amazon links, so how the hell does Mike "make a living by writing" as he claims here?
By the way, on the "Insider Chat" which I don't otherwise see: WHAT A HOOT! Fanboys falling all over themselves to agree with Mike! And paying for it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You tipped into obsession about 20 pieces back.
Is Blue a Sammy Davis type of crazy cat or a http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrazyCatLady
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This makes me laugh harder every single time I read it.
EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cat teasing ankle-biters. Last word by out_of_the_boldface
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]