Prenda Loses Big Again; Court Orders It To Pay Back Settlement Money, Refers To Law Enforcement
from the and-another-one dept
And here we go again. In yet another Prenda court case, Team Prenda has lost big. These are the cases in Minnesota that were reopened earlier this year, after the court became aware of Judge Wright's ruling in California, showing how Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, Paul Duffy and Mark Lutz appeared to be engaged in fraud on the court. In August, the magistrate judge assigned to review the cases, Franklin Noel, started demanding real answers to questions -- answers which never came.Instead, we got a hearing in Minnesota that revealed some explosive new info, while Mark Lutz disappeared never to be heard from again. While Hansmseier and Duffy were never able to produce Lutz or answers to Judge Noel's questions, they did try to get Judge Noel kicked off the case.
None of the above strategies worked. At all. Judge Noel today not only rejected the request to pull him off the case, but also slammed Team Prenda, yet again, ordered them to pay back all the settlement money they got from the specific cases involved and then referred the case to law enforcement to look into the activities of Hansmeier, Steele, Duffy and Lutz. While he notes there are other issues being dealt with elsewhere, the main focus of Noel's inquiry was the legitimacy of Alan Cooper's signature -- and Judge Noel concludes, as have multiple other courts, that Cooper did not sign the document. And he's pretty thorough about it. He notes that AF Holdings, the shell company in question here, "failed to meet its burden of proving the authenticity of the copyright-assignment agreements."
Even more specifically, Judge Noel says that he thinks Steele lied on the stand:
Based upon Cooper’s side of these two conversations, Steele testified that it was his “understanding that he [Cooper] had given authority to Mark and his people if he wasn’t available, that he could sign the various documents as long as he understood what the document related to . . . .” Finding Steele’s testimony regarding his “understanding” of an agreement between Cooper and Lutz to be vague, the Court asked directly, “Did you hear Mr. Cooper give Mr. Lutz authority or permission to sign his name to documents?” Steele replied “yes.” The Court expressly disbelieves Steele’s testimony in this regard.Noel goes on to point out that AF Holdings failed to produce an officer of the company who was "capable of testifying to the authenticity of each copyright-assignment agreement." He doesn't make much of Lutz's not appearance (and subsequent disappearance) other than mentioning that Lutz did not appear.
In the end, the court finds that fraud was committed on the court and orders the return of all the settlement money and the payment of attorneys' fees, which should add some more to the top of what Duffy, Hansmeier and Steele have on their ever-growing tab. The court also notes that it would be a waste of its time to "untangle the relationship between Hansmeier, Steele, Duffy, Dugas, Lutz and Prenda Law, on the one hand--and the Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC., on the other." Instead, "such investigation can more effectively be conducted by federal law enforcement...." While it's likely federal law enforcement was already looking into all of this after Judge Wright alerted them to the case, having another judge make a similar recommendation can't hurt (well, unless you're Team Prenda. Then it hurts).
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: alan cooper, franklin noel, john steele, mark lutz, michael dugas, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
The First Word
“You don’t get that lucky.
This is a disaster for culture.
I don’t see how. Prenda abused copyright law, abused the legal system, and committed multiple acts of extortion and fraud (amongst other illegal acts) in an attempt to line their own pockets with money and escape scot-free. They may have even committed other illegal (or at least immoral) acts to further cover their tracks and escape the consequences for their actions — after all, has anyone actually seen the living, breathing Mark Lutz as of late?
instead of taking the word of rightsholders for it like Beryl Howell, these overstepping figures of authority are playing executioner across the whole country to smack down copyright lawyers they dislike
The burden of proof in the legal system nominally lies on the plaintiff/prosecution, not the defendant/defense, to prove their case. In this case, the plaintiff (Prenda Law) did a piss-poor job of proving its case vis-á-vis copyright infringement.
Prenda also did a poor enough job of setting people up for said infringement that it ended up becoming a defendant in numerous jurisdictions — and the plaintiffs in those cases have done a fantastic job of proving their case against Prenda.
Rightsholders shouldn’t automatically have cases granted to them on the basis of their status as rightsholders. That way lies madness and injustice. Rightsholders should have to prove their cases just the same as any other civil plaintiff.
Just because you dislike a person does not mean you get to strip them of their rights and pin them on baseless charges.
The courts have not stripped any of the Prenda Law players of their rights, nor have they slapped any baseless charges on them. I haven’t heard of a single jurisdiction arresting any of the Prenda players, nor have I heard of any major charges brought up against them by a federal court.
The Prenda players have had multiple chances in multiple courts/jurisdictions to defend their actions against the charges brought against them by defendants-turned-plaintiffs. They have done a poor job of defending their actions. That does not mean their rights have suddenly disappeared; it means their attempts to defend a shakedown scheme have failed in the worst way.
This sort of behavior from judges is unbecoming.
I don’t think a judge ordering a defendant who has (in all practical terms) lost their case in convincing fashion to pay the required fines and referring their potentially illegal acts to federal authorities for a full investigation equals unbecoming behavior.
If that judge had tossed the Prenda players in jail, yeah, that would’ve looked awful no matter what. But this judge basically said, ‘Your asses need to pay what you owe, then you need to pray to whatever God you believe in that the Feds don’t haul your asses off to a pound-me-in-the-ass prison.’
It takes a brave individual to dare to protect content creators savaged by pirates, even more so for those less capable of publicly declaring themselves as pornographers are.
Prenda Law never had actual and full control over the copyright of those porn films, offered those films up themselves as a honeypot, then specifically targetted people as part of a shakedown/extortion scheme that relied on people’s fear of association with pornography.
They didn’t stand up for the copyrights of anyone. They stood up for their wallets.
Evidently you want to make it difficult to criticize pirates as well, which makes sense, because you're all thieves.
We can criticise pirates all the live-long day — and we have plenty of reasons to criticise them.
We can also criticise Prenda Law at the same time. As someone who seems to sit firmly on the side of copyright holders, I would think you’d have more anger towards Prenda for poisoning the well in future copyright cases that follow a similar pattern.
To the Anonymous Coward insisting I hate due process, you don't know what you're talking about.
And I quote: ‘[I]nstead of taking the word of rightsholders for it […] these overstepping figures of authority are playing executioner across the whole country to smack down copyright lawyers they dislike.’
This implies that you think copyright lawyers/plaintiffs should have full run of the courts and judges should believe them no matter what.
That view does not represent due process in any way.
anonymity cannot be given to lying, thieving, hateful scumbags like you
On the contrary: anonymity, much the same as open and free speech, must belong to all peoples or it will belong to none…
The same goes for that stupid bitch sophisticatedjanedoe, who has to use anonymity to smear lawyers, content producers and their critics.
…even when the person who makes use of both anonymity and free speech makes an ass out of themselves for everyone to see.
And if anything said about Prenda Law, its associates, or any of the legitimate copyright holders associated with Prenda lies in the realm of defamation, they can bring that up with the proper court. (That assumes they don’t have a full slate of other legal entanglements to deal with, of course.)
I pray that a thousand disgruntled artists and producers show up at your door and beat you to a bloody pulp. How's that for due process?
Calling for a group of people to commit an act of violence for the sole purpose of silencing a critic who said something you disagree with doesn’t sound like due process.
That sounds like an incitement to violence.
Last I checked, that didn’t fall under the protections of the First Amendment, so maybe you might get a lesson in due process soon enough.
Now if you don’t mind, people with actual intelligent thoughts have things to say in this comment section — so until you can come up with something on-topic and worthwhile to say, you better shut the fuck up while grown folks is talkin’.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Entering at this point is like first seeing "Attack Of The Clones".
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.s html
15:35:01[q-226-1]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because you dislike a person does not mean you get to strip them of their rights and pin them on baseless charges. I don't care how much of a douchebag you think Steele is. This sort of behavior from judges is unbecoming. It takes a brave individual to dare to protect content creators savaged by pirates, even more so for those less capable of publicly declaring themselves as pornographers are.
Evidently you want to make it difficult to criticize pirates as well, which makes sense, because you're all thieves.
Oh, and since Techdirt is going to continue spreading hate instead of discussion and hold my post back for two weeks while trolls smear my good name:
To the Anonymous Coward insisting I hate due process, you don't know what you're talking about. But for the good of society, anonymity cannot be given to lying, thieving, hateful scumbags like you. The same goes for that stupid bitch sophisticatedjanedoe, who has to use anonymity to smear lawyers, content producers and their critics. Since Masnick won't do anything about you, I pray that a thousand disgruntled artists and producers show up at your door and beat you to a bloody pulp. How's that for due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is the world coming to? I blame the patent system, but I pretty much blame the patent system for everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In all that circular logic you're passing out horse with no name, no where in it do you actually address the facts that the judge demanded and didn't get. I don't see anything in your little pout about lying to the judge nor about fraud on the court. I remind you this is not just one judge's opinion and as such it makes your hollow little rant absolutely priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry... but...
This is meant to be funny, right? Not serious or trolling? If you want us to recognize it as obvious humor, you have to be just slightly more over the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry... but...
Looks like a pure art of trolling, sides/views are subordinate to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why are we not surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: horse with no name on Nov 6th, 2013 @ 7:45pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait - I thought you disliked this ruling?!?! Make up your mind!
Yeah, that whole "upholding the law" schtick is getting pretty tired.
Oh. My. God. If this is the best you could come up with it's no wonder you landed in porn. (Although I suppose you could write for a televangelist.)
Dunno if you're referring to me, but if you don't hate due process, why do you try to kill it so? Why do you hate it when Judges enforce it?
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Hmm.. on second thought, that's probably be where the disconnect is. In the real world, due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. (That's the first line from the Wikipedia entry on due process, BTW.)
You apparently believe due process is a mob lynching.
Protip: perhaps if you learned the meaning of words before you used them, you wouldn't look so foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not a lot of distinction there. Is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Enquiring minds would love to know..
Though it seems you're an idiot no matter the anonimity you try to achieve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don’t get that lucky.
This is a disaster for culture.
I don’t see how. Prenda abused copyright law, abused the legal system, and committed multiple acts of extortion and fraud (amongst other illegal acts) in an attempt to line their own pockets with money and escape scot-free. They may have even committed other illegal (or at least immoral) acts to further cover their tracks and escape the consequences for their actions — after all, has anyone actually seen the living, breathing Mark Lutz as of late?
instead of taking the word of rightsholders for it like Beryl Howell, these overstepping figures of authority are playing executioner across the whole country to smack down copyright lawyers they dislike
The burden of proof in the legal system nominally lies on the plaintiff/prosecution, not the defendant/defense, to prove their case. In this case, the plaintiff (Prenda Law) did a piss-poor job of proving its case vis-á-vis copyright infringement.
Prenda also did a poor enough job of setting people up for said infringement that it ended up becoming a defendant in numerous jurisdictions — and the plaintiffs in those cases have done a fantastic job of proving their case against Prenda.
Rightsholders shouldn’t automatically have cases granted to them on the basis of their status as rightsholders. That way lies madness and injustice. Rightsholders should have to prove their cases just the same as any other civil plaintiff.
Just because you dislike a person does not mean you get to strip them of their rights and pin them on baseless charges.
The courts have not stripped any of the Prenda Law players of their rights, nor have they slapped any baseless charges on them. I haven’t heard of a single jurisdiction arresting any of the Prenda players, nor have I heard of any major charges brought up against them by a federal court.
The Prenda players have had multiple chances in multiple courts/jurisdictions to defend their actions against the charges brought against them by defendants-turned-plaintiffs. They have done a poor job of defending their actions. That does not mean their rights have suddenly disappeared; it means their attempts to defend a shakedown scheme have failed in the worst way.
This sort of behavior from judges is unbecoming.
I don’t think a judge ordering a defendant who has (in all practical terms) lost their case in convincing fashion to pay the required fines and referring their potentially illegal acts to federal authorities for a full investigation equals unbecoming behavior.
If that judge had tossed the Prenda players in jail, yeah, that would’ve looked awful no matter what. But this judge basically said, ‘Your asses need to pay what you owe, then you need to pray to whatever God you believe in that the Feds don’t haul your asses off to a pound-me-in-the-ass prison.’
It takes a brave individual to dare to protect content creators savaged by pirates, even more so for those less capable of publicly declaring themselves as pornographers are.
Prenda Law never had actual and full control over the copyright of those porn films, offered those films up themselves as a honeypot, then specifically targetted people as part of a shakedown/extortion scheme that relied on people’s fear of association with pornography.
They didn’t stand up for the copyrights of anyone. They stood up for their wallets.
Evidently you want to make it difficult to criticize pirates as well, which makes sense, because you're all thieves.
We can criticise pirates all the live-long day — and we have plenty of reasons to criticise them.
We can also criticise Prenda Law at the same time. As someone who seems to sit firmly on the side of copyright holders, I would think you’d have more anger towards Prenda for poisoning the well in future copyright cases that follow a similar pattern.
To the Anonymous Coward insisting I hate due process, you don't know what you're talking about.
And I quote: ‘[I]nstead of taking the word of rightsholders for it […] these overstepping figures of authority are playing executioner across the whole country to smack down copyright lawyers they dislike.’
This implies that you think copyright lawyers/plaintiffs should have full run of the courts and judges should believe them no matter what.
That view does not represent due process in any way.
anonymity cannot be given to lying, thieving, hateful scumbags like you
On the contrary: anonymity, much the same as open and free speech, must belong to all peoples or it will belong to none…
The same goes for that stupid bitch sophisticatedjanedoe, who has to use anonymity to smear lawyers, content producers and their critics.
…even when the person who makes use of both anonymity and free speech makes an ass out of themselves for everyone to see.
And if anything said about Prenda Law, its associates, or any of the legitimate copyright holders associated with Prenda lies in the realm of defamation, they can bring that up with the proper court. (That assumes they don’t have a full slate of other legal entanglements to deal with, of course.)
I pray that a thousand disgruntled artists and producers show up at your door and beat you to a bloody pulp. How's that for due process?
Calling for a group of people to commit an act of violence for the sole purpose of silencing a critic who said something you disagree with doesn’t sound like due process.
That sounds like an incitement to violence.
Last I checked, that didn’t fall under the protections of the First Amendment, so maybe you might get a lesson in due process soon enough.
Now if you don’t mind, people with actual intelligent thoughts have things to say in this comment section — so until you can come up with something on-topic and worthwhile to say, you better shut the fuck up while grown folks is talkin’.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As Ken White notes in this Popehat article:
horse with no name, above, expressed a prayer that disgruntled artists and producers would beat you up. This is a rhetorical flourish, and seems unlikely to be intended to actually incite a group of artists and producers to "beat you to a bloody pulp," and is thus not actionable incitement. Read Ken's article for a more thorough examination of a line similar to this.
In such a fantastic post, I wanted to correct you on a small matter of free speech. Horse's speech was protected, as idiotic as it was. I wouldn't have it any other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your attitude is reminiscent of Dave Chappelle's during the R. Kelley voir dire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukAfAIuGuFQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only people surprised about this revelation is Steele and Hansmeier, everyone else pretty much saw the Prenda litigation strategy starting to unravel at the seems.
Paul you seem a little strung out, you ought to grab some Midol, maybe it will mellow you out a little and you really ought to take the Google alerts for your name off of your phone.
The simple fact Paul is the internet community and those who you sued in these various cases and the Lawyers who represented them brought the facts of this sham litigation scheme to the court and media's attention, and rightfully so.
You sit and blather on about due process and whine "poor me, and my reputation". Sorry Paul you and Steele are the ones who authored this strategy, you are the ones that promised porn producers bug money if they signed on, and you and Steele are the ones who's greed got the best of them and wanted to keep the pot all in house.
Steele's ego I thought was fragile, I appear to be wrong on that with all your whining you have doing on here for months under your nic, and your childish name calling for someone benefiting your education is even funnier, sad but funny.
I gather the pressure of Gibbs spilling the Dropbox details and giving the IRS Criminal Division much more info then you thought they would get has really screwed John and you plan wise of keeping those details hidden, not to mention poor Duffy seething with anger over a 40k cut out of a 1.9 Mil profit.
I can see where you were probably pissed at John for filing the bar complaint out of anger and in hopes it would make Gibbs cower to John's plan of him taking the fall, that didn't work out as John thought I would have to believe.
Now with Gibbs firmly entrenched in survival and the possibility of him cooperating with an IRS Criminal Division investigation and as a possible witness in a RICO case, there is much trouble on the home front for you, so I can see why your stressed.
You and John can't trust Lutz to put any testimony forward on the stand, not after the Florida case where he tried to play company representative, and you sure can't count on Duffy who is probably seething about that tiny cut of the profits while taking all the risk as the principal of Prenda Law.
Let's be honest Paul, Duffy is under a lot of stress here, his professional reputation is taking a beating due to the Prenda Law association with these cases, his name is the principal of Prenda, he had to come up with the bond and probably had to secure it in his name, he has been refereed to the state bar, he is on the hook for all these fee awards.
I can see where Duffy may see what Gibbs did as a smart move, take the pressure off, get out from under the sanctions and fee awards, save himself from a possible Tax evasion charge and a possible RICO indictment... I could see where taking that step to be witness for the prosecution would be better than being a co-accused, I can see why your stressed.
Then there is Mark Lutz, I bet he is wanting out from under this... I am sure when he signed on he had no idea things would go this bad and is probably a little that some Federal Judge is going to grow tired of the "Where's Waldo" game that has been going with his non appearance in several court rooms and some Judge losing patience with the litany of excuses and sending out the U.S. Marshall Service to bring him to court in chains.
Lutz I am sure is very very tempted to wanted to flip to I would guess much like Duffy. Of course after all that you really the only one left to take the hit right Paul? I mean what could happen to John, he isn't actively practicing ( wink wink) so no bar # for him to lose..so no worries for him and he wouldnt turn on you to save himself now would he?
I mean sure John could say you were the mastermind and point out the class action objection gig and the ADA gig and say you were the master mind behind Prenda and say these prove just that, but I think John is solid in your corner... he is right?
Well Paul I am glad to see your enjoying all the due process in these cases much like the so called infringers -er- victims did.. karma can be a beast.
Well you and John are going to be famous though Paul I am sure in Ethics classes everywhere the saga of Prenda Law will be par for the course and required reading.
Happy Holidays to you Paul, I hear that canned Turkey they have in the Federal Penal system is to die for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm going to give you the same bit of advice as I gave Lowery's personal cocksucker concubine, hurricane head. If there were thousands of disgruntled artists and producers, or "sleeping giant" artists as hurricane head liked to call them, it's been years since that threat was levied. Not even the most ridiculous of RIAA fanboys like Gene Simmons is actually going to burn down the houses of alleged pirates despite how big of a ham he is.
I know you continuously refuse to read the actual articles and rant about how the justice system is biased against copyright holders, but since you like turning every single copyright abuse article into a rant about injustice, due process and a vendetta against me, let me tell you something: you're a complete, thorough moron. One of thousands of paid sycophants to ensure that no rational person has any shred of respect left for copyright law. I personally find it hilarious that you've taken it onto yourself to bear a grudge against me because you somehow feel your right to anonymity has been threatened by someone who's a little mean to you (funnily enough, you're fine with being off-topic and similarly disagreeable with Masnick as you please). In the words spoken by your heroes: "Welcome to the big leagues." It delights everyone here that every single hit against your revered enforcers keeps you awake at night, worried if today is the last day you can pull off your scams on the world. Unfortunately for you, lying sacks of shit don't live for long once exposed.
You know what's the best part, horse? As uncivil as we both can be, here's the kicker: you're the one that's being reported, each and every time. Masnick could hand this site off to someone else and the same result would occur, because you're factually retarded. The only reason why I get reported when I bite on your bait and respond to you is because most people here are unnerved by the idea of animal cruelty.
And while we're on the subject of animals, since I know your skull is thick as granite, I'm going to repeat this matter of fact as long as your equine ass is still around plaguing this site with your falsehoods.
horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
HORSE WITH NO NAME JUST HATES IT WHEN DUE PROCESS IS ENFORCED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why are supposed rightsholders not subject to the rules of evidence the rest of us are required to follow, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any particular reason we should feel sorry for someone that deliberately posts porn online then trolls the downloaders for infringement settlements to 'protect' them from the embarassment of a court case? The docs at this point seem to make it clear that the downloaded materials in question were in fact *uploaded by Prenda* and/or its associated shell companies. IANAL, but I believe this would be termed entrapment were it done by the authorities.
Given the above and the dubious explanations provided by Steele &c, pardon us for not feeling too upset about his current butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, Prenda aren't the righsholders. And porn is culture, now, like ballet or opera? Hah!
Aww, the poor, poor pornographers, with their soprano-singing performers in tutus and tights, giving BJs en pointe. Jokes aside, I'd be interested to learn how content creators are protected by the likes of Prenda, who lie, lie, and lie again. And make people called Mark Lutz disappear. I'm sure you'd call that magicianship, and therefore culture.
Except that your comedy troll post arrived moments after the article was posted. Your argument is invalid.
How good is the name of an ad-hom-spouting troll who so obviously hates due process? Ah, but to lift a quote from a popular movie, This Is Copyriiiiiiiiiiiight!
Ah, so your idea of due process is a violent, angry mob. Thanks for letting us know.
Hey TD commenters, word to the wise: due process has nothing to do with going through legal channels, it's about getting an ignorant, angry mob together to violently abuse people accused of copyright infringement. So now you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Porn is not "like ballet or opera" but it absolutely is a part of culture. No amount of moral or intellectual snobbery will change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At least have the decency to admit what it really is: pandering to our baser selves. It's not uplifting, educational, inspirational, or in any way beneficial. Other low art forms can be shared as part of the wider community. Can you say the same for porn?
But hey, what else would you expect from a conservative? It's how I roll. Like it if you want to. I don't. And I wouldn't be sad to see it all disappear tomorrow because they were driven out of business by amateurs posting their efforts online for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it is an art form, or least it's "art" with a small "a." It could not possibly be anything else. It may not be good art, but nobody said that only good art is part of culture.
How about porn as empowerment for women?
That is not an outlandish argument - several third-wave feminists do in fact make this argument - but it's irrelevant. Art does not have to empower women to be art, even to be good art.
At least have the decency to admit what it really is: pandering to our baser selves. It's not uplifting, educational, inspirational, or in any way beneficial.
The vast majority of pop art also panders to our baser selves. You could say exactly the same thing about most horror or action movies, but I would never suggest that those movies are not part of culture.
Other low art forms can be shared as part of the wider community.
If those "low art forms" can be copyrighted (and I can't think of a single one that cannot), then they can only be shared to the exact degree that pornogaphy is.
But hey, what else would you expect from a conservative?
Ironically, your conservative self is making exactly the same arguments that Soviet Russia did to censor artists. Just substitute "the proletariat" for "culture."
In fact, the reason I'm even commenting is because some feminists (though a small minority) advocate stripping pornography of its copyright protections. They make the same argument: pornography does not promote "the progress of science," so it shouldn't be covered under the Copyright Clause.
Though I'm no fan of copyright, especially in its current incarnation, I think this is a terrible idea. It would be stripping away a marketable right simply because of the content of its speech. This is pretty obviously a First Amendment violation, and it opens the door to other content-based First Amendment violations that have nothing to do with copyright.
And I wouldn't be sad to see it all disappear tomorrow because they were driven out of business by amateurs posting their efforts online for free.
As a red-blooded American male, I would mind that very much. But it will never happen, because pornography is fantasy. Amateur content will never entirely replace professional content, for exactly the same reason that cinima verite will never replace every other form of film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Losing hurts that ego, doesn't it, John?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I'm sure the porn-producing culture is going to completely evaporate now.
instead of taking the word of rightsholders for it like Beryl Howell
It's telling that the only judge you think is "fair" is the one who was a former lobbyist for the RIAA and Universal. One who helped author bills in Congress that are unabashedly copyright maximalist and anti-Internet (the NET Act, the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act, the DMCA, the CFAA, etc), and had a hand in creating the Patriot Act.
And the only judge in the Prenda saga who did not recognize that the joinder of thousands of defendants was not a due process violation.
Just because you dislike a person does not mean you get to strip them of their rights and pin them on baseless charges.
No, it does not. However, when the person defrauds the court, skips hearings, forges signatures, attacks the judges ruling over their cases... Well, then you get to "pin them" with charges, because they're anything but "baseless."
It takes a brave individual to dare to protect content creators savaged by pirates
"Savaged by Pirates" sounds like the name of one of their porn movies.
In any case, the claim that rights holders (who are usually not "creators") are being "savaged" by some dude downloading porn on his laptop, is completely laughable. And someone who uses high-priced lawyers and extraordinarily biased laws to extort money from average people is anything but "brave."
To the Anonymous Coward insisting I hate due process, you don't know what you're talking about.
Apparently he does, since you've never once defended due process. You've only said that judges should disregard it, and simply take the word of rights holders.
I pray that a thousand disgruntled artists and producers show up at your door and beat you to a bloody pulp. How's that for due process?
Due process exists to protect the legal rights of the accused. So, no, a mob beat-down is not any kind of "due process" at all.
But the A.C. has little to fear, since there aren't a thousand artists in the world (disgruntled or not) who like Prenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's been pretty thoroughly documented just how much garbage everything Prenda does is.
Your posts always appear. This "IM BEING CENSORED BY MIKE" has never passed the smell test.
And you hate due process, as despite the horribly illegal things that Prenda has done (which is why they're being slapped down all OVER the place), you continue to defend them.
It's only good if who you think are pirates are punished immediately with no recourse. But full due process and a finding of guilt by multiple courts? Hold the phone here, these judges are sleazebags!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to know when Prenda is going to realize that the boat they are on, in the middle of the Arctic, is going up in flames, there are no lifeboats and nobody is going to rescue them.
Prenda Law is delaying the inevitable. But, the courts need to ensure that all of these fines, judgements and orders by the court need to follow the individual attorneys and not just the entity of "Prenda Law".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: M.L. sitting on beach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ouch
Oh to be a fly in the room when they read that part of the ruling, scamming or misleading a judge is one thing, but I imagine the threat of a federal investigation might be more than a little worrying for those parasites, and while I agree that there probably is an ongoing investigation already, or at least a strong probability for one, having yet another judge send a recommendation for such up the chain is only going to make things worse for them, leading to any investigation being even more thorough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these comments
Masnick spends his life talking about, and being critical of what others say, that is how he gets his pay, and lets him incite all of you people the same more of hate and critical analysis.
But when someone does that back to Masnick, you all fall all over yourselves trying to stand up for Masnicks right to hate speech, with your own hate speech in support for his comments.
How dare anyone be critical of Masnick, Masnick is the only one allowed to be critical of someone's statements or actions, how dare you question the holy, exalted "the Masnick" !!!
Is Mr Masnick is a big enough boy to talk up hate about anyone or group, he then should be man enough to take the same abuse.
I guess, he is not a big enough man to take it, he needs his 'followers' to stand up for him, to engage in censorship on his behalf. Sad really, really sad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All these comments
The Prenda Law saga isn't about copyright as a whole. It's about one group of utter scumbags abusing the system in a way that even the MPAA isn't trying to pull. If this case goes through and Prenda do get locked up, the current state of U.S. copyright law isn't going anywhere.
So whatever horse Horse found that was high enough for him, he can get the hell off it or get the hell out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All these comments
They just happened to take their operation to a potentially-illegal extreme and do a piss-poor job of defending it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
Aside from that you can bet that Masnick have more credibility than those ootb or you.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
Eh, we're not the police or a court of law, so have a free report to the authorities here.
To wit, Team Prenda have been accused of:
1) tax evasion;
2) forgery pursuant to committing a fraudulent act;
3) perverting the course of justice;
4) lying under oath;
5) defamation and libel;
6) fraud upon multiple courts.
And that's just off the top of my head. And if any layman had done that, they would be looking at jail-time long before Judge Wright's involvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All these comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
Let's just say you had a point or at least some sort of fact to back up your assertion, the problem with this is your assuming that this is the Mike Masnick's fault for reporting accurately the courts findings.
Your missing the point that has been made time and time again, that your litigation scheme and how it's fallen apart due to greed and bravado are costing you and Steele many sleepness nights and a future date with the IRS Criminal Division and facing a possible RICO case.
The community here are more than willing to debate the facts of these cases, but much like the Prenda filings and your various ramblings here time and time again, you avoid and facts and are all about bluster and filler.
Obviously the fact that you have tried the same strategy to get a Judge Removed from a case has backfired completely, much like it did when you tried to get Judge Wright booted from the case, guess you boys didn't learn from that.
No worries Paul, I am sure your just worried about Duffy's possible turn to a witness and Lutz wanting to do so as well. So I can see why your stressed.
Well once you go and do your time, then you can come out a free man and move on with life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
All these comments […] just to try to shoot down one single poster who might happen to have a different opinion to the one proposed by TD
They didn't have an opinion. They had a severe mental break from reality.
Go back and look at Horse with No Name’s comment (second hidden comment of the comments section for this article, by the by). They implied the following over the course of said comment: copyright holders should have full run of the courts with no real due process for defendants, Prenda Law did what they did to somehow defend copyright, and anonymity belongs only to those who behave ‘well’.
In reality: copyright holders have as many rights as the people they accuse of infringement (and typically have the burden of proof when it comes to legal cases), Prenda Law did what they did to pad their bank accounts, and anonymity belongs to everyone — including people who make complete asses out of themselves.
don't dare make a comment that upsets the 'cultists' of "The Masnick"
Yeah, no. I don’t worship Techdirt in general (or Mr. Masnick in particular) as a supernatural deity of some sort.
I like the comments section of Techdirt because I see interesting, intelligent discussions happen here and trolls such as you, Horse with No Name, and Out of the Blue (two of whom I suspect work for Prenda and one of whom I suspect is married to Charles Carreon) have done little to liven the discourse.
I don’t mind writing these replies because I write a little better and think a little better when I write these replies — but don’t believe for a moment that I’d rather see more of you trolls around here.
Masnick spends his life talking about, and being critical of what others say, that is how he gets his pay
Roger Ebert did practically the same thing. What’s your point?
lets him incite all of you people the same more of hate and critical analysis
Oh no, Mr. Masnick incited us to critically analyse news stories and *gasp* troll comments! What a Goddamned disaster for humanity, amirite?
when someone does that back to Masnick, you all fall all over yourselves trying to stand up for Masnicks right to hate speech
1.) If you can prove Mr. Masnick’s commentary and criticism of Prenda Law (or any other subject) rises to the level of ‘hate speech’…well, tough shit for you, because the First Amendment protects hate speech. (Thank you, based ACLU.)
2.) The Techdirt commenter community doesn’t technically ‘stand up’ for Masnick, so much as we ‘stand up’ to trolls such as you (as well as your ad hominem attacks, reality-defying assertions, and lack of well-reasoned arguments on any given subject). To wit: I notice you didn’t say anything in your comment to disprove anything Mr. Masnick wrote in the column to which these comments belong.
How dare anyone be critical of Masnick, Masnick is the only one allowed to be critical of someone's statements or actions
Again: yeah, no. Plenty of people have criticised Mr. Masnick. They don’t all end up behind the ‘hidden post’ line because some of them actually have well-reasoned arguments against and legitimate criticism of things he’s said in his columns.
You got the ‘hidden line’ treatment because you didn’t have any reasonable criticism of the column. You insulted Mr. Masnick and the Techdirt commenter community because a fellow troll got numerous smackdown replies. You didn’t present a single reasonable criticism of the column above.
When you make your bed a certain way, you might forget that you’ll eventually have to lie about it — wait, I mean ‘on it’. Sorry, force of habit on Prenda columns.
Is Mr Masnick is a big enough boy to talk up hate about anyone or group, he then should be man enough to take the same abuse.
Your comment still exists. The other troll comments still exist. He appears to have the testicular fortitude necessary to take on your self-admitted abuse.
he needs his 'followers' to stand up for him, to engage in censorship on his behalf
Psst. The ‘hidden line’ treatment doesn’t equal censorship.
Techdirt offers the comments section as a privilege. You don’t have an absolute right to comment here, and Techdirt can revoke your privilege at any time. The ‘hidden line’ treatment allows trolls such as you to post without revoking those posting privileges and without your comments (generally) getting in the way of valid discussions.
You still have the opportunity to go elsewhere and rip on Techdirt all you want. Start an anti-Techdirt blog on Tumblr. Print your own anti-Techdirt newsletter and distribute it wherever you go. You have multiple platforms for self-expression; Techdirt has no obligation to allow you to use its comments section as one (and you have no legal right to force Techdirt to do so).
Now, if you have a legitimate criticism of the column above, feel free to iterate it. If you don’t: sit down, shut up, and thank your lucky stars that no one’s invented a way to punch people in the face via TCP/IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
If Masnick wasn't enough of a man to take criticism he wouldn't let bumbling idiots like you criticise him. In exchange, everyone else is allowed to rank you by means of intelligence, which they've done. Maybe solar panel engineers celebrate idiocy among themselves, which would be why alternative energy proponents have such a hard time getting support when their champions are slobbering nitwits.
Hey, maybe if you had friends you could get them to report us instead. Oh, wait, I guess you don't. Tough tits, you hell-spawned fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All these comments
You're what's wrong with the legal system. And the truly sad part is, you genuinely think everything you do is correct. Saner people are at the asylum...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the case that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whaaaa?
Who is writing this? A 14-year-old? A Justin Bieber fan? What does this mean, any of it?
Astounding stuff at TechDirt. Very rich! It should be TechLoam.
-EJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe Mark Lutz ended up buried next to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, well. The fanboy-trolls really like these pieces: only time they're winning.
Techdirt fanboys are totally committed to free speech -- which to them means links to FREE infringing content!
01:58:09[b-365-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, well. The fanboy-trolls really like these pieces: only time they're winning.
New readers must find these not only baffling but particularly repellent, then. -- Keep the Prenda pieces coming, Mike!
Mike Masnick, the economist with the soul of a lawyer. Watch for his soporific "At The Bench" series.
02:03:12[c-10-3]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, well. The fanboy-trolls really like these pieces: only time they're winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, well. The fanboy-trolls really like these pieces: only time they're winning.
No, for the most part, courts have agreed with "us" more than they have with you.
In addition to the Prenda, Righthaven, ACS:Law, and the other copyright trolling cases, judges regularly rule in the ways we have always said were legally correct. Assessment Techs. v. Wire Data, the myVidster ruling, Universal v. Veoh, and every single one of the ICE seizure cases that were challenged - all have been wins for us. (And by "us," I mean the American public, not just Techdirt readers.)
Plus, courts have repeatedly ruled - from the very beginning - that your notion of copyright being a "common-law right" is flat-out, 100% false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spin as "Win for Prenda"
Back in Reality Universe, the judge ordered a dissolved LLC whose last known financial statement showed a negative balance and an overseas shell corporation essentially no assets to return money. We know that essentially all of the money went Steele and Hansmeier, who are likely judgement-proof. Steele sold his Minnesota estate and moved to Florida, where a primary home is protected against judgements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spin as "Win for Prenda"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:horsewithnoname
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]