Malibu Media Seeks Order Forbidding Defendants From Discussing 'Copyleft' Blog Content
from the cf.-circular-reasoning dept
Copyright troll Malibu Media would prefer the many courtrooms it uses as speculative invoicing middlemen to be free of disparaging statements. To that end, it has filed a motion that specifically asks that certain blogs not be brought up nor discussed nor quoted extensively from by the defendant or his counsel. (h/t to Raul)
The Court should preclude Defendant from referring to copyleft blogs for any purpose, including specifically references to fightcopyrightrolls.com and dietrolldie.com. Plaintiff expects Defendant may attempt to reference these blogs at trial in an effort to introduce unsubstantiated allegations against Plaintiff. The blogs target Plaintiff and its counsel with vitriolic hate speech and contain comments that are biased, slanderous, and prejudicial, and should not be referred to at trial for any purpose. “Many internet blogs commenting on this and related cases ignore the rights of copyright owners to sue for infringement, and inappropriately belittle efforts of copyright owners to seek injunctions and damages.” Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1, 6, 13, 14, 950 F. Supp. 2d 779, 781 (E.D. Pa. 2013).Yes, we can't have sites that expose the immoral and illegal activities of copyright trolls exposing the immoral and illegal activities of copyright trolls, can we? We'll just have to see what the judge has to say about this exclusionary motion. And in support of its allegations about the content of these blogs, Malibu Media cites a friendly footnote from one of its rare wins [p. 2] -- a derogatory phrase penned by Judge Michael Baylson and co-opted in its entirety by Dallas Buyers Club for use in its threatening letters to alleged infringers.
Rather hilariously, Malibu Media uses an infrequently-used term to describe these blogs, in an equally-sad attempt to appear evenhanded.
Plaintiff, Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves for the entry of an order precluding Defendant Michael Harrison (“Defendant”) and his counsel from referring to copyleft blogs at trial for any purpose...Sensing the court may not be familiar with the concept of "copyleft," it is more fully described in the attached footnote:
“Copyleft” is the polite way of describing an anti-copyright ideology. “Freetards” is the degrading equivalent of “copyright trolls” when used in association with copyright producers.With this handy guide to the nuances of the copyright debate now on the record, the case can presumably proceed safely. According to Malibu, the blogs that have long tracked its legal efforts have "no probative value" and the mere mention of the forbidden sites may "provoke" jurors into browsing these blogs during their downtime... which obviously won't win Malibu any new
All in all, it's pretty much a vindication of the efforts made by Fight Copyright Trolls and Die Troll Die. If these were nothing more than storehouses for hyperbolic statements and woodchipper discussions, it's highly unlikely Malibu would be attempting to preemptively banish them from court.
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: copyleft, copyright trolls, courts, freetard
Companies: malibu media, xart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motions in Limine; not properly used here
However, a blanket ban on use of this material is not proper. The material should be excluded if it is not relevant or is hearsay (or both), but that determination probably can't be made until much later in the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Motions in Limine; not properly used here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... I wonder if using that term in a court filing might be problematic for Malibu Media.
Not in a "is it lawsuits tiem nao?" way, but in the judge doing a bit of investigating on their own...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
John Steele's 2012/02/05 comment where he used this word four times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiple Satisfaction Rule
That way, FCT and DTD's blogs do lots of damage...by the facts the let the defense access. Defendant doesn't have to mention that those sites were handy indices!
Oh, and "copyleft" my foot....these are anti-trolls, not copyleftists...I see no GPL on either site!
Hopefully Harrison can also prove the unclean hands part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150719/07183731689/if-uk-wants-people-to-respect-copyright -outlawing-ripping-cds-is-probably-not-helping.shtml#c351
HAH!!! That's why the government protected (ie: via broadcasting and cableco monopolies) mainstream media has always only presented their ridiculously indefensible side of the debate when they think they can get away with it, it's why pro-IP blogs either restrict comments and I've even remember seeing one blog at one time outright delete a comment it doesn't like because it doesn't agree with it (though it's not worth searching for it) while blogs like Techdirt and other blogs that IP extremists hate do allow open comments.
IP extremists resort to subverting the democratic process to get what they want (ie: buying politicians and regulators, secretive meetings where only they are invited) and they are nothing but a bunch of anti-free speech tyrants that we would all be better off without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you are misusing the term "copyleft".
By all means, let's defeat copyright trolls, but let's not conflate all opposition to them with Stallman's movement.
And by the way: I notice that Malibu Media's court motion left out the last "t" in the domain name fightcopyrighttrolls.com . So if the court grants the motion, their opponents can still refer to the actual name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you are misusing the term "copyleft".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you are misusing the term "copyleft".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you are misusing the term "copyleft".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you are misusing the term "copyleft".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you are misusing the term "copyleft".
It's been five years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frivolously crying slander should be a form of slander
>>prejudicial,..."
IANAL, so please help me to understand how this does not give the copyleft sites cause to sue for slander. If Malibu's assembly actually thought that the comments were slander, well, there are laws against slander. At the very least, I would expect competent lawyers to begin some sort of legal proceedings.
On the other hand, if someone were to be falsely accusing me of slander, I would like to think that a good lawyer could help me to sue for slander, especially if I were not engaging in such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: frivolously crying slander should be a form of slander
Plus it would likely be difficult for the blogs to both sue for slander, and remain anonymous. For the blogs in questions, remaining anonymous is fairly desirable. For that matter, I'm not even sure you can slander/libel an anonymous person as far as the courts are concerned. It's rather difficult to damage the reputation of a person whose identity is unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: frivolously crying slander should be a form of slander
On a serious note, of course they can inflict a ton of damage by a mere fact of suing me (even if suing critics for defamation is always an uphill battle, to put it charitably), but on the other hand, discovery is a two-way street... Mutual Assured Distraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: frivolously crying slander should be a form of slander
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Unringing the bell..."
And I don't see how these third-party anti-troll blogs (which I read) would have much in the way of admissible evidence anyway. 1) It would all be hearsay, so likely inadmissible for the truth of the statements in the blogs. 2) Courts generally want the focus on the parties' acts in this case, not their behavior outside (unless directly relevant). 3) To the extent the blogs reference court rulings, those rulings can admissible as the subject of judicial notice. But a blogger's take on it would generally not be admissible.
So ... not defending Malibu Scumfuck Media in any way, the Motion in Limine is probably a prudent tactical move (assuming there is actually a trial on the horizon).
As noted elsewhere, courts don't like to operate in a vacuum, and would likely defer any decision until getting more info on potentially proffered evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Unringing the bell..."
I dare say they're even prejudicial, in the sense that knowing the truth makes lies harder to believe.
But if you exclude truth and justice from the court room, what's the point of having a court in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Unringing the bell..."
Sorry, you are confused.
It's not a justice system. It never was a justice system.
It's a LEGAL system. Justice only peripherally enters the frame. This is pretty much the first thing taught in Introductory Law 101
WRT the "slanderous" statements - as far as I can tell those would be the previous judgements quoted on those sites and as such they're legally protected reports of events in a courtroom (You are immune from defamation proceedings for anything uttered in court or in parliament/congress - yes, really)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? That's your plan? "My opponents are asshats. Here's a quote that proves it, completely credible. It was said by me!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slander
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyleft
See gnu.org/copyleft and gnu.org/licenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]