US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds
from the more-to-write-about? dept
For those of you not interested in professional sports, allow me to educate you on the concept of the "coaching tree." This concept comes from the common decisions by losing teams to hire junior coaches out from under the head coaches of successful teams, hoping to siphon off some of the genius of more successful organizations. In football, for instance, you will often hear about the "Andy Reid coaching tree" as his assistants get head coaching jobs across the league after serving underneath him.
Sadly, a much more sinister version of this appears to be occurring in the copyright trolling space, with Malibu Media serving as a launching point for legal minds joining other organizations and replicating what they've learned from their former employer. The result has been an explosion in copyright lawsuits for the early part of 2018, with most of them coming from the porn-trolling industry.
According to Lex Machina, there were 1,019 file-sharing cases filed in the United States last year, which is an average of 85 per month. More than half of these came from adult entertainment outfit Malibu Media (X-Art), which alone was good for 550 lawsuits.
While those are decent numbers, they could easily be shattered this year. Data collected by TorrentFreak shows that during the first month of 2018, three copyright holders filed a total of 286 lawsuits against alleged pirates. That’s three times more than the monthly average for 2017.
As the TorrentFreak post goes on to note, while Malibu Media is still leading the way in these lawsuits, a company called Strike 3 Holdings is keeping pace with them, 138 lawsuits for the former and 133 for the latter. The rest of the companies that have filed suits against BitTorrent infringers are other porn-related organizations, save for Bodyguard Productions, which sues over the pirating of the Hitman: Bodyguard film. Interestingly, it seems that this significant uptick in the lawsuit rate has been driven by former Malibu Media employees finding new professional landing spots.
While Strike 3 Holdings is a relative newcomer, their cases follow a similar pattern. There are also clear links to Malibu Media, as one of the company’s former lawyers, Emilie Kennedy, now works as in-house counsel at Strike 3.
This comes at the same time that some courts are pushing back on these trolling efforts. Between some courts describing their tactics as harassing to questioning seriously the evidence that the trolls present to the court, this is the exact wrong time for the court system to suddenly be clogged with Malibu Media-trained legal minds hell bent on trolling for settlement dollars.
The only good that might come out of this, should this lawsuit pace continue, is a public recognition that these trolling operations need to be stopped.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, emilie kennedy, lawyers
Companies: bodyguard protections, malibu media, strike 3, x-art
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You say that like none of this can be proven by public record. Here's a hint: the number of Malibu Media cases that have actually gone to trial, where both sides have functioning lawyers to debate the merits of the case, are staggeringly few in comparison to the attempts made by Malibu Media to file. The ratio is embarrassingly low. So if the number of cases going to trial is your yardstick for determining the legitimacy of the plaintiff, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
As for settlements, those generally won't be tracked by the court, especially if they are settled before the case ever enters a courtroom. Which means that from a legal perspective, the numbers are pointless, more so since absolutely no weight is given to whether the cases are "merited" or otherwise.
By the way, Malibu Media's antics have gotten them noticed by American judges, who have started to frown upon their attempts to sue multiple Does at once, and the same judges are starting to suspect this "anti-piracy" effort is little more than another moneymaking scheme. So, nice going having more of your copyright heroes expose more of their plotting.
I expect you'll soon be whining and bitching why we're talking about Malibu Media, the same way you pissed and moaned why Techdirt was covering the news of John Steele's downfall. Sucks to be you, blue boy!
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The rest of their case.... not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
**You're saying only that copyright suits are difficult to prosecute, which is true, and using that to then implicitly lie that ALL cases are totally groundless. It's Techdirt Tactic #3.
IN FACT a great deal of infringement is taking place every day. As in PETABYTES. These lawyered-up firms take a stragety that I don't advise, but are fully justified.
And on other hand: anyone accused has only to show up in court wearing clean clothes and not acting like a foul-mouthed arrogant Geigner, demand a speedy trial by jury, and at trial state that they're innocent of the charge. Plaintiff in civil case actually has higher hurdle than 50.01% with a jury of your peers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
SO, 'plain it to us, snowflake! You have the spotlight, now SHINE and tell us how it really works.
I bet all you have to say is the loser's whine: that "the system" is rigged against you, no chance of getting fair play up against those who have secret powers. ... Now that I've written that, it describes Techdirt and its secret "voting system" that only works one way: to censor the comments of dissent. And yet I go on, laughing because I'm winning. Don't see the zombies here any more, only you "lol" ACs with one-liners.
Anyhoo, thanks for supporting me in that lawyers have set up an EVIL SECRET SYSTEM by which they profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
HOW do you read that into my bragging that have suppressed them?
However, if you didn't see it, back up to Monday when I found a FIFTH zombie with over SIX year gap in comments. 'Splain that.k
Oh, and by the way: ANY points ON-TOPIC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Says the troll in an off-topic ad hom one-liner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
First, "literally"? Heh, heh. -- Then, jump? Who commented
first here, me or you?
Oh, imagining zombies, am I?
For anyone who doesn't believe how ODD this site is, here again the FIVE KNOWN having SIX YEAR GAPS:
"Ron Currier", commented ONCE in 2010, SIX YEAR GAP then 4 times in 2016, ONCE in 2017, and again recent:
https://www.techdirt.com/user/rcurrier
dickeyrat: 3 comments TOTAL in TEN years! Aug 17th, 2017, Jun 23rd, 2011, and Jul 10th, 2010!!!
https://www.techdirt.com/user/dickeyrat
https://www.techdirt.com/user/andrewlduane On May 1st, 2017
https://www.techdirt.com/user/slowgreenturtle Dec 15th, 2016
Advocate (changed to Keisar Betancourt and back!) 5 Sep 2013 from 18 Aug 2007
https://www.techdirt.com/comments.php?start=60&u=advocate
Got any other conclusion than it's astro-dirting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, so…
…what the hell does this have to do with anything? I mean, shit, I had a gap of several years where I didn’t comment using my name/email combo (long before I attached it to an account), and I don’t see you calling me a zombie. Is it because I have other ways to verify my identity? (I’m rather easy to find on Twitter.) Or is it because you literally have no arguments for anything other than namecalling and accusations of “zombie-ism” towards anyone who dares to show an ounce of intellect?
(And by the by, I would ask that this comment—mine, not the crazed anon’s above—be flagged because it is off-topic bullshit. I mean, feel free to flag theirs, too, but flag mine alongside it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, so…
It's fucking weird, right? Dude just keeps saying this shit, without ever once explaining what the fuck his point is supposed to be, like we're all just supposed to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay, so…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
I've had gaps several years between posts on a site. Something on the shows up in a Google search, so I read the article and comment on it. There's nothing odd about it.
What's odd is how your hatred and obsession with Techdirt apparently extends to building dossiers on those who post here.
Whining about me being Canadian is one thing. I mention it from time to time. But add that to your tracking how many posts everyone's made, and "Creepy" stars to show up on that "Dishonest/Delusional/Ignorant" Venn diagram with you in the middle.
Are you planning to sell your work to the next reputation management consultant, lawyer, "inventor" or top lobbyist who objects to being mentioned here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
I thought that my earlier comments might be incorporated into my cataloged comments, but that has not happened, for whatever reasons. I am not terribly concerned with that. But your position that some commenters that do not have all their comments logged in their profiles does not mean that they have not commented. It might mean that they commented and didn't bother to log in. It might mean that they didn't want to log in because they were replying to some bullshit that you posted and did not want to be denigrated by showing that they commented on some bullshit that you posted.
That I am commenting on your dispersion of other people for not logging all of their comments does not mean that I give you any credence for any of your comments (I generally and purposefully do not comment on your comments because I do actually believe that feeding trolls is harmful to the site, and proactively discourage such) and therefore make a habit of flagging your comments and moving on, without regard to anything you might say.
The pity of the above is that once in a great while you might have something useful to say, but you go about it in such a way that nobody actually listens.
If you think, for even one second, that I would respond to any response that you might have to this post, you are not thinking. And seemingly, never have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
He has to attack the site for any reason, no matter what. You can usually tell when an article's hit home because instead of flailing around trying to justify whatever bad behaviour is described, he starts whining about how the site operates or tries to distract with irrelevant links.
It's a sad, strange way to spend time, but rather here than out on the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Give me a sec! I was dealing with a bit of substance elsewhere, not this stupid trolling.
...
I deny it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
I assume by zombies you mean people with actual accounts such as PaulT, Stephen T. Stone and such. Oh look, there they are in the comments.
As far as us "lol" ACs with one-liners go, first, our one-liners are leagues better than yours. Yours basically amount to calling us various names or basic attacks on our intelligence. Second, despite us only having "one-liners" in your opinion, you still haven't been able to best us in terms of straight up facts and logic.
So yeah, what was that about winning again? Kind of looks like you're losing to me laughing boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
A much better question is how many are settled because it is cheaper than hiring a lawyer and proving innocence in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Questions are easy, snowflake. State some answers, then or you support my charge that this is "Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers".
You evidently either have no faith in the jury system, or believe that most charged are guilty. -- Or, as likely at Techdirt where foriegners outnumber Americans, simply don't know what the American system is, or despise those persons who are so stupid as to waste their time on a jury in effort to prevent their peers from wrongly convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You can fight the accusation in court and win, but you'll still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees.
More likely though they'll drop the case before it gets to court. Your legal fees will be lower, but you'll still be out thousands of dollars.
The point is that it's cheaper to settle despite being innocent. THAT'S HOW THIS RACKET WORKS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
> You can fight the accusation in court and win, but you'll still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees.
You load solution up with hiring a lawyer. I state go demand a speedy trial by jury. That alone may stop it.
Anyway, being Canadian, what do YOU know about American courts? HMM? You barge in railing that I know nothing, so now exhibit your bona fides for American courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Are those wash instructions for a Prenda Law money laundering scheme?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
No.
Have any more stupid and off-topic questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
No, don't remember begging... Show me a link.
But do you notice that you admitted to "stupid and off-topic"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You can if know when and how. It's a Constitutional RIGHT. You clearly can only believe the FUD that lawyers put out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Oh, please, do tell us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Funny thing blue, dem foruegners know ‘merkin law better than you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
They, like you, have apparently condensed it into one line.
Look, you're not going to convince me, but have pity on other ignorant persons and 'splain in detail where I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Or so writes the person incapable of explaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yes, and I agree, no one despises lawyers more than me, but it's not actually on-topic as to whether the charges are merited.
I advise fighting, relying on the jury to simply not believe on one hand, or to share Techdirt's opinion that the penalties aren't merited.
But so far ALL others have advised caving.
If you're going to download midget porn, be prepared for bad consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether the charges have merit do not typically matter to the people pushing for these lawsuits. They want a quick buck, not justice for a violated copyright. The whole reason they can make that quick buck is because people will settle, regardless of their guilt or innocence, to avoid paying in both time and money to fight an expensive lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
??? mor talk-talk pls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Sheesh. I've got to stop offhand jests, because Techdirt readers seize on them and go off-topic.
Do you have ANY point to make on-topic?
I am, however, horrif -- I mean, honored that you make a 2nd comment of your two on my offhand jest. Shows what power I wield here, to draw out the terse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
> Yes.
You've only vaguely puzzled me. Is that "Yes" agreeing with all of my original comment? Or some sly wit that ripped me a new one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yes, exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You are really piling up the comment count tonight!
THREE of your now FIVE comments here at TD are vague ad hom at me. I'm not worthy of your attention, but thanks just the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
If you want people to engage in meaningful debate and conversation, try starting off in a civil tone and with clear speech not muddied up with unnecessary punctuation and misplaced caps. Then add a dash of reality and you're set. Until then, you're nothing but noise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yeah, but the other half of the joke IS YOU CLOWNS don't grasp what a joke the site it.
> If you want people to engage in meaningful debate and conversation,
I tried that here at Techdirt. I complained from early about the tone of comments.
Let me just ask this: do YOU object to anyone calling me an "ignorant motherfucker"? Or is that justified? Because you can't have it both ways: either name-calling is bad for all, or it's okay for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, you asked.
Motherfucker? Yes. We have no proof that you have ever fucked anyone, let alone anyone’s mother.
Ignorant? Well…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, you asked.
> Ignorant? Well…
Thanks! You have outstanding knack for dragging down any and every topic with vile ad hom. You are truly Techdirt's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Well, THANKS for your decency.
Here it is for you to flag, and you'll see that it's completely egregious, not part of any conversation:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do -brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tip for the future: When providing 'evidence', try to avoid something that makes you look WORSE
... 2011. Your example is something from 2011, one that was explained as a joke/quotation, from a comment section where anyone who reads it can see that you've been acting like a loon for years.
There are fans, regular visitors, and then there are obsessive hypocritical stalkers. As your actions continue to demonstrate, you are firmly in the third category blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
There's so much new vile off-topic ad hom that I can't keep up with it, let alone reference. Such as yours here.
You're just going to have to grow up and ignore me, then. I've every intention of commenting so long as the TOR browser works.
You are in the by far largest 4th category, irrelevant, off-topic ad hominem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Yet, you only offer a thread from 7 years ago as proof, and a comment that's perfectly understandable directed at someone as relentlessly ignorant and annoying as you.
You'd have thought that by now you'd have learned that if you want to stop being called an ignorant mf, you need to stop acting like one. Failing to learn the basics of human interaction in the space of 7 years really isn't helping your side of the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
To quote an idiot, "shows what kind of power I have" over you, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
First state why YOU spend so much time on site.
You fanboys believe that you can ad hom and demand answers without ever stating anything on-topic.
If my comments offend you, are you NOT adult enough to skip over them?
By the way: are you now dodging admitting that "Dark Helmet"set a vile standard here which I'M ALWAYS ABOVE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait.
…you have standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait.
> …you have standards?
Wait.
You know what the word "standards" means among adults?
Or is in your mind "standards" a dirty word? -- Heh, heh! You said standards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Flagged as trolling.
I'm here because I like [most of] the articles, even those I disagree with. And because most of the commenters here can engage in intelligent debate without resorting to childish behavior.
Now, care to answer my question? Or is it easier to veer off-topic and throw insults and accusations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
No, I don't care to! It's just another ad hom attack.\
Do you know information theory? IF I answered as you do, would you believe it? ... No? Then what's the point? Just useless chatter.
YOU ARE OFF-TOPIC. IF you're here for discussion of the title topic, try that. -- Though, I'm probably going... (That always starts the worst ad hom, when they know I'm not likely to snark back. So enjoy, fanboys.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Actually, I was second:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180212/10411639209/us-piracy-lawsuits-shoot-out-2018-gate s-as-malibu-media-coaching-tree-spreads-seeds.shtml#c42
Or is your one-liner mere snark again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
I was genuinely interested in your answer. It was no attack. When called to the mat you refuse to converse and then accuse me of being off-topic. True as it may be why did you wait until now to use that as a defense?
I guess I can continue to write off anything you post as pointless. Just flag and move on since you're not interested in a real discussion. It's no wonder you abandoned your username; There's an off chance someone will read what you post if it's not preceded by a warning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You GOT MY answer. It was elliptical: I don't need to justify my commenting here any more than you do.
> I guess I can continue to write off anything you post as pointless. Just flag and move on since you're not interested in a real discussion.
OKAY, you admit that you had NO intention of engaging. Know how to engage: WRITE ON TOPIC INSTEAD OF CONDESCENDING AND ACCUSING. Take your own advice. Sheesh.
> There's an off chance someone will read what you post if it's not preceded by a warning.
Yeah, that doesn't matter, though! Techdirt from Masnick up to fanboys is NOT going to agree, and have proven over several years not to HIDE my comments sheerly because it's me, NOT on any content. I abandoned username in part because it was imitated to make false comments to further hate agasinst me.
ANYWAY, try a point on topic, NOT yet more of this lying blather that you'd give me a fair chance, IF ONLY I WASN'T SO HORRIBLE.
Do you really grasp HOW MUCH ad hom I've elicited without even trying? I just state my personal opinions, and my words are well within "ignorant motherfucker" which Masnick said was a mere "joke".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That should tell you just how tired everyone else is of your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
What tells me and everyone reasonable who are NOT reading here anymore, is that Techdirt is an irrelevant little cesspit in which YOU fanboys thrive and I survive.
It'd be a lot easier to take ancient advice and just IGNORE ME, ya know? I usually make one little comment a topic, but you fanboys can't let it go without ad hom attacks, which is actually FINE with me so long as not hidden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
Considering how much time you spend here, wouldn’t that make you irrelevant as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
But it's strong indication.
So, you advise that when innocent of scurrilous charge that you just pay up? You are going to be victim of the racket, then.
I advise opposing strongly, and YOU want to cave like a coward. That's much of the problem.
OR you concede that the charges are likely true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
A) Defend (even successfully) at a cost of $40k+
B) Settle for $1k and let them think they won
Which do you choose? If you chose A then you're likely in the 1%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
LAWYERS have "the system" monopolized. Long ago learned: "No one wins a law suit but the lawyers."
Now, STOP arguing that caving is a good idea. That's YOUR bias from believing that charges are true and conviction is certain.
People: Americans have stood up to "company towns" facing Pinkerton goons with machine guns. Stop being such chickens, or you will be plucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody is arguing that caving to these bastards is “a good idea”. But when given a choice between paying thousands of dollars and an untold amount of time to fight a lawsuit that you could still lose or paying a much smaller fee to make the lawsuit go away, the “better” choice for a lot of people is obviously the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
"Now, STOP arguing that caving is a good idea"
You don't argue that the system is gamed in a way that makes caving a very good idea for anybody but the very rich, but you want to stop saying that caving is a good idea?
Which is it, genius?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That anon’s point, if you would stop and read for longer than it takes for you to copy-paste their words into the comment box, is that guilt typically does not matter in civil cases such as these. Nobody without the money to fight a protracted legal battle wants to deal with an expensive-as-hell lawsuit if they can help it. These copyright lawsuit outfits know that if they threaten someone who can barely make ends meet with a lawsuit, that person is more likely to pay whatever they must to make that lawsuit go away—even if they are innocent—because they cannot afford to spend either the time or the money that fighting a lawsuit would require.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not disputed, but CAVING cannot win.
Techdirt could show some activism here and cause to be made and then provide a kit to fight with.
At least join me in reviling lawyers. All of them are in same medieval guild that creates free money for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would still require getting in touch with actual lawyers who will more than likely demand actual money to actually fight the lawsuit. Whether you like it or not, “caving” would be the “better” option for lots of people who lack the time and money to fight back. It isn’t right, and it isn’t fair, but it is what it is—and none of your “PEOPLE SHOULD FIGHT BACK, GRR LAWYERS DIE” rhetoric will change reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but avoiding the problem entirely by NOT downloading is even better. -- That's my bias for whether the charge is true or not, and I think yours too as seem to imply.
However, YOU end up saying CAVE and I say FIGHT \
-- be cleaar that I say FIGHT even if "guilty" because it's likely best for all. The pioneers take the arrows, so if not willing to, stay out of the Lawyer's Happy Hunting Ground.
We're agreed that Techdirt has done nothing for 20 years except kibitz, so let's again end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if the person did not download the infringing file, what then? Fighting the case to prove their innocence will still cost a lot of time and money that they might not have to spend. Copyright trolls do not care if someone is legitimately guilty of copyright infringement; they only care about making a quick buck from people who are too afraid of what a full-bore lawsuit will do to their lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then fight. Not cave.
> Copyright trolls do not care if someone is legitimately guilty of copyright infringement; they only care about making a quick buck from people who are too afraid of what a full-bore lawsuit will do to their lives.
Ah. You state total bias and deny ANY legitimacy to the claims. I think it likely that you approve of and even advocate piracy. That's all I wanted you to admit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You intentionally ignore my point: Most people will not have the resources to fight, so they will give in to the settlement demand because it is easier to just pay someone a couple thousand dollars and be done with the situation than pay a lot more than that for the chance—the chance!—to potentially prevail in a lawsuit that will take a lot of time to ultimately finish.
I am not saying it is right or fair or “good”. I am saying that it is what it is. Your “FIGHT BACK GRR FUCK LAWYERS” rhetoric will not change that reality, nor can you continue to ignore it when copyright trolls actively count on it to continue their operations.
No, I said that copyright trolls do not care whether someone is guilty of an act of infringement. If someone connected to my router without my knowledge and downloaded “Backdoor Sluts 9” without my knowledge and the copyright troll who baited that person into downloading that particular porno comes after me because my IP was the one that matched the download logs, do you really think that troll is going to give a single god’s damn about whether I was the one who downloaded the file? Fuck no! I am the easy target, and they would count on me pissing my pants upon seeing the threat of a lawsuit to force me into a settlement. Copyright trolls are called such because they do not give a fuck whether their targets actually committed the infringement of which they stand accused—they just care if they can get a settlement and avoid a lawsuit that even they probably do not want to bring into court.
I understand piracy. That is all you need to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You are either woefully ignorant, disingenuous, or, likely, both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
> You are either woefully ignorant, disingenuous, or, likely, both.
I am certainly "woefully ignorant", but my dictionary says disingenuous is "not straightforward; not candid or frank", and so I deny that.
Will your Exaltedness now reveal even a hint of The Truth? Or are you too only up to vague ad hom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
The entire thread is people explaining to you how reality works. The fact that you're too stubborn and ignorant to take it in is nobody;'s fault but your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You say that like none of this can be proven by public record. Here's a hint: the number of Malibu Media cases that have actually gone to trial, where both sides have functioning lawyers to debate the merits of the case, are staggeringly few in comparison to the attempts made by Malibu Media to file. The ratio is embarrassingly low. So if the number of cases going to trial is your yardstick for determining the legitimacy of the plaintiff, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
As for settlements, those generally won't be tracked by the court, especially if they are settled before the case ever enters a courtroom. Which means that from a legal perspective, the numbers are pointless, more so since absolutely no weight is given to whether the cases are "merited" or otherwise.
By the way, Malibu Media's antics have gotten them noticed by American judges, who have started to frown upon their attempts to sue multiple Does at once, and the same judges are starting to suspect this "anti-piracy" effort is little more than another moneymaking scheme. So, nice going having more of your copyright heroes expose more of their plotting.
I expect you'll soon be whining and bitching why we're talking about Malibu Media, the same way you pissed and moaned why Techdirt was covering the news of John Steele's downfall. Sucks to be you, blue boy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing 203
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marketing 203
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marketing 203
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing 203
[ link to this | view in chronology ]