Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz May Have Cost His Client A Ton Of Money, And Set An Expensive Precedent For Copyright Trolls
from the rule-68 dept
In the last couple of years, lawyer Richard Liebowitz has really made a name for himself in copyright trolling circles. He's quite aggressive, and even got a huge profile written about him at Slate, in which it notes that, unlike many trolls who focus purely on shakedown settlement letters, Liebowitz runs straight to court to leverage the power of an expensive court case to push for insane settlements. "Sue first and negotiate later." The Hollywood Reporter has done its own profile on Liebowitz as well.
It appears that many of his cases have ended up before federal judge Denise Cote, who clearly sees through his scam. Last year, we noted her scolding him for his practices, including not following court rules. Cote even referred to him as a "copyright troll" -- something that offended him so much he requested that it be redacted. That request not only failed, but Cote reiterated:
"His litigation strategy in this district fits squarely within the definition of a copyright troll."
Liebowitz is back before Judge Cote yet again in one of his many cases, and it's not going well. As pointed out by the copyright troll fighters at Booth Sweet, Liebowitz is busy setting precedents that are bad for copyright plaintiffs. In this particular case, the issue has to do with Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 68, when sued, a defendant may make a settlement offer that includes some specific terms.
In this particular case, Liebowitz, representing photographer Gregory Mango, sued Democracy Now!. Democracy Now! looked up how much Mango was licensing his photos for (a maximum of $220) and made a Rule 68 offer to settle for 5 times that amount. Liebowitz quickly turned the offer down, as he was seeking much more. But here's the fun part of Rule 68. It's part (d):
Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer. If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.
Translated: If Mango/Liebowitz's final judgment is less favorable than the ~$1,000 Democracy Now! offered under Rule 68, then Mango is on the hook for all of Democracy Now's legal fees incurred after that offer was made. That is likely to be many thousands of dollars. As Booth Sweet notes, many courts have said that Rule 68 doesn't apply to copyright cases, but in Cote's latest ruling she says it does, and tells Liebowitz to post a bond for $50,000.
In other words, even if Mango "wins" the case, but gets less than $1,000, he may be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Cote relies heavily on the fact that the Supreme Court has made it clear that fee shifting is proper in copyright cases. And she makes it clear that Mango/Liebowitz's decision not to take the offer was unwise:
The allegations of infringement set forth in the complaint involve a single photograph used in one article. In such copyright infringement cases, awards rarely exceed three to five times the license fee for a work. See Rice, 2019 WL 2865210, at *2 (collecting cases). The highest licensing fee that Mango charges on photo licensing websites appears to be $220 for a single photograph. Mango does not dispute that Democracy Now’s Rule 68 offer is five times greater than the typical licensing fee for editorial use of images similar to the Photograph. In the only one of his lawsuits in this district that proceeded to trial, Mango recovered less than $4,000 in statutory damages on his claim for copyright infringement.
Democracy Now, a non-profit entity, is not alleged to have profited from the use of the Photograph and removed the Photograph from its website promptly upon receiving notice of this lawsuit. It had not received any prior notice, demand, or request from Mango. Democracy Now may very well have complete defenses, including a fair use defense. In light of these facts, Mango is unlikely to recover an amount greater than the Rule 68 offer and moreover may be liable for Mango’s post-offer costs including attorney’s fees.
She also notes the requirement of the bond since there's evidence Mango wouldn't be able to actually afford Democracy Now's legal fees:
Democracy Now has also shown that it is likely that Mango will be unable to pay the costs it will seek in this litigation, another factor to be considered in deciding whether a bond should be awarded. Mango sought bankruptcy in 2004, and records from his bankruptcy filing show that his liabilities greatly exceeded his listed assets. Mango has offered no evidence to suggest that his financial resources remain anything but modest.
The judge also notes that Liebowitz's over aggressive actions in this case suggest it will run up Democracy Now's legal bills... which now may fall back on Mango:
Mango’s interrogatories and document demands already suggest that he intends to pursue expensive litigation. He has made fifty-three document requests, many of which appear to have little relevance to the single asserted infringement in this case. He has also served 29 interrogatories, many of which exceed the scope of permissible interrogatories at this stage of the litigation per this district’s Local Civil Rule 33.3. Based on this and other evidence, the defendant predicts that its pursuit of its defenses in this action will result in defense costs that exceed $110,000. That is not an unreasonable prediction.
Finally, Cote highlights Liebowtiz's growing history of trollish behavior before this same court, including "failing to comply" with court orders, as another reason why a bond should be posted:
Finally, compliance with past court orders must be weighed. Mango’s counsel, Liebowitz, has filed over 700 cases in this district since 2016 asserting claims of copyright infringement. At least 500 of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of before any merits-based litigation has occurred. In the course of litigating these cases, Liebowitz regularly fails to comply with court orders. See McDermott v. Monday Monday, LLC, No. 17CV9230 (DLC), 2018 WL 5312903, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2018) (collecting cases). Recently, Liebowitz was described as “earn[ing] the dubious distinction of being a regular target of sanctions-related motions and orders.” Rice, v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 19-CV-447 (JMF), 2019 WL 3000808, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2019) (imposing sanctions for Liebowitz’s failure to comply with court orders).
The history of Liebowitz’s failure to comply with court orders counsels in favor of the imposition of an additional bond. Mango has chosen Liebowitz as his counsel, and it is not unreasonable to weigh his counsel’s failure to follow this district’s local rules and to comply with court orders in assessing this final Cruz factor.
Ouch.
As we've seen with similar trollish operation, Mathew Higbee, it's unclear whether these trolling operations are fully informing their clients that this kind of litigation could leave the clients on the hook for paying the other side's legal fees. Both Liebowitz and Higbee promote their services on their respective pages as nearly risk free. Liebowitz's says: "We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning we don’t get paid unless and until you get paid." Higbee's reads: "We are results oriented, so most of the cases we handle even have a money back guarantee or are done on contingency."
That's probably why so many photographers are willing to jump on board -- as it seems like a "free" way to get extra cash while doing nothing. But not realizing that you may be opening yourself up to quite a bit of liability for filing bogus copyright lawsuits seems like a problem. Actually, it seems like a risk that a good lawyer would explain to his or her clients before signing them up. One wonders whether or not Liebowitz actually warns his clients of such a risk.
Either way, the ruling in this case suggests that, at least in certain courts, there may be a much cheaper and quicker way out of these lawsuits, by utilizing rule 68 to make a much more reasonable offer than a typical troll demands.
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 troll, denise cote, fee shifting, gregory mango, richard liebowitz, rule 68, settlements
Companies: democracy now
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Is the article written in a reasonable manner?
Yes. It makes no outlandish claims; it makes no accusations that purport to be based in fact but are only opinions; and every opinion presented is based upon a cited source.
Do the arguments logically follow each other, without fallacy?
Yes. The article cites the judge's ruling against Liebowitz, and the judge's previous rulings against Liebowitz. The article's conclusions are drawn from these rulings, as well as from the same facts of the case, and from the same laws, as these rulings were.
Are the rules of the court followed with respect?
We're not really in court, here, but it would seem quite apparent that no laws have been broken, and there is no flagrant disregard of proper journalism or proper English.
Is the punishment sought a fair compensation for the damages caused?
TechDirt does not really seek punishment for Liebowitz; not once during the article do they advocate any action against him. They merely state that he may be punished, as per a court order; not that he should or should not be punished.
Is the target the culpable party?
Liebowitz is responsible for Liebowitz' actions. Calling Liebowitz a copyright troll because Liebowitz did copyright-trollish things is indeed placing the blame on the correct target.
Calling Mango a copyright troll because Liebowitz did copyright-trollish things would not be placing the blame correctly; however, the article never makes such a claim.
Is redressing the perceived wrong the primary objective of the legal action?
Another case of "not really a legal action going on here", as TechDirt and its readers have absolutely no control over what Judge Cote does or does not decide in this case. And to reiterate, TechDirt does not directly advocate for any particular action to be taken. The article's primary goal would appear to be educating people on a new development in a copyright litigation case that may help other targets of copyright litigation cases come to fair agreements with their prosecutors faster than before.
As to the other part of your comment, it is a tangential opinion which has no bearing on the article, the underlying legal case, or this discussion about the article, regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with said opinion.
made the First Word by Gary
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
After this is over, maybe a group of American popcorn manufacturers can band together and help Mango sue the lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel the need to jump in before Sanford shows up to troll. I want to highlight something clear from the Judge's words, but not this article. Rule 68(D) only applies when the offer is deemed reasonable. When you read the ruling from the judge this is made clear: they spend a lot of time discussing the normal recovery from such a suit, how bad the pattern of facts in the case are for Liebowitz and his client, and how their offer is significantly in excess of the fees expected from a license. This makes the settlement reasonable. If the defense offered a $20 settlement, it would have a far higher bar to be considered reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you see someone you don't like trip & faceplant
Oh! Is the floor okay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shell companies
It's a wonder that he didn't hide behind some LLC or other legal instrument to protect his assets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shell companies
He's in New York, so a 'professional' can't form an LLC there, instead they need to form a PSLLC (professional service limited liability company). They're like an LLC but with one difference - they don't protect against a professional's OWN malpractice, but do indemnify others in the PSLLC (just a PLLC in most states) from your malpractice (and vice versa, you're protected from the malpractice of others in your PSLLC).
So, here's the FUN thing. If the Rule 68 thing happens, and it ends up costing his client tens of thousands, that's almost certainly malpractice, in that he acted in a manner he should have known better than to do. Especially with running up the billing as an attempt to vexatiously litigate. That is not a matter of reasonable care, and so it's not a good outlook for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shell companies
So you're saying that this troll, Leibowitz, practices malpractice, and costs his clients tens of thousands of dollars because he doesn't exercise reasonable care. He's similar to a criminal, and people should avoid dealing with him, is that what you're saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shell companies
Oh please let that blow up in his face like that, such an outcome would be an ever so rare instance of a parasite having their favorite trick turned against them, and all but ensure that only the most foolish would ever hire him in the future, all but tanking his copyright extortion career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: shell companies
Probably there is no benefit to society from anything he does, right?
After all, copyright enforcement is evil, only evil people even try to enforce copyrights, so this guys is VERY evil to helping evil to practice evil.
Tanking his career great for everybody, right?
Where are you from, again? Russia? China? Socialist Germany, behind the Wall?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you haven't actually read what the situation is, my friend.
His career isn't the problem. Good copyright lawyers do exist.
It's the fact that he is very bad at his career. So bad, in fact, that he has been labelled as A Bad Lawyer by the courts themselves. Good copyright lawyers don't get called copyright trolls by judges.
Drop 500 out of 700 cases before they even get to "merit-based litigation" because they don't have any merits? That's not being a good lawyer.
Regularly failing to comply with court orders? That's not being a good lawyer.
If my doctor destroys my perfectly-healthy kidney after I went to him to treat my appendicitis, he should not be a doctor anymore. I have nothing against the profession of doctoring. I have nothing against the right of people to become, and practice as, doctors. But this particular person has shown that by he is not practicing as a doctor, he is malpracticing and hurting his clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you seen the idiot judges that the Supreme Court has to overrule, over and over again?
This is another another example of an activist idiot.
I met Liebowitz, he’s a good guy. Not a troll at all. Not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
his record speaks for itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am questioning whether a serious response may put me in violation of Poe's Law... but to err on the side of "you can never have too much knowledge," here's some statistics that are good to know.
In the last two years:
21,515 cases were heard by SDNY. At least 580 of these were overseen by Judge Cote. The Supreme Court reversed 3 cases started in SDNY. None of these were overseen by Judge Cote.
The Second Circuit heard 3,300 appeals from all districts. Of these 3,300 appeals, only 5 were appealing a decision by Judge Cote. Of 169 reversals from the Second Circuit, only 1 was from Judge Cote.
Since Judge Cote was appointed to the bench in 1994, none of her cases have ever been successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, wait, I have some statistics that I’m sure you would agree with. If you break down the days of the year into months, and plot those months on a chart, and then for each month, in states that are north of Texas, calculate the cases of diaper rash, and then compare that number to the number of highway miles that are constructed, there is an UNMISTAKABLE correlation between the two. Diaper rash, highways, less highways, less diaper rash, ipsofacto and tada, you can’t deny the correlation, just LOOK AT THE CHART. You are a heartless soulless baby hating asshole if you promote more highway construction. You can EASILY SEE the correlation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translated into English:
"You disproved my entire point with hard facts that directly refute my statement, and for some reason, I find it impossible to admit that I made a mistake, so I shall double-down on my absolute nonsense."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course he isn't a troll. He doesn't live under a bridge, for one thing.
A copyright troll is a different sort of beast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: shell companies
John Steele lost, Hamilton. Get over yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: shell companies
Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: shell companies
You should be more careful to make sure you're replying to the right comment.
Now you look kind of stupid with that "Wrong" of yours attached to That One Guy's comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That "money back guarantee" mY come back to haunt him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell me again, who is a "troll"? Is anyone who asserts a copyright claim NOT a "troll"? That's the bit that always confused me. What is the "troll" standard? It is evil in their heart? That seems difficult to prove. Is it "too much" enforcement? That seems arbitrary. Can you please point me to an example that you would characterize as NOT "trolling".
Anybody?
Any delineation between reasonable responsible enforcement of intellectual property and "trolling". Or is this just radical leftist propaganda from the Techdirt "Squad"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
^
Trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Riiiiight. Asking for the definition of trolling is trolling. You asshole leftist motherfuckers are nothing is not consistent.
Now call me a Racist, that's your next move, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As they say round here, 'If the shoe fits, wear it'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now call me a Racist, that's your next move, right?
If you don't like it here, why don't you go back where you came from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because General Sherman destroyed his country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it partaken in a reasonable manner? Do the arguments established logically follow each other, without fallacy? Are the rules of the court followed with respect? Is the punishment sought a fair compensation for the damages caused? Is the target the culpable party? Is redressing the perceived wrong the primary objective of the legal action?
If all of that remains true, it is not trolling.
Is it partaken in an unnecessarily threatening or untruthful manner? Do the arguments established leave obvious flaws in their relation to the matter at hand? Are the court procedures ignored or avoided, especially if ignoring them helps the chances of success? Is the punishment sought an exorbitant sum well beyond any possible damages? Is the target not the actual cause of the perceived wrong, especially if the target has more money than the truly culpable party? Is punishing, embarrassing, or threatening the target the primary objective of the legal action?
If any of that is true, it is trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read the comments on this forum. Who's the troll?
Any publication that has to use the word "asshole" in the title of their article does not deserve to be published at all, by any "reasonable" standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You misspelled "copyright troll", Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the article written in a reasonable manner?
Yes. It makes no outlandish claims; it makes no accusations that purport to be based in fact but are only opinions; and every opinion presented is based upon a cited source.
Do the arguments logically follow each other, without fallacy?
Yes. The article cites the judge's ruling against Liebowitz, and the judge's previous rulings against Liebowitz. The article's conclusions are drawn from these rulings, as well as from the same facts of the case, and from the same laws, as these rulings were.
Are the rules of the court followed with respect?
We're not really in court, here, but it would seem quite apparent that no laws have been broken, and there is no flagrant disregard of proper journalism or proper English.
Is the punishment sought a fair compensation for the damages caused?
TechDirt does not really seek punishment for Liebowitz; not once during the article do they advocate any action against him. They merely state that he may be punished, as per a court order; not that he should or should not be punished.
Is the target the culpable party?
Liebowitz is responsible for Liebowitz' actions. Calling Liebowitz a copyright troll because Liebowitz did copyright-trollish things is indeed placing the blame on the correct target.
Calling Mango a copyright troll because Liebowitz did copyright-trollish things would not be placing the blame correctly; however, the article never makes such a claim.
Is redressing the perceived wrong the primary objective of the legal action?
Another case of "not really a legal action going on here", as TechDirt and its readers have absolutely no control over what Judge Cote does or does not decide in this case. And to reiterate, TechDirt does not directly advocate for any particular action to be taken. The article's primary goal would appear to be educating people on a new development in a copyright litigation case that may help other targets of copyright litigation cases come to fair agreements with their prosecutors faster than before.
As to the other part of your comment, it is a tangential opinion which has no bearing on the article, the underlying legal case, or this discussion about the article, regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with said opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Techdirt does not REALLY seek punishment for Liebowitz”.
What utter bullshit. Techdirt was PAID to seek punishment for Liebowitz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Still asserts facts not in evidence]
(No, 'shroom visions don't count)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By whom? Who would pay TechDirt to hurt Liebowitz? What would they accomplish by doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love watching you shit yourleft hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Techdirt folks,
Why didn’t you try contacting the photographer before writing the article? At this point, all I will say is, you’re dead wrong and, in the end, Democracy Now will lose.
Greg Mango
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt has no interest in facts, truth or outcomes. They are paid to peddle a particular kind of leftist propaganda, serving mostly the Chinese.
In fact, I heard Mike married a Chinese, or a Chinese drives his car, something like that. He's an unwitting tool of authoritarian dictators.
Everybody knows that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What a ridiculous comment. Facts and evidence in a blog post. You are alone in your imaginary courtroom with your nonsensical rules.
Go ahead and write an article about somebody with even BOTHERING to get the facts from HIM.
This site is an embarrassment to journalism.
You should apologize, immediately and profusely, to Greg Mango.
Say one fucking negative thing about him and I GUARANTEE YOU that you will end up in COURT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You must be new here as that threat does not work, here let me help you:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=shiva+ayyadurai
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're hilarious. Tell that pussy Mike that it didn't work. He lost his company, his reputation, his future and will forever be branded as that idiot Tech journalist that had to apologize and retract in the face of a very small player over a trivial slight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your tears are delicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that the way you’re trying to spin that shambles of a lawsuit you lost bro? Pretty sad that you have to do it on Mikes website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring it on you motherfucking liar
Greg’s a piece of shit and so are you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have anything at all with which to back up that delusional assertion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just read Techdirt over time. They are constantly advocating for the end of what makes America America. An end to copyrights, and end to patents, and end to service contracts, an end to privacy, an end to law enforcement, an end to free speech, advocating for the "lowest cost means of production", it goes on and on for years and years.
Techdirt advocates for the end of America on behalf of the Chinese. Open Source is good for the Chinese. Civil unrest in America is good for the Chinese. Ending copyrights is good for the Chinese. Ending patents if good for the Chinese.
Techdirt takes the stance that benefits authoritarian dictators and they do it for the money. Shamelessly, repeatedly, and for years on end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jhon Mango
Psst, hey dumbass-
It looks like you put your socks on the wrong hands there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because nothing makes for a persuasive counter-argument like the equivalent of 'Nuh-uh!'
If you've got some information as to what they got wrong then by all means present it. If it's good enough it's possible that TD will amend the article or write a follow-up, but if all you've got is a baseless 'You're wrong' then Hitchen's Razor nicely takes care of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok, fair enough.
Can you give me one example of TD amending an article or writing a follow up after someone pointed out SEVERE FLAWS?
Or are you just FULL OF SHIT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does it matter to ANYONE that the subject of this article disputes it’s conclusions?
Or do you just NOT CARE what ANYONE thinks and publish BULLSHIT because you are PAID to do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what you’re saying is you post stupid ass shit for free? Bold statement bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First, you"ll need to give us at least one example of someone actually pointing out "SEVERE FLAWS." (and not just braindamagedly ranting)
Or are you just FULL OF SHIT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Severe flaw - writing an article about the character, intentions, history and malfeasance of two people without ACTUALLY GETTING THEIR RESPONSE.
Ridiculous that ANYONE would call this Journalism. It's just propaganda without end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Severe flaw - writing an article about the character, intentions, history and malfeasance of two people without ACTUALLY GETTING THEIR RESPONSE."
There are so many reasons why this can be wrong.
Without delving into the "historical figures" reasons, a person's opinion, especially about themselves, does not necessarily reflect a factual account -- especially about themselves.
It especially does not reflect a factual account of ongoing litigation... unlike the court documents that reflect said litigation.
If an accused pedophile says, "I have always been respectful to children!", but the court documents show undeniable evidence of him raping kids, the court documents should be trusted, not the pedophile's opinions of himself.
If an accused businessman says, "I treated my employee fairly!", but there's a recording of him making the employee wear diapers, the recording should be trusted, not the businessman's opinions of himself.
If a politician says, "I had the best attendance there ever was!", but the records show he had very low attendance, the records should be trusted, not the politician's opinions of himself.
If a lawyer says, "I'm not a troll and I have a legitimate shot at winning!", but the court documents show him using trolling behavior and losing almost every case, the court documents should be trusted, not the lawyer's opinions of himself.
If a photographer says, "I will win this case and I'll sue you for saying untrue things about me!", but the court documents show he is losing the case and nothing untrue has been said, the court documents should be trusted, not the photographer's opinions of himself.
Last I checked, proper journalism was all about facts. You have provided only opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a journalist says “I don’t give a fuck if there is another side to the story, I’m PAID to promote MY SIDE” then, well, he’s not a journalist, he’s a propagandist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... that's 100% unrelated to the current article, though.
By the way, how much are you being paid for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
$50 per comment, $150 for each one that is censored. 10% bonus for comment count >100.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoever's paying that is getting ripped off. China gets by with a 50 cent army!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can’t even lie well bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whos paying you bro? Because no one would be that stupid for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pointing out flaws, and merely asserting them, are two different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a distinction without a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for, you know, the difference that they're almost complete opposites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
knock knock
Hi, sir, you're under arrest because you just broke a law!
What, I have to actually point out what law you broke instead of just asserting it to the judge? Pssh, there's no difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why didn’t you try contacting the photographer before writing the article? At this point, all I will say is, you’re dead wrong and
Please enlighten us. You say it's important to contact the Photog before writing the article. So have you done so, and written a better article?
The court opinion is right there. Are yoo claiming that Mike falsified this, and he isn't reporting the actual case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike spends his wasted days pouring over court records to try to find the odd case or odd ruling by the odd judge so that he can quote them out of context and from only one side to support his leftist Marxist radical opinions.
Everybody knows that.
The post was written by the actual litigant, idiot, and cleared by the actual attorney at issue in this article. I know because he's my brother in law, well, brother in pseudo-law with a hint of imagination and with the spice of TD derangement syndrome to overcome the actual need for any factual basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you need to seek immediate medical help as you are having another stroke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the decision and order written by Judge Côté, she noted that Mango recovered nearly $4,000 for a single infringement of his intellectual property. Last time I checked, $4,000 dollars is more than $1,000 dollars. As such, Rule 68 does not apply. Mango has already proven in federal court that he has recovered more than $1,000 for actions taken by unscrupulous websites that steal his intellectual property. As such, the (2nd) bond was never necessary and should not have been granted. The judge made an error, in fact a very large error, in her decision and order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes I watch UTube and try to learn about the law. One of the shows I watched the other day was describing the role of the district court, which primary is used to determine what is and what is not evidence or fact, and the appeals court, which rules regarding whether the law was followed or not. If I understand you correctly, this would be a “reversible error” of law, is that right? I mean, to my ear, the idea that the judge KNOWS what a reasonable price is, in this circumstance, with the evidence presented, sounds preposterous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fallacious assumption there.
You are only right if that case was about one photo.
I'm not going to bother to do your work but take into account that the decision stated the normal formula for judgements and based on that it would be less improper to assume that that $4000 covered more then one photo then to bash the judge for following proper procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. And also, I heard Mike eats Aryan babies for breakfast, with brown sauce.
I haven't figured out how keeping police honest benefits the Chinese, but perhaps that's to help North Korea instead.
How about false accusations? Whom is that for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keeping police honest, that's a laugh. Did you see the clips in DeBlasio's disaster area (NYC?)
Police doused with water, humiliated, unable to respond even to having buckets hurled at their head. Ladies, in uniform, publicly attacked, shamed, humiliated and unable to defend themselves because of leftist assholes like YOU and your CHINESE MASTERS.
"keeping police honest". What a pathetic spectacle you are. Are you Chinese? Or are you a European Socialist? You're god-damned well not an American if you say such things and promote such civil unrest and disrespect for those in our society we (normal Americans) respect the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please define "we" in your asserted context of "normal Americans".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We are proud of our country. We are proud of our history. We are proud of our family tree. We are proud of the patriots who shed their blood to preserve our country, our laws, our heritage and our brothers and sisters. We work for a living, adding value to our society. We respect the police. We respect ICE. We understand there is a difference between legal and illegal aliens, and we understand there is a difference between aliens and citizens. We welcome new citizens, those that apply legally, honestly, openly and with the intention to contribute in a positive way to our society. We are a caring loving Christian community that accepts anyone from any faith as their neighbor, their friend, and their brothers in arms when called upon to shoot assholes like you between the eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems you aren't a normal American then, because a normal American doesn't shoot people they disagree with - only psychopaths and deranged people do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you must be a foreigner of the stupid variety. I don't shoot people I disagree with and I'm not a psychopath. I'm an ordinary American. What you idiot foreigners don't seem to understand is that we love our country, our system, our laws and our land, not in the reverse order. I clearly said "if called upon", for example, of Donald J. Trump, the magnificent, the Commander in Chief of all the US Armed Forces, called upon me directly or indirectly, to pick up a gun to defend our great nation, I would do so today. I don't know who the fuck you are, but if he called upon me to pick up a gun and shoot you right between the eyes, I would say "Yes Sir!" and shoot you right between the eyes. I am sure in my heart that he had his reasons to call upon me, and I would respond with duty, honor and love of country as I blew your head into pink fairy dust. Amen.
Not a psychopath at all. American. We know how to LOVE and DEFEND our country against ALL ENEMIES foreign and other fucking wise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sound like a ducking psycho hamilton. Also a creepy fuckwit with your melenia slashfic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can see that you express your "caring loving Christian" values clearly, which indicates that you are particularly good at lip service. I'm not particularly surprised by that considering the content of your posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Us unnormal American have guns too asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What’s most pathetic is you shit like this and laugh like a toddler smearing poop on the walls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
Maybe you would like to reconsider your headline. It is defamatory. Maybe you didn't know that before, but you know it now.
Please respond with 24 hours, publicly, and apologize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
Wow, I would never hire a lawyer that was publicly identified as a “Copyright Troll”. Not a chance. He lost my business, for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
Well, the article says he aggressive and focuses purely on shakedown letters, pretty much a criminal, from what I read (above). Who would want to hire an attorney that’s a criminal? I think Mike is doing a great job of pointing out criminal level trolling, like that other guy, hermeister or something like that. Went to Jail, right? There are a lot of criminals out there, it’s good to know who not to hire. Especially if what Mike says is really TRUE! Wow, I could be on the hook for huge sums of money because this guy operates in some shady illegal way. Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
"but you know it now"
Because a thin skinned troll showed up and said so?
At least take the time to register an account if you want to play along.
Just because some shitty internet lolyer told you it was so, doesn't make it so. Just look at the facts above, that lolyer managed to put his client on the hook to pay for the lawyers for the guys they sued.
And then the 'imaginary' client shows up claiming that the facts, taken from the court documents, are false & they should have spoken to him for the "real" story...
Pity it seems his lolyer has mislead him about the case, how it is going, and how he'll end up having to auction off his copyrights to pay the debts.
Please come after me.... I've been so lonely since Prenda went to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
My foreskin is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
I am REGISTERED! SEVERAL TIMES! And non as a sex-offender, as I heard you were.
The client in this case is NOT imaginary. I am imaginary, many people imagine many things about me, but he is NOT. He is REAL. And he is a WINNER with a WINNING STORY and a WINNING ATTORNEY.
The author of this article is so insecure that he would pee his pants and shit his shorts before he would DARE talk to actual litigants or actual attorneys about actual FACTS.
Ok, I will come after you. In fact, I did just come after you. Now you come after me. I need about 11 more comments before I see my bonus, and my comments don't count.
I can understand why you're lonely. You shouldn't talk bout other people's foreskin - it's just not done in polite company.
And by the way, you can't seem to spell "lawyer", idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
Poor, sad, pathetic, delusional, friendless, hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
Truth is an ultimate defense bro. And Jhon crybaby smythe already tried that shouting legal threats from the peanut gallery gamut. We laughed at his dumb ass just like we gonna laugh at yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz
"His litigation strategy in this district fits squarely within the definition of a copyright troll."
I'm sure Techdirt's easier to threaten than a judge, isn't it big league?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Troll dipshit hamilton
I can’t wait for discovery. Hey hamilton that means we get to see all your ip addresses. And all the stupid, racist, defamatory, illegal, shit you post on a daily basis. Tell you what, if you publically apologise within the next 15 minutes, I won’t sue for declaratory judgement bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dee please read this
There is a very reasonable parallel between what happened between the police and the thugs on the street that doused them with water, and what happens here on Techdirt every day.
Mr. Liebowitz is an officer of the court, cloaked in his law degree, his bar status, his long practice of law and (to anyone who knows him) his knowledge, sense of justice and standing up for the “little guy”.
Just like those officers in NYC, Techdirt is the “mob” that dumps water, sewage and undeserved innuendo on officers of the court. They do it on a regular basis, trying to group well intentioned and honorable members of the practice of law with the (very very few) bad practitioners.
This activist approach to changing society will result, and is resulting, in disaster. Look at Chicago - thousands of murders could have been prevented if the police were allowed to do their job.
Orderly civil society demands respect for officers of the law, and officers of the court. Street gangs and foreigners that would demean and disrespect those with whom we entrust our freedoms, liberties and justice should be held accountable, whether their actions occur on the street or on a blog.
NYC recently gave us a graphic video example of mobs being allowed to roam free without respect for the law. Now Techdirt gives us another example of mobs disrespecting officers of the court.
You should apologize for your one sided, badly researched and inaccurate portrayal of both the attorney in this case and his client.
Sooner or later, civil society will be restored, and Techdirt will long be remembered as a brief and ugly product of anti-American unruly mobs, free to defame honorable citizens, while simulaneously silencing their critics.
Trump 2020. At this point, there really is no credible alternative if you’re an “actual” American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dee please read this
Speaking of Trump, did you see him trash Fox News? I LOVE THIS GUY! He is so “apolitical” that I think he should be considered a “modern miracle”. He understands a truth that is deeper and wider than any of the idiot pundits on cable news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't please read this
Wait, so after that rant about civility you hold up El Cheetos the Pussy Grabber as the shining example of purity?
Are we talking about the same guy that tosses around false accusations (Birth certificates anyone?), makes up derogatory names for his opponents (Woo Woo!), NEVER showed any respect to the sitting president, always punches down, never tells the truth (Biggest inauguration, Bigger than Obama's!!), and is constantly firing his staff for disagreeing with him? (I only hire the best people in the world!)
Police, and Trump, should be held to higher standards of accountability. Pointing out their crimes isn't a witch hunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't please read this
It’s always funny when the lunatic fringe shows up.
El Cheetos - fascinating, you’re extremely funny and make cogent and compelling points.
You should be on MSNBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting. Refusing all the actual claims against their own incompetence, and instead latching onto a minor irrelevant detail of the opposition, is a political tactic often used by the Trump administration.
It appears you have learned this tactic well, my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting. Avoid any actual question, post derogatory information about people you don't know and never met, opine ad-nauseous about things you know nothing about, calling people "my friend" when you obviously don't have any friends, who are you, AOC, or that Muslim Somali idiot lady?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet, no one can explain how El Cheetos head Pussy Grabber still is somehow "Most Civil" and everyone else is crazy for pointing out when he lies, insults, shows a lack of morals, attacks anyone who disagrees.
Little Trumps learn from their boss and can't address complaints without wild side treks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, wait, are you the Thought Police? No? Are you the Civil Police? No? Are you the Moral Police? Yes? Or are you a LOSER PUSSY crying to his mama about how life’s just NOT FAIR to you (while it’s great for the rest of us)?
Pussy.
That’s you, loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
America's finest, right here folks!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's right! I'm proud of my country, I'm proud of my beliefs, I'm PROUD that I can post here things that are related to the TRUTH and not be AFRAID of people like Megyn Kelly. Do you remember when Trump first told her "Hey, I was nice to you before, and I was wrong". Same goes here. I was nice to Mike, I was nice even to Anonymous Cowards like you, and what did it get me? Crazy articles like the one above about activist judges that want to label certified attorneys as "trolls". What kind of ridiculous horseshit is that? Forget the case at hand, focus on the attorney's OTHER cases to make decisions about THIS case. Amazing. This is the legal equivalent of RACISM - because I don't like what I heard about you in OTHER CASES, I'm going to discriminate about you in THIS CASE! Unbelievable, Dee has lost her mind. Megyn lost her mind, too, but in the past, I was AFRAID to comment publicly. Now that time is OVER! You leftist Marxist lunatic fringe have taught me one thing - SPEAK THE FUCK UP! This is a crazy ruling by a crazy activist judge that should be soundly CONDEMNED by every proud American with a flag, a bible and a rifle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....
Yep, that about sums up what was said in your comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So tell me, tell me honestly, your opinion. You are OK to call POTUS " El Cheetos head Pussy Grabber", but take offense that I have a bible, is that you view? You are OK that a judge looks completely OUTSIDE THE LAW as the basis for her decisions, but you want to characterize my criticism of this CRAZY ruling as "blah blah blah".
Truth be told, you have nothing cogent to say at all, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet you're a "send her back" kind of a person, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. Love it or leave it, America, that is. Goes for all you assholes here, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how presidential and American is it to call one of America's great cities "rat and rodent infested" and "no human being would want to live there"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never knew Trump owned property in Baltimore too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never knew Trump owned property in Baltimore too.
Well, there's your answer.
Hamilton lives in Baltimore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes I know you consider a honest and frank and true remark as “un-Presidential”.
Get over yourself, idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't believe that the one of the president's most important civil functions is to unite our country as a whole, but it is instead to piss and shit everywhere and on everybody who disagrees with him?
And you call yourself American?
So why don't you just go fuck off back to whatever inbred trailer park you come from and stick to huffing spray paint and fucking your sister.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My oh My aren't we superior?
Foreigner, right?
Come to my trailer park and face me and my sister - I dare you.
Pussy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you don't refute huffing paint and fucking your sister...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Truth is truth. Trump is President. You are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How's your goose step looking these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Careful hamilton you’re gonna run out of ip addresses and then everyone will know it’s your dumb ass replying to your dumb ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a crazy ruling by a crazy activist judge that should be soundly CONDEMNED by every proud American with a flag, a bible and a rifle.
Oh yeah - the retard trifecta. Wave around your precious little rag, while thumping on your imaginary man book and playing army man with your little gun.
All talk, and no gas to drive your pickin-up truck into town to actually do anything. Amirite Goober?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey hamilton be to be a pussy that to never have touched one of those lovely things like you bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO: u
I apologize, sir or madam, but you seem to have clicked the wrong button. You see, your response was placed in reply to me.
It seems readily apparent to me that this was in error. A location does exist, which would greatly increase your comment's comprehensibility if such comment were to be read in the context provided by this alternate position.
Logically, I must believe your intentions were to direct your remark to such a location, rather than where it can currently be found; where, I regret I must inform you, the content of your remark imparts remarkably little of value. (Particularly when placed in parallel with the perspicacious perceptions it would present, were the post properly positioned!)
However, I cannot in good faith place any fault upon you for this devastating error. I, myself, am also unable to locate the button which places a comment as a response to itself. In fact, if such a button were to exist, I believe it might be in violation of the laws of causality, thermodynamics, and Rhode Island.
Please refrain from violating the laws of causality, thermodynamics, and Rhode Island.
And from spewing such inflammatory utter nonsense in my direction.
Thank you, sir. Or madam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO: u
The laws of Rhode Island are not worth defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd inquire whether you were struck and require medical assistance, but it appears obvious that the point missed you by such a large distance that I'm not sure you were ever even in the same national airspace as that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO: u
I laughed at this.
Well written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please don't refer to the resident troll as "my friend" - it'll only encourage him to spout more venom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Clearly, no have no friends. Donald J. Trump is my friend, my personal and long term friend. Not my old only friend, of course, Mad Dog was also my friend. Kelly Anne, too. And Greg Gutfeld and Shaun Hannity and Tucker Carlson, I talk with the every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That fucking sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jhon please stop lying
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deez nuts please read this
Hey hamilton what you gonna do if yo boy loses? Fuck you cant handle it when you alter ego shat the bed. What you gonna do when your hero end up in jail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a great documentary about Techdirt and the Techdirt “squad”.
I hope that Liebowitz guys takes all of you to court, he appears to be good at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wasn't Paul Hansmeier supposed to win his appeal bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope that Liebowitz guys takes all of you to court, he appears to be good at it.
I think he'll need to take on that Judge that called him a "Copyright Troll" first. If he wins that, we really still can't be blamed for reporting on her statements made in court.
In the meantime, I just want to point out that the AC fucks goats, and may be running a sex operation from his pizza joint. (Since they don't understand what libel is, apparently.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right. It's not defamatory if it's true.
So Jhin Herick's the only one here at any risk, though only if Mike had thinner skin and less legal acumen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Legal Acumen” Come on, tell the truth, you ARE Mike, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And getting smacked down by a judge...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah he’s been sanctioned twice. He’s looking for a third time I head. I hope he he sues me. I could use some sanction money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh yeah we are really afraid of Mr Sanctioned Twice. He sounds like your kinda guy. Two time loser who doesn’t know when to quit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When talking about pro-plagueism or climate science denial, it's not required to get input from Jenny McCarthy or Anthony Watts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Climate science” Definition: Have thousands of scientists TAKE MONEY from the Government if they AGREE, then ask them if they agree, and if they do, then OPINION by PAID PROMOTERS becomes FACT.
Let me explain the definition of Science to you fucking idiots: Science is the study of repeatable events. That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're interested in knowing who's really pushing deliberate lies in return for dark money, here's a few names to get you started:
Anthony Watts
Willie Soon
Tim Ball
Christopher Shaw
Lucija Tomljenovic
Albert and Claire Dwoskin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why hasn't this guy been disbarred by now, at the very least? And possibly charged for fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't easy to get disbarred. And losing a case like this isn't fraudulent. He chose an aggressive tactic and got smacked down by the judge.
If you want to see what it takes to get dis-barred, please look up the antics of the leader of the Proud Boys, violent racist failed attorney Van Dyke. So Proud!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To simplify:
Committing fraud means that you said, "I will do this thing," when you already knew you wouldn't do that thing. (Or you said, "I will not do this thing," when you already knew you were going to do that thing.)
I feel confident in saying that Liebowitz fully intends to win each case that he goes after, and that he takes every action of his with the goal of getting the most money.
And to the best of my knowledge, he's not falsifying any legal documents or presenting any claims he knew were undeniably false.
So it would not really be fraud. Nor, for that matter, negligence. Just incompetence, at worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok, thanks. I don't know much about legal stuff, so that helps clear it up a bit. He's still a scummy guy, though, no doubt about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He’s still a scummy guy, no doubt about it.
Did you know that he got over 200 cash settlements for illegal aliens and monkeys that had their photos stolen by radical left wing organizations to promote un-American and racist agendas?
Did you know that he is Black in some places and Brown in some places and Yellow in some places? How DARE YOU condemn an attorney of color.
Did you know he was a Tran-sexual fighter for the rights of unaccompanied minors that cross the border illegally and alone without hope or possibility of acceptance in a community of HATERS like you that don’t RESPECT the underprivileged illegal alien trans-sexual and bi-sexual and non-sexual segment of our society?
You should be shamed for your comments. I hope a ladyboy takes off her high heels and plants them both in your eyes while peeing on you in a hotel in St. Petersburg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hopefully he eventually screws up like other copyright trolls in the past (Hansmeier and Steele) and gets himself some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here’s what I don’t understand. It seems to me that what this judge is saying is that (a) companies can feel free to steal other people’s work and then (b) when someone files a totally legitimate complaint then can get out of it by (c) paying what they should have paid, but did not pay. And, this is done without any reasonable negotiation AT ALL.
Doesn’t this change the equation for every thief to simply calculate the price, steal the work, and if later a legal action comes to pass, pay the fee they would’ve had to pay anyway? It totally removes the motivation to behave legally and negotiate a fair price.
This judge is basically licensing everyone to steal from legitimate artists with legitimate and registered copyrighted works with no consequence at all.
That seems bizarre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try re-reading the article; the rejected offer that the judge has ruled reasonable, was for 5 times the fee usually charged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Usually charged”. For other pictures. Different situations. If I had a picture of some Russian hooker in St. Petersburg peeing on Donald J. Trump in the bed that Barry Obama slept in, would that be worth “5 times” my usual price?
Ask the judge that question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reading the article does not appear to be your thing as :-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To the best of my knowledge, you have never disputed that you are an agent of the Kremlin. Does that mean that you are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I would NEVER say that I exonerated him. Not at all. Even a little. He is certainly not proven to be not guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a photographer I can let you know that if you steal my images I do not believe that five times the original licensing amount would be considered fair compensation. To begin with that does not compensate me for the days or even weeks of time that I had to spend tracking you down and attempting to get you to pay me. It is also not within the law that my images are only worth what you say that I licensed an image for at one time. The reason why there are As a photographer I can let you know that if you steal my images I do not believe that five times the original licensing amount would be considered fair compensation. To begin with that does not compensate me for the days or even weeks of time that I had to spend trapping you down and attempting to get you to pay me. It is also not within the law that my images are only worth what you say that I licensed an image for at one time. The reason why there are statuatory damages in a case like this is to try and prevent others from behaving in this illegal manner. I’m currently utilizing this lawyer as my lawyer in a case against a giant media company that fallout stole a dozen images of mine and utilize them on dozens of websites and magazine articles without crediting me. They actually sold the images themselves as part of a package when selling the brand overseas.
When I found my images in these magazines I contacted the magazines and attempted to get them to deal with me fairly and they ignored me. By having this person as my lawyer I’m now able to be fairly compensated for my images that were stolen and published to my detriment both professionally and financially.
Having the credit for the image when it is published in Vanity Fair Would’ve been something that I could’ve used to leverage additional clients an additional revenue sources. By them publishing it and crediting it to the company that stole the images from me I have lost more than just my normal licensing on this image.
It’s time that people stop just taking images and using them without the permission of the photographer. Saying that a company is nonprofit does not mean that the people who work there do not get paid. Kaiser Permanente is a nonprofit HMO, but they make more money than the other five for profit HMOs in California combined.
I do not feel sorry for this company being told that $1000 was not high enough compensation for a photographer who had their image stolen. I personally have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees for the number of images I have found stolen and been unable to recover compensation from. Finding this lawyer is a godsend and maybe finally I’ll be able to get paid for my work.
And just in case you’re wondering I am a real photographer who was shot hundreds of covers and editorials for real magazines all over the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a photographer I can let you know that if you steal my images I do not believe that five times the original licensing amount would be considered fair compensation. To begin with that does not compensate me for the days or even weeks of time that I had to spend tracking you down and attempting to get you to pay me.
I hear this line a lot and it's never made any sense at all to me. If it costs you that much time to track someone down... maybe... don't do it? Seems like the value of tracking people down isn't worth it. Instead focus on doing new work, finding new clients, etc.
I’m currently utilizing this lawyer as my lawyer in a case against a giant media company that fallout stole a dozen images of mine
Why would you use him given just how many times he's been called out by courts for bad behavior and messing up? There are tons of good copyright lawyers. Why not hire one of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hamilton seriously hasn't got over Shiva Ayyadurai's loss.
The judge isn't going to rule differently even if you surgically graft on the Fran Drescher mask, fam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course judge Côté isn’t going to rule differently. She already exercised her bad judgment and wrote her poor, 17 page decision dated July 24, 2019. She doesn’t get another bite at the apple to make a smart and informed decision. It would be the Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit that would reverse her decision on requiring a 2nd bond when her opinion and order, on this particular matter, is challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Still asserting facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not true. See post #105 for a discussion of judge Cote’s opinion and order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Shithead lying into the ether neither "facts" nor "discussion" make. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What “lying” might you be referring to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read post 105 to find out. It's pretty blatant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason I’m asking is because I am the author of post #105. I’ll ask the question a second time. What lie(s) are you referring to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(mischaracterization bolded)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ughc formatting doesn't match the preview.
For reference, my commentary is separated from the less-than-true claims by the parentheses following the quoted parts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Additional point to #1:
$4000>$1000 is also red herring, as the question is really "is $1000 > $0."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly you'd think after Shiva lost his case he'd have the decency to pick up after his shit and leave, not let it fester.
Hamilton's gone double the full retard he originally was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enemies of your enemies
From the Slate profile of Liebowitz:
Well, that's not as juicy as Disney being sued for copyright violations, but it doesn't sound too bad. The problem is when innocent individuals, non-profits, universities and the like get targeted, which is plainly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This post addresses #120 and#122, written by Toom1275:
Point 1: Mango v. Buzzfeed, SDNY, judge Victor Marrero, decision and order dated January 17, 2019 - Mango recovered $3,750 (nearly $4,000) for theft of intellectual property. Not sure what you think the misrepresentation was. Please explain.
Point 2: Rule 68 only applies if the plaintiff recovers less than $1,000. Since Mango already proved in federal court that he has recovered more than the Democracy Now offer of $1,000, Rule 68 does not apply.
Point 3: Plaintiff does not have the burden of proving that he can pay Democracy Now legal fees because he’s not going to lose. He already proved in federal court he will beat the $1000 offer and as such, Democracy Now will be paying Liebowitz Law Firm fees, not the other way around. Any other past cases that involve Richard Liebowitz have nothing to do with the Mango case.
Point 4. You are correct, it is my opinion. However, even a third grader knows that $4,000 beats $1,000. The judge ruled in error and I predict that she will be reversed in the Second Circuit when the order is appealed.
Point 1 in post 122: I’ll say it again for the third time now. Mango already proved in federal court he can recover nearly $4000 for a single photographic infringement. What don’t you understand about that? It’s not a red herring. It’s fact. The offer from Democracy Now was $1000. The only question judge Côté has to ask before making a decision is this: Can / will Mango beat the $1000 offer. If he can, then no bond is required because he will not be paying the legal fees of Democracy Now. If he can’t, then a bond is required. It’s a simple as that.
By the way, the newspaper business is collapsing. One reason is because stolen articles and stolen artwork from websites that actually pay photographers and reporters to go out and collect the work is being siphoned off and ad revenue is being shifted to those unscrupulous websites. As such, entire photography departments are being decimated because the newspapers can’t pay them anymore because of the drop in ad revenues. The entire staff of the Chicago Tribune was laid off about three or four years ago and now it just happened again at the New York Daily News last year. I can tell you that I know some of those folks and the family finances for those photographers were completely wrecked. Not really sure why you have such an ax to grind with photographers trying to enforce the rules for copyright protection on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they want to destroy America, the American System, American Law, American Justice, American History and American Inventors. And, apparently, American photographers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can cry a river to rival the Amazon, Hamilton, and it still won't save John Steele.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I still don't know (or care) who he is.
Who is so focused on destroying the rights of American Inventors, American Authors and American Photographers?
The Communists in China? The Radical Iranians? The shit-hole Samalis? The Squad?
Liberal idiots that lived privileged liberal lives in their gated and walled communities that are too stupid to get a degree and too lazy to actually work for a living?
Sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mr. Leibowitz, I wonder if there is any way that you could find out if your opposing counsel, Sheppard Mullin, or your opposition, Democracy Now, paid for this public slander and defamation as a tactic to obtain your capitulation in this matter.
I mean, that would be rather unfair, don't you think? At a minimum, I think the form and substance of both the article and the comments (by masked posters) are very damaging to both you and your client.
If they are indeed funding this public smear campaign, maybe that would be relevant to their case.
Why not subpoena Techdirt and the others, not very expensive, and given the circumstances, might be quite a service to lady justice.
I think Techdirt has been selling this type of public "smear circus" for a long time, complete with their phony pony public opinion posters. Let's see how much they get for it, that would be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I would just mention that these guys have been at this kind of public smear campaign as a business tactic for a long time. The "very influential group of people on a technical blog" is this group of people, and the reputation they are trying to destroy by being actively promoted on the "tip of Google" is yours.
Ms Cockcroft suddenly became very angry and threatened to ruin my business before it started. She said that she was in with a very influential group of people on a technical blog who would write about me and many other people would comment. She said this would mean that my reputation would be ruined and it would remain at the tip of Google. Wendy Cockcroft refused to refund my money, refused to re-do the work and threatened to destroy my business and personal reputation before it even started. I am so worried that she will carry out her threats. I have worked to develop my product and the thought that someone with such power on the internet and who has a vendetta against me could destroy all my hard work and there is nothing that I can do is causing me a lot of distress. I looked around the web and Wendy Cockcroft certainly seems to know how to spread information. I have lot a lot of money and I may lose my fledgling business. Thank goodness that I found Ripoff Report. I only hope that if and when I can finally launch my business potential customers read my Ripoff report
https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom /internet/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom-wendy-cockcroft-manchester-u-1280 160
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi jhon. You finally sober up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His repeating old defamations of Wendy says that's a no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Old, proven troll post defamations at that. Desperate, much? Nobody with half a brain would go to a review site to report a crime -- instead of to the police. PLUS if it were true, it'd be easy to work out who my "victim" was unless I was in the regular habit of doing so and had to pick between multiple candidates for "Who's the grass?"
You'd have to look very hard to find me slagging any business off. It's fiscal suicide to fall out publicly with a client; nobody would want anything to do with such a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s in plenty of trouble without taking a losers advise like yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be Blue, Hamilton, and the other creator-hater copyright maximalist zealots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what I love about you fanatical left-wing nut cases. Whatever you do, blame someone else for doing it. Hillary colluded with the Russians, no doubt. Her move? Blame the Russians. Hillary obstructed justice and destroyed evidence. Her move? Charge obstruction against Trump. Techdirt does everything it can to ruin the careers of legitimate inventors and artists, like this Mango fellow. Your move? Blame me! I love you guys! You are so consistent!
And now, with the new Sherriff Barr in town, many of you are GOING TO JAIL! That's going to be great.
Calling me a "creator-hater" or that Mango guy "creator-hater" or Leibowitz "creator-hater" when we ALL either create our selves or help other creators to make a living, while you do everything in your power to destroy a central theme of America - Laws that protect Creators.
You are a hoot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I do have to admit it is entertaining to watch you guys fall over your far-left cliff. Stephen T. Stone is defending Anti-Fa, and standing up for the guy throwing firebombs by saying ICE is detaining people. That makes a lot of sense. Several Techdirt regulars celebrated by public beating of Andy Ngo by Anti-Fa, and several even posted more threats about Punching Nazis (never censored, of course, but Techdirt endorses violence against their opposition), while defining law enforcement as the Nazis.
Do you wack jobs understand that Trump has driven you over a cliff? You've officially lost it, openly promoting violence while calling the duly elected POTUS illegitimate.
The next election is going to be GREAT! Thank you so much!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always know when you got nothing when you start gushing about how you want to swallow Donny’s baby gravy and make delusional hooting against your imaginary enemies. I mean, yeah it’s sad m, you’re a poor, broke, stupid, phone, lying, loser, with nothing in this world but internet access and a persecution complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(As always and ever)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, for the former assertion, completely the reverse of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Steele Dossier? Russians? Perkins Coe? DNC? Money trail? Cell phones? Hammers? Ring a bell? 35,000 Emails? Bleach-Bit? Anything? No?
The perp march is going to be priceless. Comey first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations, you've hit the extreme-right-false-narrative BINGO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for completing the circle. First, you say I am anti-creator, totally ass backwards. Then, you dispute publicly available facts. Par for the course so far. THEN, I am extreme right for pointing out what EVERYBODY KNOWS while FORGETTING that this whole thread started with your RIDICULOUS LIES!
I love you guys, really. Please go on. I'm writing a book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(As ever and always)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts absence of argument]
[Put argument here]
[Oh wait you have no argument]
[Did I forget anything?]
[Oh yeah you're an idiot talking out of your ass]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you tried intensive remedial reading classes? That could help you follow along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love my sister. She went to Radcliffe on a full scholarship. Brilliant, really, makes me look small by comparison. But, something happened to her, I think as a child. Hit her head, maybe, or took one trip too many on the acid express instead of going to classes, I'm not sure. But she was radicalized. Thinks we shouldn't have land rights, or money, or police.
You're like her, right? Abolish copyright, abolish patents, abolish private property, private health care, citizenship status, all of it, right? You're one big package of left-wing nut case ideology, right?
Wait, are you my sister? That would be funny! No, you can't be her, she always has something interesting to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s some qanon level bullshit right there. I wonder how many more of Donny’s boys are gonna see the inside of a cell. You think Roger Stone or Episteen cut a deal yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep em coming bro
Your tears are delicious. Your boy got smacked down and you’re still moping about it. You’re a loser and a liar and a crazy little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Keep em coming bro
Excuse me, are you the same "your tears are delicious" fellow that appears hundreds of times in hundreds of articles repeating this same mantra (search above, yes, hundreds of times)? Or is this phrase passed around in your secret "insider" group to brought out whenever you feel incompetent to respond in a meaningful or relevant way (like all the time)? Which one? You are a lone idiot with this phrase, or all your idiots get together and use it to support each other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They taste like what you are. Failure
We use it because it works bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They taste like what you are. Failure
Good News! An Honest Criminal and Charlatan! YAY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They taste like what you are. Failure
Well hamilton does like to brag about his crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I still don't know (or care) who he is.
If you'd like I can bring up the original thread again where John "Porn Copyright" Steele got his ass sent to prison and you pissed your adult diapers.
Go ahead, dare me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got some popcorn left somewhere
I’m not hamilton, I do however dare you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I got some popcorn left somewhere
Alas, what can I do but surrender to the might of vox populi?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180817/15503740451/prenda-scam-boss-paul-hansmeier-plead s-guilty.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I got some popcorn left somewhere
Sooo good. I sometimes forget how stupid and delusional hamilton is. What with all the sexism, homophobia and racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I got some popcorn left somewhere
What, the sexism, homophobia and racism wasn't already a big enough hint of his stupidity and delusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And there, again, is the unsupported premise that causes the entirety of your ridiculous argument to collapse on itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Any other past cases that involve Richard Liebowitz have nothing to do with the Mango case.”
One word: Bullshit
“By the way, the newspaper business is collapsing.”
Another word: Whataboutism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sorry, is "bullshit" a legal term? Or is it just your private opinion? Or is it because you have nothing to say in the face of an obvious legal fact.
Next, will you say that he was NOT exonerated?
Who makes up this shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Im the goddamn batman
Bro how many time has he been before this judge? His past is very much at issue here. I know you’re stupid and crazy but you should be able to figure out at least that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's more yet another red herring followed by a loaded nonsequitur than whataboutism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can you say Leibowitz is a "Copyright Troll"?
How can you say Leibowitz is a "Copyright Troll"? How does any of this make any sense? I really don't get it.
First, you say a "copyright troll" uses their unfair economic advantage to wrongfully demand payouts from the economically disadvantaged that can't afford to defend themselves, and opt to just settle, because it's cheaper. But then you say the client in this case looks like he can't even pay for his own attorney. AND, the defendant hired Sheppard Mullin, a law firm who demands their attorneys wear $1,000 shoes, no less. Expensive. Big Time. They plaintiff has no money, the defendant has big money, but the plaintiff is the troll. WTF?
So, this economically disadvantaged artist and photographer got RIPPED OFF by a Big Company that hires Expensive Lawyers (all facts), but you call the LITTLE GUY defending HIS RIGHTS a copyright troll?
How the hell does that work? Everything in your article is backwards and impossible to understand.
A young attorney that helps aspiring artists that have been ripped off by large media companies and "non-profits" that have enough money to hire Shepard Mullin (while he can't) is the bad guy, because ...? He stands up for the little guy? He files too many cases (because there are so many thefts, no doubt)?
Or are you just a SHILL for the companies that RIP OFF artists ALL THE TIME!
Are you just PAID STOOGES and FAKE POSTERS that sell your smear service For Hire to the Highest Bidder?
FAKE NEWS, in others words.
Are you FAKE NEWS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can you not say Leibowitz is a "Copyright Troll"?
Hey hamilton this whole charade has just more or less proved you have paranoid schizophrenia. Not that it wasn’t obvious, but it’s getting worse. Pretty soon you will end up like blue balls. Just a sad, pathetic, racist, nutter, hardly worth taking the time to make fun of. Even when they shit themselves loudly in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How can you not say Leibowitz is a "Copyright Troll"?
So that would be a "yes" about the "Fake News" reality here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How can you not say Leibowitz is a "Copyright Troll"
Yes; provided you suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How can you not say Leibowitz is a "Copyright Tr
That must be why he pretends to be multiple posters (and projects the same).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Hamilton.
You were wrong.
Also, you suck.
Same for the newspaper apologist up there. Up yours, fuckbucket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Don't please read this
Wait, so after that rant about civility you hold up El Cheetos the Pussy Grabber as the shining example of purity?
Are we talking about the same guy that tosses around false accusations (Birth certificates anyone?), makes up derogatory names for his opponents (Woo Woo!), NEVER showed any respect to the sitting president, always punches down, never tells the truth (Biggest inauguration, Bigger than Obama's!!), and is constantly firing his staff for disagreeing with him? (I only hire the best people in the world!)
Police, and Trump, should be held to higher standards of accountability. Pointing out their crimes isn't a witch hunt.