Rightscorp Worried It's Not Perceived As Trollish Enough, Engages Law Firm To Enter Copyright Lawsuit Business

from the there's-always-money-under-the-bridge! dept

Well, this is a completely expected turn of events. Rightscorp, which has been unable to turn baseless threats and robocall harassment into a profitable revenue stream, will now be serving up some of its threats and harassment in lawsuit form.

Rightscorp just announced that it has partnered with the Massachusetts lawfirm Flynn Wirkus Young, who want to take repeated infringers to court.

According to Rightscorp CEO Christopher Sabec the lawsuits will focus on those users who ignore Rightscorp’s notices and settlement requests.

“Under this agreement, we will be forwarding data on internet subscribers who have been sent Rightscorp notices and who have not accepted rights holders’ offers of settlement.”

“Flynn Wirkus Young has already filed several cases based on our data and this partnership will greatly expand the number of cases filed,” he adds.

This move to another unproven business model actually began earlier this year. Rightscorp dipped its toes into the litigation waters (well, at least as a plaintiff…) with a lawsuit brought against Comcast subscribers on behalf of Rotten Records. Because Rightscorp has been very proactive in the demanding of subscriber information, it should at least have a few names to go with its IP addresses when it starts filing lawsuits.

Jordan Rushie, who has worked both sides of the copyright trolling arena (sometimes with Marc Randazza), is apparently the mouthpiece for Flynn Wirkus Young's partnership with Rightscorp.

According to Rushie, Rightscorp’s notices have some effect. However, some of the most egregious copyright infringers need an extra push.

“Unfortunately, there are repeat infringers who do not get the message, even after Rightscorp sends them notices. They receive hundreds, and in some cases even thousands, of notices from Rightscorp.”

“We have found that the only way to deter some of the most notorious infringers is through litigation,” Rushie adds.

Maybe. Maybe not. Copyright trolling operations aren't exactly sure things and they tend to have a very limited return on investment. And copyright trolling operations aren't really in the "deterrence" business, as Rushie claims. They need infringement to continue in order to keep the settlement revenue stream open. While the content being allegedly infringed upon in these cases will be more palatable to judges, juries and general public than the porn offerings of Malibu Media and Omnishambles Law (a Prenda Holding), there's been no evidence that filing multiple lawsuits results in the collection of significant damages.

In operations like these, a successful lawsuit isn't the endgame. The filing of lawsuits is the ends and the means. And while Rightscorp may have some subscriber information to go with its IP address, the subscriber information is derived from the IP address, which only tenuously connects the person named in the lawsuit with the alleged infringement. But that tenuous connection is good enough for trolling operations, which would prefer to never actually set foot in court.

Filed Under: copyright troll, jordan rushie
Companies: flynn wirkus, righstcorp

Prenda Tries Yet Another Loophole; But Entirely Plagiarizes Someone Else's Failed Attempt

from the not-particularly-shocking dept

Prenda Law seems to be the gift that keeps on giving if you're writing about absolutely ridiculous attempts at copyright trolling. If 2012 was the year of Righthaven as the representative of brazen, hubristic, bullshit copyright trolling getting its due, 2013 looks to be the year of John Steele / Prenda Law (or whatever he's calling it these days). It is clearly going above and beyond what Righthaven only dreamed about. The latest is that Prenda has sought out yet another questionable loophole in trying to force ISPs to hand over subscriber info without having to first go to court. It's using a misreading of a Pennsylvania state law to do so (it's tried a similar move under a Florida state law, which flopped). However, as the good folks at FightCopyrightTrolls have noticed, the argument it's using in Pennsyvania has failed in the past as well. And not just that the general argument has failed but the specific, word-for-word argument. That's because Prenda or its local-lawyer-for-hire, Isaac Slepner, appears to have copied word for word (and stylistically too!) a filing for Liberty Media (represented by Jordan Rushie), and simply slapping the Prenda shell company Guava's name at the top. Rushie confirmed with FCT that he had nothing whatsoever to do with this new filing.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not quite the same thing -- and there have been discussions of whether or not you can really infringe on copying a legal filing (it happens often enough, though usually in snippets, rather than wholesale). Not that anyone took Steele's claims of "protecting" copyright seriously, but it really says something when the law firm billing itself as protecting against piracy chooses to copy top to bottom someone else's legal filing. Check out both filings below.

Filed Under: copyright troll, john steele, jordan rushie, pennsylvania, plagiarism
Companies: prenda, prenda law