Federal Judge MAY Set Up Pro Bono Legal Assistance For Defendants Sued By Voltage Pictures/Carl Crowell [UPDATED]

from the it-couldn't-happen-to-a-lousier-person dept

[Update: as has been pointed out by Ars Technica's Joe Mullin, Judge Mosman is not a chief judge yet and could not have signed those orders. As was correctly noted by Fight Copyright Trolls [and in the part I quoted!], these are only drafts. So, these have not been implemented at this point, but appear to be in the works. My apologies for raising the hopes of those on the receiving end of Crowell's tactics and for failing to note that these were drafts in my post.]

It looks like Voltage Pictures' hired gun, Carl Crowell, may soon need to find another state to ply his copyright trolling wares. Crowell has already established a reputation as being both shady and willfully obtuse. That reputation appears to have finally reached the federal court system.

Crowell, if you'll recall, thought Oregon would be accommodating to his brand of trolling. Not content to simply sue dozens of Does for alleged copyright infringement, Crowell tried to take advantage of the state's trademark law to pursue pirates. This hinged on the dubious claim that torrents of Dallas Buyers Club somehow veered into the production of counterfeit products. That seems to have gone nowhere, as has Crowell's other legal pursuits.

Crowell also claimed simply being in possession of Popcorn Time (a torrent-based, entirely unauthorized streaming service) was a criminal act -- calling it a "burglar's tool." Conflating theft and copyright infringement is nothing new for copyright trolls -- but claiming the software was roughly analogous to… I don't know, a ski mask and a bag with "$$$" printed on it -- was novel. Of course, judges are rarely enamored with novel legal theories and Crowell's assertion did little to win him powerful friends where he needed them most.

Now, it appears Crowell has made an enemy in the federal court system. Unfortunately for him, this enemy is presiding over most of his Doe lawsuits. Fight Copyright Trolls reports federal judge Michael W. Mosman has set up Default Judgment Roadblock, Esq. in response to Crowell's tactics.

Out of [Crowell's] recent sleazes, the most disturbing is the practice of deposing putative defendants prior to amending the complaint (replacing “John Doe” with an actual name). Since the majority of the targeted are laypeople of modest means, they tend not to spend money on attorneys, so they make a grave mistake of agreeing to be deposed without a lawyer. I don’t think it makes sense to explain why it is a real problem...

Apparently, the judges are not deaf and blind, and they are increasingly concerned with both the sheer volume of docket-clogging lawsuits, and the troll lawyers’ overreach. Chief Judge Michael Mosman recently drafted a standing order urging putative defendants to seek legal help.

Mosman's order, if implemented, has would set up a panel of lawyers who will provide up to three hours of pro bono assistance to anyone accused of copyright infringement by Crowell. That should be enough time to generate the small amount of friction needed to convince the trolling entities to drop the case. Trolling is built on easy wins, not actual courtroom battles.

On top of that, Judge Mosman isn't going to may not let Crowell file lawsuits against single plaintiffs en masse in hopes of increasing his default rate. Not only will this funnel Crowell's lawsuits into Mosman's courtroom, but it will force Crowell and the company he represents to inform defendants of the free legal assistance being provided by the state. The draft order also requires any communications to defendants be put on the record. Crowell will have to file copies of any contact made with defendants, as well as submit proof that these communications were received.

Considering the hurdles Mosman is considering forcing Crowell to leap, it wouldn't be too much of a surprise to find him exiting the trolling business… at least in Oregon.

Filed Under: carl crowell, copyright troll, oregon, pro bono
Companies: voltage pictures

Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls

from the good-move dept

iiNet, the second biggest ISP in Australia, has been a bit of a magnet when it comes to BitTorrent lawsuits. In 2008 they were sued by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) for failing to prevent its subscribers from infringing copyright via Bittorrent, a case it won, as the court found it was not iiNet's responsibility.

In late 2014, Voltage Pictures – the company behind Oscar winning movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' – started proceedings against Australian users it accused of downloading its movie, just as it has in both the US and Canada. The alleged Australian infringements all occurred between 2 April 2014 and 27 May 2014.

iiNet refused to hand over the account details of the 4,726 IP addresses demanded by Voltage, and took it to court, where, in early April, the judges sided with Voltage. However, in a massive blow to Voltage, they required that any letters sent out to people be approved by the court, undermining the key tactic of exaggerating claims in these kinds of cases. Most such cases rely on threatening significant damages at court in order to 'encourage' the recipient to settle, but Justice Perram has indicated that the damages could be as low as AU$10 (US$8), although there could be significant court costs as well.

Now iiNet has dealt Voltage another blow, announcing in a blog post:

If you do receive a letter you may want to get legal advice. iiNet is working with a law firm that has offered to provide pro-bono services for any of our customers

This would be a major setback to the speculative invoicing model used by Voltage, which relies on the high potential damages, plus the significant cost of defending a case (greater than the settlement demanded) to ensure a steady revenue stream. With the court restricting the intimidating language, and the offer of free legal counsel to defend the cases, it may end up being far more costly for Voltage to pursue claims than they can hope to recoup.

And while iiNet has jumped to the defense of its customers in this way, it may not be alone. The M2 group has also indicated it may provide pro-bono legal assistance in similar cases, although they have refused to commit prior to a court hearing on May 21st when a date for the transfer of customer information will be agreed.

It is not looking like Australia will be a fruitful venue for copyright trolls.

Filed Under: australia, copyright trolls, lawyers, legal help, pro bono
Companies: iinet, voltage pictures

Law Schools Team Up To Help Developers Fight Patent Trolls

from the good-news dept

Over the last few years it's been great to see a number of useful law school clinics pop up, focused on taking on key issues of our modern era. While law clinics have been around for a while, those focused on issues raised by technological change and innovation are quite useful. We've seen things like the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley, the Online Media Legal Network at Harvard, the Brooklyn Law Incubator and Policy Clinic and a number of others popping up. However, most of these have been focused on copyright and free speech issues. There really hadn't been that much done on the patent front that we can recall.

So it's exciting to see a bunch of law schools teaming up with the App Developers Alliance (full disclosure: they have been, and continue to be, a sponsor for Techdirt) to launch the Law School Patent Troll Defense Network. It's bringing together a variety of existing law school clinics, including Brooklyn Law School, American University, NYU Law, USC and more, to help app developers and small businesses fight off patent trolls. This is a big deal since trolls have increasingly been targeting these guys. We've covered, for example the lawsuits by Lodsys, which seems to take great joy in shaking down app developers with highly questionable patent threats.

The biggest issue with these shakedown attempts, which pretty much everyone recognizes, is that the cost of "settling" is much, much cheaper than the cost of fighting, even if the patent claim is ridiculous. And, much of that "cost" is in paying for lawyers. There are some lawyers willing to take cases on a pro bono setup, but that's much rarer when it comes to patent disputes, which are generally seen as "corporate" disputes, rather than directly impacting individuals (even though many small businesses and app developers really are just a single person). So, the setup here will allow app developers who have been threatened to work with the network to try to find law clinics willing to help out and defend against bogus threats from patent trolls.

While there are huge structural problems with the patent system that need to be fixed, in the short term, lowering the potential liability and burden for a company hit with a threatening shakedown letter from a patent troll can be very helpful in avoiding having companies just rolling over and paying up.

Filed Under: clinics, developers, law schools, patent trolls, patents, pro bono
Companies: application developers alliance