sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 26 Aug 2014 @ 9:33am
FYI I recapped the Preiss et al v. S & R Production Company et al docket, and also some filings, specifically Defendants' motion for fees (plus the first set of exhibits), which details Meier's douchebaggery including threats of criminal prosecution which may be a crime (emphasis is mine):
Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met. It may be defined as coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or property.
Needless to say I would not bother to disturb the old manure if I was not annoyed by these cowardly attempt to silence me.
It's a bit more complicated and totally different than it appears in Malibu's pleadings and motions.
In the nutshell, the show is run by the Germans (Guardaley), and XArt's role was meant to be minimal, but the pornographers are being dragged into the mess more and more deeply as of late.
About three years ago Guardaley's marketers found some adult plaintiffs and lawyers to form a shakedown outfit.
Producers were promised easy money: "just let us to use your copyrights, and you'll get monthly checks" (believed to be about 10% of the proceeds). Lawyers would receive some cut too, and the Germans would get the lion share. According to the latest revelations in an Elf-Man cases (same foreign puppeteers: APMC is a Guardaley's shell, just like Excipio or IPP iInternational),
Page 7 of that agreement includes redacted portions, but does otherwise indicate that any recoveries from APMC’s enforcement campaign would be allocated first to APMC’s costs, and then “the remaining monies shall be distributed as follows: (a) The appointed Attorney’s and litigation [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL], (b) The appointed forensic IT expert costs [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL], (c) The RIGHTS OWNER shall receive [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL].” In other words, it appears that APMC as the investigator and financier of the litigation has a direct and contingent stake in it.
So, while on paper the trolls are white and fuzzy (Lipscomb even managed to make Judge Baylson declare that he is not a troll), the Lipscomb/Malibu outfit is not much better than Prenda, and is premised on the same things: Orwellian statutory damages in copyright, strict liability, stigma related to porn, inherent unfairness of the civil jurisprudence (it costs more to defend than to settle), and so on.
Trolls adapt, and as we expose their sleaze (and as the case law is VERY slowly but surely patches the loopholes), things for XArt are not as easy as the pornographers expected them to be. XArt's principals can't just turn the lawsuit machine off, so they are now forced to allocate time and effort to play their puppet role (not to mention unwanted attention to their operations that are not exactly kosher from the law standpoint). I suspect that if they had a magical chance to start it all over, they would say "no thanks."
Hope it answered your question to some extent. There is still a lot ow white spots in the picture, but we are getting there. I have big expectations from the July 30 hearing in Maryland.
Mea culpa: I should have made the noise as soon as I became aware of the defendant's "arguments" months ago. Didn't realize that in the end of the day such "defense" would be harmful to the cause.
I think that it would be illuminating to this guy if he visited Russia and tried to work from there. For a couple of weeks. What ostensibly started as care for children ("we need to protect them from harmful information!") 2 years ago, now shows its ugly grimace: not only every major opposition media blocked, but Kafkaesque stories like this happen daily:
A public school website was blocked because it displayed a Google map, which, in turn, displayed the Google logo. Someone decided that it was a promotion of a "foreign unfriendly service." (Source - ru-RU)
Oops: I see what I've done here. My bad: it was meant as a joke unrelated to the Dominican bank. Should have started "Yesterday I received a strange email from Goldman Sachs..."
Interestingly, I've been receiving mistargeted (Russian names are easy to confuse, right?) emails from a Dominican bank. First I thought it was a spam, but it turned out to be real. Transactions and stuff. I notified the bank a couple of times, but no one there seemed to care, so I simply setup a delete filter...
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 20 Jun 2014 @ 7:51am
Re: Re:
Thanks for the heads up.
What would be recommendations then? I want to stay relatively anonymous: I don't hide from authorities, but from dirtbags that are capable of turning my life to hell. I want a registrar that doesn't honor US civil court subpoenas, or, at least gives a fight.
On the post: Rightscorp's 'Secure' Payment System Exposes Names And Addresses Of Alleged Infringers
Re: Re: Rightscorp is a investor scam
Why are Rightscorp’s principals shy to mention their past endeavors?
On the post: Rightscorp's 'Secure' Payment System Exposes Names And Addresses Of Alleged Infringers
Re: Rightscorp is a investor scam
On the post: Rightscorp's 'Secure' Payment System Exposes Names And Addresses Of Alleged Infringers
On the post: Patent Troll Sues eBay For Daring To Ask Patent Office For Patent Re-Exam
On the post: Copyright Trolling Lawyer Abusing DMCA To Try To Silence Critics
Needless to say I would not bother to disturb the old manure if I was not annoyed by these cowardly attempt to silence me.
Reap what you have sown, Mike Meier.
On the post: Former Top FISA Judge Insists USA Freedom Act Is Dangerous Because It Might Mean FISA Court Can't Rubberstamp So Fast
On the post: Appeals Court Smacks Down Team Prenda... Again
On the post: When Sued By A Copyright Troll, Using The 'Blame The Torrent Site And Also I Don't Speak English' Defense Is Really Dumb
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent Not Required
In the nutshell, the show is run by the Germans (Guardaley), and XArt's role was meant to be minimal, but the pornographers are being dragged into the mess more and more deeply as of late.
About three years ago Guardaley's marketers found some adult plaintiffs and lawyers to form a shakedown outfit.
Producers were promised easy money: "just let us to use your copyrights, and you'll get monthly checks" (believed to be about 10% of the proceeds). Lawyers would receive some cut too, and the Germans would get the lion share. According to the latest revelations in an Elf-Man cases (same foreign puppeteers: APMC is a Guardaley's shell, just like Excipio or IPP iInternational),
So, while on paper the trolls are white and fuzzy (Lipscomb even managed to make Judge Baylson declare that he is not a troll), the Lipscomb/Malibu outfit is not much better than Prenda, and is premised on the same things: Orwellian statutory damages in copyright, strict liability, stigma related to porn, inherent unfairness of the civil jurisprudence (it costs more to defend than to settle), and so on.
Trolls adapt, and as we expose their sleaze (and as the case law is VERY slowly but surely patches the loopholes), things for XArt are not as easy as the pornographers expected them to be. XArt's principals can't just turn the lawsuit machine off, so they are now forced to allocate time and effort to play their puppet role (not to mention unwanted attention to their operations that are not exactly kosher from the law standpoint). I suspect that if they had a magical chance to start it all over, they would say "no thanks."
Hope it answered your question to some extent. There is still a lot ow white spots in the picture, but we are getting there. I have big expectations from the July 30 hearing in Maryland.
On the post: When Sued By A Copyright Troll, Using The 'Blame The Torrent Site And Also I Don't Speak English' Defense Is Really Dumb
Mea culpa: I should have made the noise as soon as I became aware of the defendant's "arguments" months ago. Didn't realize that in the end of the day such "defense" would be harmful to the cause.
On the post: US Reporter Ronan Farrow Calls On Internet Companies To Censor Speech Of People He Doesn't Like
A public school website was blocked because it displayed a Google map, which, in turn, displayed the Google logo. Someone decided that it was a promotion of a "foreign unfriendly service." (Source - ru-RU)
On the post: Goldman Sachs Asks Court To Have Google Delete An Email With Client Info; Google Blocks Access To The Email
Re:
On the post: Goldman Sachs Asks Court To Have Google Delete An Email With Client Info; Google Blocks Access To The Email
On the post: Goldman Sachs Asks Court To Have Google Delete An Email With Client Info; Google Blocks Access To The Email
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Allowed To Get Six Strikes Info From Comcast
Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Allowed To Get Six Strikes Info From Comcast
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
On the post: Another Registrar To Avoid: Internet BS Pulls Down Website Based On Confused Understanding Of The Law
Re: Re:
What would be recommendations then? I want to stay relatively anonymous: I don't hide from authorities, but from dirtbags that are capable of turning my life to hell. I want a registrar that doesn't honor US civil court subpoenas, or, at least gives a fight.
On the post: Another Registrar To Avoid: Internet BS Pulls Down Website Based On Confused Understanding Of The Law
On the post: Once Again, As Details Of Questionable Copyright Trolling Practices Come To Light, Troll Desperately Tries To Run Away
Next >>