sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 Oct 2012 @ 8:43am
Re: Re: Deja vu all over again
OK, I shut my mouth, couldn't help :) Hell, I would cheer IRS, ICE and even TSA if they help in bringing down Steele of one of similar crooks. What's wrong with me? :)
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 Oct 2012 @ 6:19am
Deja vu all over again
Paraphrasing a bit:
Well,openly saying "I'll tell all family, neighbors neighbors and friends that you have downloaded gay pornography, but I can make this go away if you pay me $3000," would probably create some legal issues for you if you don't have a lawyer degree. So, instead, you hire a lawyer persona and now you can call extortion "ADR" and ransom — "settlement."
Sounds familiar?
It is always fun to watch one extortionist goes after another.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 5:54pm
Re:
True, yet there is a substantial difference in importance between these two points. And any developed society absolutely, positively should lean towards innocents being protected rather than minimizing the number of criminals who get away with their deeds. It's not even my opinion:
It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.
Lionel Logue: [as George "Berty" is lighting up a cigarette] Please don't do that. King George VI: I'm sorry? Lionel Logue: I believe sucking smoke into your lungs will kill you. King George VI: My physicians say it relaxes the throat. Lionel Logue: They're idiots. King George VI: They've all been knighted. Lionel Logue: Makes it official then.
[...] I think it was also good that the article title included (Sometimes Innocent) as the headline is all many will see of the article and that means John Steele is associated with pursuing innocent people and that is never a respectable enterprise.
While there is plenty to dig into for an investigative reporter, I do not think Kashmir fits the bill and while I would like to have seen some exploration of his habit of filing fraudulent documents (i.e. cases requesting statutory damages without a copyright registration), the intensity of harassment, and the incestuous relationships between Steele and the many shell companies that are parties in his lawsuits, I’m not surprised it wasn’t very deep. I do object a bit to the extent that she takes many of his claims at face value, even if she does provide a general counterpoint, but I think it’s too much to expect mainstream media to publish scathing, foaming at the mouth anti-Troll articles until there have been some more interesting and decisive developments like their losing some cases or becoming the target of criminal prosecution. I do believe that there will eventually be an American Greed episode that features Copyright Trolls, it’s going to be a while.
On the other hand, by using a soft touch she got a couple of real gems out of Steele:
* Seeing an attorney conflate criminal and civil law is always a riot, definitely not good for their credibility. It really speaks for the standards set by law schools, bar exams, and state bar associations. This is really fundamental stuff, IMO the kind of statements John made should be grounds for immediate disbarment, appearing that clueless about your own profession brings it into disrepute.
* Some great examples of Troll Math (i.e. they have sued almost everyone who hasn’t settled. But they have 20K Does and 5K settlements… and have maybe sued a couple hundred either as single Does or by name). Not that I take any Troll-provided numbers at face-value, but it’s still fun to see these massive inconsistencies even when they are trying to make FUD.
* The statement that they don’t track the amount they have recovered… OMG. Bombshell. OK, so maybe that’s an off the cuff remark, but how does that sound to his clients (are they confident they are getting their cut of each settlement after reading that?) and the IRS (are they confident they are getting their cut of each settlement after reading that?).
* Also an interesting bit about the calls from eight Attorneys General. Very interesting if true. I doubt when an AG calls someone to investigate it’s as simple as explaining everything and they go away. Oh, they may be perfectly polite and go away (for a while) but do you really think if an AG has decided someone is up to something worth investigating, they are just going to take the perpetrator at his word and that’s it? Please, these guys have heard it all, they deal with criminals! Of course it’s possible that is just complete BS, or FUD to try to discourage people from complaining to their AGs. Remember how John used to spread FUD about how MTQs were so pointless, they were just going to get dropkicked into the garbage, he was going to charge you more to settle after you filed an MTQ and it failed, etc., etc. Well MTQs pretty much killed mass-Doe BitTorrent cases and you haven’t heard John talking down on MTQs for a while. I’m only willing to give John credit for being so crafty but he may be saying that so people think it’s pointless to complain, in which case everyone should send in their complaints.
John was also allowed to give himself a bit of credit he doesn’t deserve. The original Copyright Troll was Harry Wall, a 19th century English gentleman who made a habit of trying to collect statutory awards for unauthorized performances of often-dead composers’ works. John is way more BG than OG.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 17 Oct 2012 @ 9:19am
This is my comment from the original TF article's board:
The likely simple explanation is that people want to spend on entertainment, but no one can squeeze more than they are capable of paying. The entire 1 download == 1 lost sale argument is a total garbage. Look, I see how my friends' kids live in one particular college campus. They are OK with sharing the entire terabyte hard drive with a classmate, yet they spend a lot on iTunes, sometimes at the expense of nutrition. I don't exaggerate. There is no contradiction in their world, and instead of painting this world black-and-white, copyright zealots should at least attempt to understand it.
On October 10, 2012, United States District Judge R. Gary Klausner issued a Minute Order denying Malibu Media’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery in all Malibu Media cases assigned to him in the Central District of California. What that means is that 33 of Malibu Media’s cases have bitten the dust, at least as to all Does other than Doe No. 1.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 10 Oct 2012 @ 2:23pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meet the plaintiff in this case.
Also note that Brigham Fields' primary company is X-Art. "Malibu Media" was created with a sole purpose of running this extortion racket, a brainchild of Keith M. Lipscomb, who pays "wronged" party 10% of extortion proceeds for using its copyrights.
And if you want to meet paragons of ethics, attorneys representing Malibu Media, I'll be glad to introduce them. Let's start with Paul Nicoletti. Should I continue?
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 10 Oct 2012 @ 12:14pm
Re: Re: Re:
So please, please tell me how, for example 4:Twenty Media was wronged? The company was created in Seychelles with a sole purpose of purchasing one copyright to a movie of questionable legality — Teen Anal Sluts, a movie that was never released for sale — offline or online, and than suing 1300+ people in a Louisiana court, grossing orders of magnitudes more money in extorted settlements that such move would ever collect if sold. Yes, it is a business model, and it is not drastically different from the one Al Capone had.
Other examples are not this extreme, but still close.
Blameless victim plaintiff? You are a clown in an otherwise tragic play.
On the post: Justice Department Continues Handwaving To Avoid Facing Up To Its Questionable Behavior In Taking Down Megaupload
Category error
Julian Sanchez @normative:
_Watch for phrases like "infringing files" in Megaupload coverage. It's a category error. Works are copyrighted. People infringe._
On the post: Justice Department Continues Handwaving To Avoid Facing Up To Its Questionable Behavior In Taking Down Megaupload
On the post: Marc Randazza Goes To War Against Revenge Porn Site Over Alleged 'Takedown Lawyer' Business Model
Wait a minute... I thought they had their own in-house attorney.
On the post: Marc Randazza Goes To War Against Revenge Porn Site Over Alleged 'Takedown Lawyer' Business Model
Re: Re: Deja vu all over again
On the post: Marc Randazza Goes To War Against Revenge Porn Site Over Alleged 'Takedown Lawyer' Business Model
Deja vu all over again
Sounds familiar?
It is always fun to watch one extortionist goes after another.
On the post: Copyright Troll John Steele May Be A Lawyer, But He Doesn't Seem To Know Much About The Law
Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll John Steele May Be A Lawyer, But He Doesn't Seem To Know Much About The Law
Re: Re: Re:
A dialog from the The King’s Speech:
Lionel Logue: [as George "Berty" is lighting up a cigarette] Please don't do that.
King George VI: I'm sorry?
Lionel Logue: I believe sucking smoke into your lungs will kill you.
King George VI: My physicians say it relaxes the throat.
Lionel Logue: They're idiots.
King George VI: They've all been knighted.
Lionel Logue: Makes it official then.
On the post: Copyright Troll John Steele May Be A Lawyer, But He Doesn't Seem To Know Much About The Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll John Steele May Be A Lawyer, But He Doesn't Seem To Know Much About The Law
A borrowed comment
-----------------------------------------------------------
[...] I think it was also good that the article title included (Sometimes Innocent) as the headline is all many will see of the article and that means John Steele is associated with pursuing innocent people and that is never a respectable enterprise.
While there is plenty to dig into for an investigative reporter, I do not think Kashmir fits the bill and while I would like to have seen some exploration of his habit of filing fraudulent documents (i.e. cases requesting statutory damages without a copyright registration), the intensity of harassment, and the incestuous relationships between Steele and the many shell companies that are parties in his lawsuits, I’m not surprised it wasn’t very deep. I do object a bit to the extent that she takes many of his claims at face value, even if she does provide a general counterpoint, but I think it’s too much to expect mainstream media to publish scathing, foaming at the mouth anti-Troll articles until there have been some more interesting and decisive developments like their losing some cases or becoming the target of criminal prosecution. I do believe that there will eventually be an American Greed episode that features Copyright Trolls, it’s going to be a while.
On the other hand, by using a soft touch she got a couple of real gems out of Steele:
* Seeing an attorney conflate criminal and civil law is always a riot, definitely not good for their credibility. It really speaks for the standards set by law schools, bar exams, and state bar associations. This is really fundamental stuff, IMO the kind of statements John made should be grounds for immediate disbarment, appearing that clueless about your own profession brings it into disrepute.
* Some great examples of Troll Math (i.e. they have sued almost everyone who hasn’t settled. But they have 20K Does and 5K settlements… and have maybe sued a couple hundred either as single Does or by name). Not that I take any Troll-provided numbers at face-value, but it’s still fun to see these massive inconsistencies even when they are trying to make FUD.
* The statement that they don’t track the amount they have recovered… OMG. Bombshell. OK, so maybe that’s an off the cuff remark, but how does that sound to his clients (are they confident they are getting their cut of each settlement after reading that?) and the IRS (are they confident they are getting their cut of each settlement after reading that?).
* Also an interesting bit about the calls from eight Attorneys General. Very interesting if true. I doubt when an AG calls someone to investigate it’s as simple as explaining everything and they go away. Oh, they may be perfectly polite and go away (for a while) but do you really think if an AG has decided someone is up to something worth investigating, they are just going to take the perpetrator at his word and that’s it? Please, these guys have heard it all, they deal with criminals! Of course it’s possible that is just complete BS, or FUD to try to discourage people from complaining to their AGs. Remember how John used to spread FUD about how MTQs were so pointless, they were just going to get dropkicked into the garbage, he was going to charge you more to settle after you filed an MTQ and it failed, etc., etc. Well MTQs pretty much killed mass-Doe BitTorrent cases and you haven’t heard John talking down on MTQs for a while. I’m only willing to give John credit for being so crafty but he may be saying that so people think it’s pointless to complain, in which case everyone should send in their complaints.
John was also allowed to give himself a bit of credit he doesn’t deserve. The original Copyright Troll was Harry Wall, a 19th century English gentleman who made a habit of trying to collect statutory awards for unauthorized performances of often-dead composers’ works. John is way more BG than OG.
On the post: Copyright Troll John Steele May Be A Lawyer, But He Doesn't Seem To Know Much About The Law
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Update
On the post: Yet Again, File Sharing Correlated To Biggest Buyers
Re:
On the post: Yet Again, File Sharing Correlated To Biggest Buyers
The likely simple explanation is that people want to spend on entertainment, but no one can squeeze more than they are capable of paying. The entire 1 download == 1 lost sale argument is a total garbage. Look, I see how my friends' kids live in one particular college campus. They are OK with sharing the entire terabyte hard drive with a classmate, yet they spend a lot on iTunes, sometimes at the expense of nutrition. I don't exaggerate. There is no contradiction in their world, and instead of painting this world black-and-white, copyright zealots should at least attempt to understand it.
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Malibu Media v. Fantalis
Copyright trolls: “We don’t care if you did it or not, we just want your money!”
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you just admitted that you have been engaging in discussing a topic that you have no clue about. Great.
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
On October 10, 2012, United States District Judge R. Gary Klausner issued a Minute Order denying Malibu Media’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery in all Malibu Media cases assigned to him in the Central District of California. What that means is that 33 of Malibu Media’s cases have bitten the dust, at least as to all Does other than Doe No. 1.
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also note that Brigham Fields' primary company is X-Art. "Malibu Media" was created with a sole purpose of running this extortion racket, a brainchild of Keith M. Lipscomb, who pays "wronged" party 10% of extortion proceeds for using its copyrights.
And if you want to meet paragons of ethics, attorneys representing Malibu Media, I'll be glad to introduce them. Let's start with Paul Nicoletti. Should I continue?
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re:
Other examples are not this extreme, but still close.
Blameless victim plaintiff? You are a clown in an otherwise tragic play.
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>