And I agree! Good news is that the matter from the bottom of the barrel, lawyers who don't care about their reputation or even future, jump on the trolling wagon: quick-and-dirty money was always a magnet for these folks.
As a result, some of them (obviously, not the smartest ones) forget about the troll's Rule# 1: always fly under the radar. A crook from Michigan, Paul Nikoletti on Friday appealed IL judge Harold Baker's ruling denying the early discovery. I hope that most of you remember Judge Baker, the author of the "legal meme" IP !=person, a judge who was the first to use the phrase "fishing expedition" referring to trolling cases, a judge who killed Steele's novel "reverse class action" lawsuit.
Thank you so much, Mr. Nikoletti! Bringing attention of the Circuit Court of Appeal is exactly what your fellow con artists need!
What do you think the outcome of this appeal will be? Your bets, gentleman!
Unlike in normal, run-of-the-mill litigation, in trolling business, the client-lawyer relationship is somewhat different, I would say perverted. Therefore saying that "...anyone would hire Stone to do more copyright trolling" is a bit misleading. It should be something along these lines: "...Stone would find anyone willing to use their copyrights and name in the exchange for a small percentage of the shake-down proceeds."
Maybe I'm being too picky, but general public still thinks that studios hire troll lawyers, and the latter "just doing their job," "whatever is best for the client." Many mainstream media outlets, reporting the news sometimes don't even name lawyers int he articles.
This is a big deal. Seriously From the comments to my yesterday's quick post about this event (emphasis is mine):
Ordering champagne tonight! Whenever anything troll related gets before a Circuit Court and comes back bad for trolldom it is a cause to celebrate (umm SJD, please correct me if wrong, but this is the first troll related matter to get before a Circuit Court and, if so, more champagne!).
This is especially good news for Does in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas; the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
What I want to say is that although Stone was lashed not based on merits (or, to be more precise, on meritlessness) of copyright trolling, the last paragraph quoted by Mike clearly indicates that the Fifth Circuit is aware of the copyright trolling plague and obviously not happy about it.
This observation led me to an interesting argument that is naturally derived from Randazza's "goofing" of the name mismatch. I give this idea to trolls for free:
What is the big deal if the "expert" recorded 94.23.124.34 with his super-accurate software, and I specified 94.23.124.84 int the complaint? Is it a big deal? It's just a typo, one digit, come on!
Re: Re: Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that any monetizing, even one that does not pay for the hosting, complicates the situation dramatically. And since this particular ruling assetrs non-commercial nature of the alleged violation, I don't think it is applicable to streaming/downloading where money is involved.
Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
Fake libertarian Stagliano also tried to push trademark infringement allegations in porn bittorent trolling cases back in April, but less than in 2 weeks trolls (Hoppe, Lipscomb, Fiore, Kotzker) quickly dismissed more than a dozen of these frivolous cases after a reasonable ruling by a Massachusetts judge Alexander Williams:
Plaintiff’s trademark infringement claim is governed by the Lanham Act. Under the Lanham Act, infringement of federally registered trademarks occurs when the accused, without the trademark owner’s consent, uses the trademark “in commerce” and “in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of any goods or services” in a way that is likely to “cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), see Compl. ¶ 54, but fails to provide sufficient factual allegations that that Defendants sold, distributed, or advertised any goods bearing Plaintiff’s trademark “in commerce.” Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted together in a swarm to obtain a copy of a movie bearing Plaintiff’s unauthorized trademark.
Although Plaintiff may have a right of action against the individual or individuals who created this counterfeit copy for distribution, the Court fails to see how Plaintiff’s allegations support a claim for trademark infringement against the putative Defendants.
That's wrong. Not only it's dangerous for the filer, it simply does not do anything positive. This would be good if posted somewhere else as a joke, but angering judges is not a wise move.
Never thought about filing a bogus motion in one of the trolling lawsuits, yet to preserve the joke for posterity, I made an April 1st post. Would be a bad taste if I actually filed it.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 4:52pm
Re:
It doesn't really add up to a hill of beans. It would be interesting to see how many of the people shilling on this posts' comments (a) actually have substantiated arguments, and (b) actually have no other forums to shill.
Shilling is sort of the ultimate way for the minority to act like they are a big deal. With hundreds daily comments, half a dozen isn't really a significant number, is it?
Remember, you can argue all you like - the common sense will prevail and that will be that.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 8:16am
Re:
It's not even a giraffe, it's a capybara. This case shouldn't have been conceived in the first place, if plaintiff would possess at least a trace of what majority calls "soul."
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 18 Jun 2012 @ 9:30pm
Re:
I think that Mike has nothing to do with Marc being pissed off. It's all EFF and EFF only. Marc believed for some reason (enormous hubris?) that EFF would always be lenient and close their eyes to his shenanigans. Nonetheless, with Randazza's own words, at some point you cross the line.
Given a homage to the analogy-loving crowd, it's like a computer game: Randazza collected many armor and health points (i.e. reputation) over years, and started believing that he operates in the GOD MODE. But in reality those points are wearing thin, and his recent admirers started openly questioning his ethics. Those less brave, instead of lending support, are silent, and I feel this eerie silence very well. I may be dumb and anyone can ridicule my broken Legalese, but my intuition rarely betrays me (INFP).
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 18 Jun 2012 @ 8:10pm
A proper analogy
Imagine you have a dead pterodactyl on your front lawn. No passerby can resist exclaiming “WOW!” Now imagine a tugboat sitting on top of your roof. It’s not even “wow,” one who spots it opens his mouth and remains silent for no less than five minutes, which inevitably causes a policeman to be born in the suburb. Are you responsible for the drowning of Rodney King then? Sure you are!
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 18 Jun 2012 @ 7:05pm
Re: Re:
Save your drama for never-to-happen jury. "Stolen goods!" Drugs!" Why everyone likes to make dramatic analogies from the criminal domain? Sharing obscene material and stealing goods don't dwell close to each other, miles and miles apart. If your want your analogy to fly, at least replace "transporting all kinds of stolen goods" with double parking.
On the post: Copyright Troll Claims Sanctions Against Him Are 'Bulls**t' And He's Going To Keep Sending Questionable Subpoenas
Re: Re:
As a result, some of them (obviously, not the smartest ones) forget about the troll's Rule# 1: always fly under the radar. A crook from Michigan, Paul Nikoletti on Friday appealed IL judge Harold Baker's ruling denying the early discovery. I hope that most of you remember Judge Baker, the author of the "legal meme" IP !=person, a judge who was the first to use the phrase "fishing expedition" referring to trolling cases, a judge who killed Steele's novel "reverse class action" lawsuit.
Thank you so much, Mr. Nikoletti! Bringing attention of the Circuit Court of Appeal is exactly what your fellow con artists need!
What do you think the outcome of this appeal will be? Your bets, gentleman!
On the post: Copyright Troll Claims Sanctions Against Him Are 'Bulls**t' And He's Going To Keep Sending Questionable Subpoenas
Maybe I'm being too picky, but general public still thinks that studios hire troll lawyers, and the latter "just doing their job," "whatever is best for the client." Many mainstream media outlets, reporting the news sometimes don't even name lawyers int he articles.
On the post: Copyright Troll Evan Stone Loses Again; Sanctions Upheld For 'Staggering Chutzpah' In Abusing Subpoena Powers
Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Evan Stone Loses Again; Sanctions Upheld For 'Staggering Chutzpah' In Abusing Subpoena Powers
Impact
What I want to say is that although Stone was lashed not based on merits (or, to be more precise, on meritlessness) of copyright trolling, the last paragraph quoted by Mike clearly indicates that the Fifth Circuit is aware of the copyright trolling plague and obviously not happy about it.
On the post: Copyright Troll Evan Stone Loses Again; Sanctions Upheld For 'Staggering Chutzpah' In Abusing Subpoena Powers
On the post: FBI Wants To Make It Easier For You To Tell Your Customers They Might Be Felonious Pirates
□ Remove annoying PGCs (like FBI warnings)
On the post: Court Says Negligence Claim For Allowing Downloading On Your WiFi Is 'Untenable'
Re:
What is the big deal if the "expert" recorded 94.23.124.34 with his super-accurate software, and I specified 94.23.124.84 int the complaint? Is it a big deal? It's just a typo, one digit, come on!
On the post: Court Says Negligence Claim For Allowing Downloading On Your WiFi Is 'Untenable'
Tugboat is sunken
On the post: What Happens If File Sharing Can Also Be Prosecuted As Trademark Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Happens If File Sharing Can Also Be Prosecuted As Trademark Infringement?
Re: Re: Let me fix that for you
Crosbie owns an idiot? I was not aware. Shame on him.
On the post: What Happens If File Sharing Can Also Be Prosecuted As Trademark Infringement?
Re: Re: Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
On the post: What Happens If File Sharing Can Also Be Prosecuted As Trademark Infringement?
Bittorent pornotrolls and trademark infringement allegations
On the post: Charles Carreon Saga Takes A Turn For The Bizarre, With Apparently Fake Matthew Inman Lawsuit Filed Against Carreon
Never thought about filing a bogus motion in one of the trolling lawsuits, yet to preserve the joke for posterity, I made an April 1st post. Would be a bad taste if I actually filed it.
On the post: Nearly 50,000 People Ask Why The Government Is Seizing Their Digital Files
Re:
Shilling is sort of the ultimate way for the minority to act like they are a big deal. With hundreds daily comments, half a dozen isn't really a significant number, is it?
Remember, you can argue all you like - the common sense will prevail and that will be that.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re:
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re:
Given a homage to the analogy-loving crowd, it's like a computer game: Randazza collected many armor and health points (i.e. reputation) over years, and started believing that he operates in the GOD MODE. But in reality those points are wearing thin, and his recent admirers started openly questioning his ethics. Those less brave, instead of lending support, are silent, and I feel this eerie silence very well. I may be dumb and anyone can ridicule my broken Legalese, but my intuition rarely betrays me (INFP).
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Negligent douchebaggery!
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
A proper analogy
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re: Re:
Next >>