sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 13 Feb 2012 @ 1:39pm
People are sued for both downloading and uploading - yes. yet your analogy with a ticket counterfeiter won't fly: it would be the case with a single uploader and thousands of downloaders, and in this case that single guy would go to jail, no doubt. Yet it's not what's happening.
In reality each file-sharer is personally responsible for thousands of tiny fractions he shared with each of the swarm participant, an equivalent of uploading to a single person, and downloading from a single person (on average).
In other words, it's more like a guy using a pass to go through the gate and then throwing his pass to another person outside the gate. If one is caught, he shouldn't be responsible for the actions of others, only to his own fair share of mischief.
Thus I agree that $100 file is not enough. It should be $200.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 8 Feb 2012 @ 6:13pm
Re: Re: Re:
It was me, forgot to login...
As for the sensational claim itself... I'm against singling out pornography in terms of copyrightability. Not because I think that all the porno is "useful art", it is not, but delegating the power to decide what's art (or useful art) and what's not to judges is dangerous. Mostly because the border is blurry and abuse is waiting to happen. Being involved in these cases and witnessing gross abuse, I became convinced that copyright is a failed concept (I was not always like that, thanks to trolls, they have converted me!), so answering the question "is the porn copyrightable?" I would say: "No. Like anything else."
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 8 Feb 2012 @ 2:03pm
Re:
First, it is not a criminal case.
Second, I agree that this particular argument won't fly, yet it's kind of disappointing (yet predictable) that people don't see the bigger picture beyond this somewhat sensational claim, which is just one of many, and all the other claims have much more merit. Even if judge will rule on this one as you predict (and most likely he will), there are other claims that can't be defeated so easily. And a very weak Gibbs' motion to dismiss shows that this case hit trolls' nerve, which is great news!
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 8 Feb 2012 @ 11:41am
Re:
To clarify: I don't think that Mr. Yuen's claim questioning copyrightability of porn has a sole purpose to create publicity, it's rather a side effect albeit a huge side effect. This is a gray legal area and I'm sure he has a reasonable belief that this might work. Otherwise it would be a frivolous claim and a sanctionable conduct.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 8 Feb 2012 @ 9:04am
I’d like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives. Virtually every opponent acknowledged that the problem of counterfeiting and piracy is real and damaging. It is no longer acceptable just to say no.
He sounds like a spoiled child: mommy said "no ice cream", and a little brat demands cookies, because it is not acceptable to say no after such a refusal.
Throwing this controversial bullet point into the complaint is nothing more than an attention grabber. Yuen would be even more arrogant and detached from reality than Steele & Gang if he would actually believe that this particular claim would fly. Maybe cynical a bit, yes, but still justifiable IMHO: since troll cases are balancing on the edge of legality (yet no doubt being unethical), publicity is much needed for success in crushing trolls.
I already see many publications jumping on the news, emphasizing only a single, somewhat sensational feature, ignoring all the other (valid) claims. Even if this kind of journalism is yellowish, it is useful as it indirectly turns a lot of public attention to trolls' "business".
Trolls' success is based on ignorance. If a victim receives a scary letter and he is not capable of digging the answers for his questions, the likelihood of him settling is great.
If he is capable of independent thinking and can do a quick research, he will learn and understand what's really going on, and 99% won't settle.
Now if the knowledge about this type of lawsuits becomes widespread, even a victim from the former category will say: "wait a minute, I heard about this, and as far as I remember these guys are scammers, and some good lawyers are suing them": the likelihood of him settling diminishes dramatically, hence trolling becomes less lucrative.
So, getting back to the initial point: yes, it's a bit cynical, but means justify the goal in this case 100%. I personally would justify much more questionable means to stop this legal plague.
Its a good thing you don’t allow posts telling your sheeple reading this stupid site that all your efforts have netted zero success to date. Can’t wait to read more of your stupid shit (always enjoy a good laugh) and having it kicked out (as usual). Maybe you should just spend more time in your mom’s basement jerking off and less time embarrassing yourself in court.
(To preempt any doubts that this is just a forum troll and not the famous pirate-hunter, believe me - it's him)
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 12:45pm
Re: Re:
Yes, sure, I communicate with the author of this article regularly. He is quite an expert on Steele... I'm sure he would prefer to be called an expert on some positive topic instead :)
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 5:47am
Thanks TAC, and thanks Mike for spreading the word (and linking).
As it always happens, I have very urgent errands that will keep me afk for the most of the day :( And I got to go now.
In short: yes, I do believe that Steele is still active and is actually behind all the Prenda operations, including this brief, he always was, but since he has been caught replying for Duffy, he is more cautious.
Actually it would be fun to out Steele with some more solid proof (and some of my readers claim that Steele is not in Florida, but never left Chicago), and I'm sure that we can do it soon.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 1:00pm
Re: Re:
Their client is the owner of the "film" in question.
The client pays nothing for this little exercise, all of the lawyer fees and such are taken as a cut form the settlements with the rest going to the producer who has lost kajillions of dollars for people seeing the porn without paying.
The game is to get your target to admit guilt either directly or indirectly and get as much money as you can. You do not want to actually ever take one of them into a courtroom without a confession because a defense lawyer would raise the serious questions about the reliability of the IP address gathering and identifying the responsible party.
While we remain on this wild IP is our greatest asset kick, I expect these sorts of shakedowns will continue.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:58pm
Re: Re: Re:
Life is not a Hollywood western (black hats/white hats). Admittedly Randazza (himself, but mostly people from his firm) did a great job sinking Righthaven. Yet I hope he will be eventually sanctioned for his other deeds that are based on a methodology not so different from Righthaven's.
Some (even good) people can't survive a cognitive dissonance attack and insist that Randazza is an angel.
But he is a monster (see TAC's link above.) I even proposed a new name for his firm "Janus Law", but unfortunately this name is already taken by a guy who does not understand irony.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 27 Jan 2012 @ 12:47pm
Re: Re:
I'm slow in updating my blog recently - overwhelmed at work... But I diligently tweet all the #copyright trolling related news I stumble upon. So if anyone wants to stay updated, follow me.
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:30am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
Being heavily involved in copyright trolling cases, I double TAC's words: Randazza is a monster, not much different from John Steele of Ira Siegel.
Indeed, it was not him initially, but Malcom DeVoy, who went after Righthaven. EFF's Subpoena defense page, which lists lawyers defending against all breeds of copyright trolls (including the one Randazza belongs to) modestly adds "(Righthaven cases only)" next to DeVoy's name. It's shame that EFF became too politically correct and does not wipe any mention of Randazza from their resource pages.
Ironically, this lawyer who "has done some good in free speech cases", blocks me from following him on Twitter. Apparently free speech ends where dirty money start speaking.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
In reality each file-sharer is personally responsible for thousands of tiny fractions he shared with each of the swarm participant, an equivalent of uploading to a single person, and downloading from a single person (on average).
In other words, it's more like a guy using a pass to go through the gate and then throwing his pass to another person outside the gate. If one is caught, he shouldn't be responsible for the actions of others, only to his own fair share of mischief.
Thus I agree that $100 file is not enough. It should be $200.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Troll Ryan Stevens gets whooping $1500 from two defaulted defendants
On the post: Why A Case Testing The Theory That Porn Cannot Be Covered By Copyright Could Be Important
Re: Re: Re:
As for the sensational claim itself... I'm against singling out pornography in terms of copyrightability. Not because I think that all the porno is "useful art", it is not, but delegating the power to decide what's art (or useful art) and what's not to judges is dangerous. Mostly because the border is blurry and abuse is waiting to happen. Being involved in these cases and witnessing gross abuse, I became convinced that copyright is a failed concept (I was not always like that, thanks to trolls, they have converted me!), so answering the question "is the porn copyrightable?" I would say: "No. Like anything else."
On the post: Why A Case Testing The Theory That Porn Cannot Be Covered By Copyright Could Be Important
Re:
Second, I agree that this particular argument won't fly, yet it's kind of disappointing (yet predictable) that people don't see the bigger picture beyond this somewhat sensational claim, which is just one of many, and all the other claims have much more merit. Even if judge will rule on this one as you predict (and most likely he will), there are other claims that can't be defeated so easily. And a very weak Gibbs' motion to dismiss shows that this case hit trolls' nerve, which is great news!
On the post: Why A Case Testing The Theory That Porn Cannot Be Covered By Copyright Could Be Important
Re:
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
He sounds like a spoiled child: mommy said "no ice cream", and a little brat demands cookies, because it is not acceptable to say no after such a refusal.
On the post: Why A Case Testing The Theory That Porn Cannot Be Covered By Copyright Could Be Important
My understanding (copypasta from TorrentFreak's board discussing this case):
Throwing this controversial bullet point into the complaint is nothing more than an attention grabber. Yuen would be even more arrogant and detached from reality than Steele & Gang if he would actually believe that this particular claim would fly. Maybe cynical a bit, yes, but still justifiable IMHO: since troll cases are balancing on the edge of legality (yet no doubt being unethical), publicity is much needed for success in crushing trolls.
I already see many publications jumping on the news, emphasizing only a single, somewhat sensational feature, ignoring all the other (valid) claims. Even if this kind of journalism is yellowish, it is useful as it indirectly turns a lot of public attention to trolls' "business".
Trolls' success is based on ignorance. If a victim receives a scary letter and he is not capable of digging the answers for his questions, the likelihood of him settling is great.
If he is capable of independent thinking and can do a quick research, he will learn and understand what's really going on, and 99% won't settle.
Now if the knowledge about this type of lawsuits becomes widespread, even a victim from the former category will say: "wait a minute, I heard about this, and as far as I remember these guys are scammers, and some good lawyers are suing them": the likelihood of him settling diminishes dramatically, hence trolling becomes less lucrative.
So, getting back to the initial point: yes, it's a bit cynical, but means justify the goal in this case 100%. I personally would justify much more questionable means to stop this legal plague.
On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case
Re:
Its a good thing you don’t allow posts telling your sheeple reading this stupid site that all your efforts have netted zero success to date. Can’t wait to read more of your stupid shit (always enjoy a good laugh) and having it kicked out (as usual). Maybe you should just spend more time in your mom’s basement jerking off and less time embarrassing yourself in court.
(To preempt any doubts that this is just a forum troll and not the famous pirate-hunter, believe me - it's him)
On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case
Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search
EFF created: 1990
Google created: 1998
The only thing that surprises me why the hell they've been waiting for 8 years!
On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case
...That filing of yours was very entertaining (like watching a handicapped kid pretend to be a lawyer)...
On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case
As it always happens, I have very urgent errands that will keep me afk for the most of the day :( And I got to go now.
In short: yes, I do believe that Steele is still active and is actually behind all the Prenda operations, including this brief, he always was, but since he has been caught replying for Duffy, he is more cautious.
Actually it would be fun to out Steele with some more solid proof (and some of my readers claim that Steele is not in Florida, but never left Chicago), and I'm sure that we can do it soon.
On the post: Knowledge Is A Universal Natural Resource -- And Locking It Up Hurts Everyone
On the post: Court Finds Copyright Trolling Lawyer Evan Stone In Contempt; Orders Him To Pay Attorneys' Fees
Re: Re:
The client pays nothing for this little exercise, all of the lawyer fees and such are taken as a cut form the settlements with the rest going to the producer who has lost kajillions of dollars for people seeing the porn without paying.
The game is to get your target to admit guilt either directly or indirectly and get as much money as you can. You do not want to actually ever take one of them into a courtroom without a confession because a defense lawyer would raise the serious questions about the reliability of the IP address gathering and identifying the responsible party.
While we remain on this wild IP is our greatest asset kick, I expect these sorts of shakedowns will continue.
On the post: Court Finds Copyright Trolling Lawyer Evan Stone In Contempt; Orders Him To Pay Attorneys' Fees
Re: Re: Re:
Some (even good) people can't survive a cognitive dissonance attack and insist that Randazza is an angel.
But he is a monster (see TAC's link above.) I even proposed a new name for his firm "Janus Law", but unfortunately this name is already taken by a guy who does not understand irony.
On the post: Court Finds Copyright Trolling Lawyer Evan Stone In Contempt; Orders Him To Pay Attorneys' Fees
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Finds Copyright Trolling Lawyer Evan Stone In Contempt; Orders Him To Pay Attorneys' Fees
Re: Re: Re: $500 a day? Ouch.
I other news (I wonder why no one noticed it earlier...):
Kenneth Ford is charged with 2 felonies including forging a Court Order
On the post: Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA
@daveweigel
Weird. Santorum doesn't like the idea of "anything goes" on the Internet. I'll google his name and figure out why
On the post: Righthaven Actually Shows Up In Court, Whines About 'Scorched Earth' Attacks Against It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm
Indeed, it was not him initially, but Malcom DeVoy, who went after Righthaven. EFF's Subpoena defense page, which lists lawyers defending against all breeds of copyright trolls (including the one Randazza belongs to) modestly adds "(Righthaven cases only)" next to DeVoy's name. It's shame that EFF became too politically correct and does not wipe any mention of Randazza from their resource pages.
Ironically, this lawyer who "has done some good in free speech cases", blocks me from following him on Twitter. Apparently free speech ends where dirty money start speaking.
On the post: Who Wants To Own Righthaven.com? Domain Seized, About To Be Auctioned
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>