Sophisticatedjanedoe / FightCopyrightTrolls Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the not-just-about-trolls dept
Hi Techdirt! I'm known to this and other tech blog communities as sophisticatedjanedoe (or SJD). I run an anti-shakedown, anti-copyright-troll opinion blog Fight Copyright Trolls, which, I'm sure, most of you know: Techdirt often links to my posts, especially recently, since we all have been watching an illustrious show of SS Prenda sinking slowly but steadily.
Some might expect that my favorite posts would be all about Prenda, but no — I have wider interests than fighting ethically handicapped lawyers. Still I'm quite happy that copyright trolling disease that has penetrated the legal system is finally gaining attention from the general public. Techdirt, together with ArsTechnica and TorrentFreak (and, recently, Popehat), have been pivotal in this respect.
The only Prenda-related post I want to specifically recommend is about the ISPs' appeal over former RIAA lobbyist judge allowing Prenda to get info on over 1,000 John Does. This post features an amicus curiae brief filed by four respected advocate organizations: EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen and Public Knowledge. To date, this is one of the most comprehensive and beautiful briefs on the topic, a must read to anyone who follows the copyright trolling phenomenon.
For some reason, the story I remember the most is the one about the North Carolina politicians and car dealers trying to outlaw the direct sales of Tesla cars in their state. It makes me sad and angry when special interest groups, mostly incumbents, attempt to derail progress: not that it is unnatural or unexpected, but the BS smuggled as public concern is always unbearable to hear.
It is not much better when certain groups try to widen revenue streams quietly. The story about the Florida Department of Transportation doing it at the expense of public safety — by decreasing yellow traffic light intervals (to increase the number of red-light tickets) — is, unfortunately, also not unexpected.
Good news is that the most innovative area — the Internet — is largely immune to the tricks that authorities can forcefully impose on citizens. It is mind-boggling that certain power structures can't grasp the futility of trying to put the cat back in the bag when it comes to the digital world. This week we watched how the government tried to suppress the dissemination of the first fully 3D-printed gun blueprint using some "export regulations." "Export-import of digital goods" concept is irreversibly dead in the Internet age.
Meanwhile the incumbent entertainment gatekeepers continue their delusional fight against the Internet — pretending to fight piracy, while study after study (this time commissioned by the UK government) finds that top downloaders are top spenders. The following stories remind us one more time that the collateral damage in this war — the civil liberties — is truly an international concern. In the USA, the MPAA thinks that considering fair use before filing a DMCA takedowns is a crazy idea. In the UK, the country's recording industry, dwelling on the success of the last year censorship, plans a new wave of blockades — over two dozen new victims (including a relatively good player Grooveshark) — all without trial and conviction. And the Germany's GEMA does not want to yield its status of the worst collection society in the world.
Fortunately, the new generation does not sit idle. I was moved by the news of Peter Sunde, of The Pirate Bay & Flattr, planning a run for the EU parliament.
To finish on a lighter note, read about a pathetic and sloppy usage of Photoshop by the Church of Scientology: you'll have a good chuckle.
See you next week in the comments!
(untitled comment)
Was not a bit surprised to discover Voltage Pictures in the list of the Creative Future's members. Voltage Pictures, an infamous copyright troll that steals from actual creators.
/div>Re: Re: Re: Re: "Investors"
"Abductive reasoning" means that I assume there was a rain overnight when I see wet pavement in the morning. I may be wrong though and it was a mobile fish tank accident.
Similarly, I may be wrong thinking that there is no such thing as de-facto board of directors when I see at least three corporations registered by the same two people at the same suite of a corporate rental building.
/div>Re: Re: "Investors"
I first erroneously read "eight wives" instead of "eight children" - likely because I encountered a mention of Brigham Young earlier in the text, which put my thinking on the wrong track.
/div>Re:
...and Sargsyan is connected to very dangerous people. I don't want to dive into this rabbit hole, so I just leave it here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4059868-Sargsyan-declaration.html (Note that Colette is in the list of defendants)
Story: https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/09/10/strange-winding-fraud/
/div>Re: I am shocked, shocked I say!
I tweeted earlier today:
/div>Re: Re: "Investors"
Yes, he and the other guy, Brad Cook, control the firms.
/div>"Investors"
Here is one of the investors to the scam:
Well, it's not my job to reconcile "love of God and family" with investing in predatory lawsuits based on "barely legal" porn.
/div>Re: Re:
Did Seagal say it before or after becoming a citizen of the Russian Federation?
/div>(untitled comment)
A small correction: Judge Ungaro is not "another one" but the original judge who ruled that IP address is not a person 5 years ago. She has been consistent since.
/div>(untitled comment)
In Soviet Union, "live" TV broadcasts were time-delayed. If it was a failed space rocket launch, the public didn't need to know it - at all. If it was a national address by a senile, sedated leader and he would fart or, worse, drop dead in the middle of that - it would be something that never happens in the Country of Well-Developed Socialism: Soviet leaders were supposed to die in hospital.
Thank you, professor Grygiel, for your novel idea.
/div>(untitled comment)
Does anyone here remember Evan Stone, a proto- copyright troll? This was literally his argument (and it was widely mocked back in 2011):
/div>(untitled comment)
Re: Techdirt's characteristic contextless numbers. -- How many of those suits are false and unmerited? How many go to trial? How many are merited as proved by a settlement?
You are either woefully ignorant, disingenuous, or, likely, both./div>
Re:
(untitled comment)
Re:
Did you just invent victim shaming out of victim blaming ("It was your fault!") and slut shaming ("You deserved it!"). Notwithstanding those concepts are overused today and mostly used as a catch-all "defense" against any criticism of poor judgment, there is nothing even remotely applicable here.
/div>Re:
So, a copyright infringement, however unintentional, was committed. I think you should pay the maximum damages, $30,000. Per instance.
Why? I see a potential dodge for pirates: "I just clicked the link!"
Since copyright infringement is the biggest of all crimes, punishing you has more societal value than your property./div>
Re: Re: Re:
How do you know that?
/div>(untitled comment)
It didn't last long.
/div>(untitled comment)
In case you are not disgusted enough. Crowell initially tried to extort the landlord, Donna Violette, who had multiple tenants (one, who is the subject of this story, was later named as the defendant). Here is from her sworn declaration (emphasis added):
and
/div>More comments from sophisticatedjanedoe >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sophisticatedjanedoe.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt