Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Appeals Court Upholds Sanction Against BitTorrent Download Attorney

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-up dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld sanctions awarded by a District Court against one of the lawyers bringing copyright infringement cases against individuals for BitTorrent movie downloads, in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670. The Court's opinion (PDF) described the lawyer's 'strategy' as 'suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars — a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country.'"

5 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Plea bargains? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But if capitalizing on the accused's inability to weather the risks and costs of trial are an unacceptable tactic, doesn't that mean plea deals by prosecutors are also unacceptable?

    1. Re:Plea bargains? by dnwheeler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is one of the biggest problems with our current legal system, which in my opinion makes the system "broken."

      Right now, we have two sides arguing the extremes, but no one arguing for the truth. We already have a group who is supposed to be determining the truth - the jury. Unfortunately, this group is explicitly forbidden from doing their own research, collecting their own evidence, or making a determination that the truth is anything but either of the two extremes presented by the prosecution and the defense.

      I have similar concerns about evidence. If a piece of evidence is improperly obtained, it is thrown out. The problem is that it is _still evidence_ of the truth. We should be trying to determine the truth, and any and all evidence, no matter how it was obtained, should be considered. Having said that, I think that the act of improperly obtaining evidence should be tried as a crime itself. If evidence is obtained by police illegally, that evidence is still _real_ and should used, but the police involved should be tried for violating the law.

      The goal of our legal system should always be to determine the truth, even if that truth doesn't align with either the prosecutor's or defense's position.

  2. Using the power of the court, without permission, by hamjudo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The District Court is unhappy, because the lawyer issued the subpoenas without the permission of the District Court. In fact, it was after the District Court told the lawyer to stop doing that. The Appellate Court agreed.

    So the Appellate Court is upholding the rights of the lower court.

    Don't expect the courts to start ruling against media companies that follow the laws that they paid the legislatures to write. Don't even expect significant sanctions when they break the law, as long as they stop when they're told. It looks kind of like this is a media ruling, but its more a "respect the judges" ruling.

  3. Re:Lawyers are professional Bullshitters. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can also blunder like an idiot, like most people under pressure, and get circles ran around you by a legal circus act of a well paid attorney.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  4. Re:Using the power of the court, without permissio by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The District Court is unhappy, because the lawyer issued the subpoenas without the permission of the District Court. In fact, it was after the District Court told the lawyer to stop doing that. The Appellate Court agreed.

    So the Appellate Court is upholding the rights of the lower court.

    Don't expect the courts to start ruling against media companies that follow the laws that they paid the legislatures to write. Don't even expect significant sanctions when they break the law, as long as they stop when they're told. It looks kind of like this is a media ruling, but its more a "respect the judges" ruling.

    Exactly right. This is a "wtf were you doing sending subpoenas to the ISPs, and then wtf were you doing not responding to the show cause order?!" At most, it's dicta indicating that the judges (properly) aren't going to accept these "sue 50 Does, get discovery, demand settlements, and then drop the case if anyone argues" suits. This will have no effect on the more legally legitimate, if morally questionable, RIAA/MPAA suits, which do proceed.