Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Upholds Sanction Against BitTorrent Download Attorney
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.'"
He numbered his Does 1-670 instead for 0-669. For shame.
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?
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.
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
The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
Should have got a patent on the process!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I don't think we do that any more.
"For the term of his natural life"?
I'm betting not.
Some time in prison?
After all, as an officer of the court, he's undermined the institution. Surely this should be treated seriously?
A large fine?
???
I really don't know, but I'm guessing none of the above.
So, what are the consequences of his actions?
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
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.
That is the specific grounds for the sanctions, but if you read the actual court order they make it pretty clear they despise his tactics overall, which is a good sign (not sure if it sets any kind of precedent, but it might). The judge seemed pretty pissed over the idea of what he was doing, not just the fact that he was breaking the rules. I may be reading slightly too much into it, but I don't think so.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Just wait outside the courthouse for the asshole lawyer and smash his/her skull with a baseball bat. Works every time and its good for mind, body, soul and society.
Actually, the appellate court didn't agree--they just said that the attorney suing the does had waived his right to make the arguments he made on appeal, because he hadn't made them below and on-time.
In other words, he lost the appeal on a technicality. He might well have lost it on the merits as well, but it never got that far.
The only especially notable thing about this is a circuit court on record talking about the pattern of abusive litigation in mass-porn lawsuits.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
That's why you instruct a good lawyer to write them a " So sue me, motherfucker!" letter for $100 tops, then do nothing unless they actually proceed with their bluff (which in the US is a small but non-zero risk)*. Enaging them by responding to subsequent threats allows you (or your lawyer) to say something silly and them to get a foot in the door of the negotiating room. There's and excellent TED talk on precisely this subject that I'm too lazy to look for but it doesn't just apply to copyright. I had personal experience of a roof tiling company who attempted to take advantage of a freind's elderly mother by charging her $9K for what was a $6K job on the open market. They were at the point of harrasing her with heavy handed debt collectors. A properly worded letter from my lawyer which he kindly did for FREE and a cheque for the $6K she and the family had originally agreed to was sent to the roof company by registered mail, we never heard another word about it.
*In most western countries outside of the US, this sort of behaviour is called "extortion".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.