Slashdot Mirror
Judge Hints At Jail Time For Porn Copyright Troll Prenda Law
In December, we mentioned the attention that Prenda law bigwig John Steele has drawn for some questionable business practices; now reader rudy_wayne writes with news (excerpted from Ars Technica) of more scrutiny of Prenda from a California district court: "A federal judge in Los Angeles has suggested serious penalties for Brett Gibbs, an attorney at porn copyright trolling firm Prenda Law. Facing allegations of fraud and identity theft, Gibbs will be required to explain himself at a March 11 hearing. And if Judge Otis Wright isn't satisfied with his answers, he may face fines and even jail time. The identity theft allegations emerged late last year, when a Minnesota man named Alan Cooper told a Minnesota court he suspected Prenda Law named him as the CEO of two litigious offshore holding companies without his permission. Worried about exposing himself to potential liability for the firms' misconduct, Cooper asked the court to investigate the situation. Cooper's letter was spotted by Morgan Pietz, an attorney who represents 'John Doe' defendants in California. He notified Judge Wright of the allegations."
Or not - this is small potatoes. I want to see banksters hung - they stole a lot more.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Well, I think that we've identified a more serious issue than 'mere' patent trolling - identity theft is a rather serious crime.
Though I like the idea that if it's found that they lied about the identity of their CEO, they lose standing in their other court cases - making them fraudulent as well, compounding the issue.
In the end, I'd say it's 'Scum is Scum'. If they're not too worried about one aspect of the law, they're unlikely to worry about others, to the point that when one aspect fails, it all tumbles down like a house of cards.
Personally, I'd say 'hard labor until he's worked off all the court expenses'. That's regardless of the aspect they pick - people might find porn icky, I don't really care.
I don't read AC A human right
John Steele. He's pretty much the mastermind behind Prenda, the torrent scanning company, the litigation tactics, the shell companies, and all the underhanded pseudo-legal tactics inbetween. He's managed to use patsies like Gibbs to file briefs, but many indications point to Steele actually authoring many of the motions that make it to the judge and simply using Gibbs' electronic signature. The buck seems to stop at Steele in this operation, and with the heat on Gibbs, everyone is hoping he will roll over like a dog on Steele, implicating him in this whole mess.
So someone has a copyright on pron involving trolls? I guess theres all types of fetishes around.
And can some lawyer explain what a 'prenda law'is?
These shotgun approach lawsuits are just attempts at extortion when they have no real evidence.
I really hope this guy gets some pretty serious sanctions -- making some poor schmuck the CEO of an offshore company is some pretty serious stuff, the kind that should get you into jail and disbarred.
And if I read this right, he doesn't even have legal standing to be suing, and might stand to make money from this.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Good for this judge. If someone is systematically benefiting from unethical behavior, we don't want them in our legal, political, medical or other professional systems. Lawyers, doctors, etc. get paid the big bucks for good work, and also for behaving at a level above the norm. When they don't, it's a clear sign they need "another career."
Since its extremely rare to post porn pics on here and be relevant to the article:
Sunny Leone, who runs the company that supposedly hired Prenda Law for these cases: http://www.freeones.com/html/s_links/Sunny_Leone/
Wikipedia can answer that.Some courts have applied US copyright protection to pornographic materials. Although the first US Copyright law specifically barred obscene materials, the provision was removed in subsequent extensions of copyright. Most pornographic productions are theoretically work for hire meaning pornographic models do not receive statutory royalties for their performances. Of difficulty is the changing views of what is considered obscene, meaning works could slip into and out of copyright protection based upon the prevailing standards of decency. This was not an issue with the copyright law up until 1972 when copyright protection required registration. When congress changed the law to make copyright protection automatic and for the life of the author, some courts have held it effectively granted copyright protection to pornography because materials once considered obscene might no longer be considered as such. Congress's decision also made ascertaining the copyright status of pornographic materials nearly impossible because of the secrecy conferred to the identity of the models and producers.
The copyright status of pornography in the United States has been challenged as late as February 2012.
"But this one goes to 11!"
It is a "little-known fact" because it isn't a fact.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Sunny Leone may have signed up for Prenda's "remove your content from sites that steal it" service, but don't assume that means she knows anything about how they go about doing so. As the link shows, Sunny is busy doing other things.
You don't want to be named CEO out of nowhere from a random company that is about to engage in nefarious activities.
New Economic Perspectives
True. I sympathize with your statement. At the same time, I think that we should view ethics not as subject to violations, but as something we keep in good standing to be able to practice any number of professions linked to personal responsibility. It's a threshold measurement. A person stays in good standing so long as they are below that threshold, but as soon as they transgress and go beyond it, it doesn't matter whether it's a small or huge violation; they lose the right to have the power conveyed by that profession.
Please notice that the judge laid down two rules:
RULE 1. IN ORDER TO SUE A DEFENDANT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MUST PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT DOWNLOADED THE ENTIRE COPYRIGHTED VIDEO.
RULE 2. A “SNAPSHOT OBSERVATION” OF AN IP ADDRESS ENGAGED IN DOWNLOADING AT THAT MOMENT IS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
So looking at RULE 1 for a moment, suppose someone had an incomplete download that was missing important parts such as:
1. the unskippable commercials
2. skippable commercials
3. previews of craptacular upcoming attractions
4. the FIB warnings
5. the "Macrovision Quality Protection" notice at the very end
Etc.
Does that download count as an incomplete copy?
I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
What does "illegal to distribute" have to do with "copyrightable"? Having a copyright does not imply distribution. And lack of distribution does not imply impossibility of copyright breach (hint: "leak"). I'd argue that if it was illegal, the position of a copyright owner might even be stronger, since permission to distribute could not have been legally given - unless his intention to distribute can be proven, the mere fact of distribution could be viewed as proof of copyright violation (in addition to being illegal anyway).