Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Trolls Sue Bloggers, Defense Lawyers
davecb writes "Prenda Law has commenced three defamation, libel and conspiracy suits against: defense lawyers, defendants and all the blogger and commentators at 'Die Troll Die' and 'Fight Copyright Trolls'. The suits, in different state courts, each attempt to identify anyone who has criticized Prenda, fine them $200,000 each for stating their opinions, and prohibit them from ever criticizing Prenda again."
Isn't this the same law firm that is facing allegations of fraud and identity theft?
Why yes, yes it is. And that case is scheduled for next week...
How do you libel or defame those who are under investigation for being pretending to be that which they are not?
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. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/judge-hints-at-jail-time-for-porn-troll-prenda-law-over-identity-theft/)
My opinion is that they will be too busy staying out of jail to do anything worth $200,000 and some bothersome amendment about free speech.
Let's not forget, this is the same Prenda Law that has made the front page of Slashdot twice in the past quarter. In December, identity theft and fraud was alleged by Prenda and a federal district court judge granted a defendant's motion to explore that. Additionally, last month, a federal judge in Los Angeles suggested serious penalties for Brett Gibbs, an attorney at porn copyright trolling firm Prenda Law - including possible jail time. It sounds like this is the final breath of Prenda Law. They are going down in flames, and this is their last, desperate cry, and an attempt to silence those who have brought their injustices to light.
Given that they've sued thousands of downloaders, and continued to do so despite judicially admitting that many of them were innocent, I can't really say I feel sorry for them. Consider the amount of emotional turmoil and grief they've extracted over the past few years from suing people. Think it's fun to be named in a federal lawsuit? Think again.
Hopefully, this goes nowhere.
I wonder how much it would hurt a law firm to be declared a vexatious litigant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation :)
This is a SLAPP suit, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. They won't win it, and are quite aware of that fact. It's not a suit that's meant to be won, it's a suit meant to inconvenience the other party so much that they shut up. Normally you see this coming from the big petrochemical companies and food conglomerates to shut up the public activists, the suit is designed to inconvenience the activists and their friends/family/employers, keep them in court, keep them paying lawyers, keep them traveling to an inconvenient venue to appear in a courtroom as far from their home as possible, keep them out of their regular job until they're fired or laid off, require depositions from their boss/friends/in-laws at the most inconvenient times possible, etc. The ultimate goal is to bankrupt the activist if possible, so that not only do they have to drop whatever action they're currently taking but won't be able to afford any other activities in the future.
So much for the Rule Of Law. The rule is now that the deepest pockets always win.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I'm willing to bet that Prenda is going to get owned pretty badly.
If I were a copyright blogger I'd be interested in blogging, not putting out large sums of money (which I might not have) and being dragged through the court system to possibly be made whole in a counter-suit.
Prenda has raised the bar to exclude such blogging from people who are are unwilling to put up with that sort of abuse. Certainly kudos to those who can, but many cannot.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Much of the time, the trolls ARE lawyers, but yes, I agree. The justice system is not supposed to be a "for profit" thing.
Not necessarily in this case. Anti-SLAPP act statutes in several states are harsh on the fees question.
Generally the losing party has to pay the legal costs of the winning party (i.e. pay for your time if you're representing yourself)
I guess it's whether the second part really falls under the first that I'm questioning.
On another occasion, I got ripped off myself, for a modest but significant amount of money. It seemed like it should be a straightforward case: they took a deposit for something, then tried to fundamentally change the deal, and then repeatedly contradicted themselves in writing when I called them on it. I spent considerable time carefully documenting everything as this was all happening and reading up on small claims procedures.
However, I couldn't find anything to suggest that I would get any compensation for the time I was spending even if I won a case, because that time didn't necessarily represent a direct loss of income, and apparently my time and inconvenience has no value in the eyes of the law even if paying a lawyer a far greater sum to spend far less time looking at the case would do because it's then money that I've personally had to spend. That meant the amount of money I'd "lost" (if you just took the time I'd spent and multiplied it by my normal hourly rate, as a relatively objective measure of its worth) was already worth more than the amount of money I was out in the first place, before I'd even filed any paperwork to start the court case.
I would love for someone who is actually a UK lawyer to tell me that I misunderstood this. It irritates me greatly that the other party basically got away with something (and from stories I've heard since, I was neither the first nor the last person they pulled this on, either) and all I really did was teach them that people who send letters as the first step in a formal legal action will probably go away rather than actually take you to court if you just waste enough of their time. Unfortunately, again it was a situation where spending money to take on a lawyer would have cost a significant fraction of the disputed amount, so all I could go on was the (not always helpful) public documentation available from the court web sites etc.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
No, these cases should be heard. They should be heard, lost, have legal fees shoved back on them, and marked as a warning to others.
When a judge dismisses a case, it can be refiled elsewhere. When it's dismissed with prejudice, someone else can raise the same sort of suit. When YOU FUCKING LOSE, the next guy will face a defense lawyer who says "oh, but in Dickhead vs. BK Joe, Dickhead was found to be a moron" and THAT GUY FUCKING LOSES TOO.
While I agree, look at what happened in RightHaven - sure, they lost, costs were awarded etc, but when it came to paying, suddenly there was no-one home and no assets worth a dime... Scroll down to the Insolvency section to see exactly what happened...
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!