Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Pulls Plug On Porn Copyright Shakedown
netbuzz writes: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is calling it a 'crushing blow for copyright trolls.' A federal appeals court today has for the first time ruled against what critics call a shakedown scheme aimed at pornography downloaders and practiced by the likes of AF Holdings, an arm of notorious copyright troll Prenda Law. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit called the lawsuit 'a quintessential example of Prenda Law's modus operandi' in reversing a lower court ruling that would have forced a half-dozen ISPs to identify account holders associated with 1,058 IP addresses."
The problem becomes: Pay how much? A set standard rate regardless of what the loser actually paid their attorney? If I bring a lawsuit against a large corporation with an internal team of lawyers, how do I know much it really cost them to litigate? And even if I 'win' against a guy with no money, so what? And when is someone considered a 'loser', since there are so many levels of appeal?
I think the bigger problem with our legal system is that it even requires a lawyer to handle the most basic of procedures. That shows that the legal system has just become too complex to be useful. But since the legal system is ruled by lawyers (on all sides of the equation), there is little incentive for them to make the system more simplified and easy to access for the average person.
Why not make the losing plaintiffs the lesser of the 2 legal bills? Big corp sues small guy. Small guy wins. Big corp pays his costs.
Small guy sues big corp. Small guy loses. Small guy pays the equivalent of his legal bills to the big corp.
That way, overspending isn't covered.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The current system sucks, but "loser pays" is even worse because it assumes that the person who is "wrong" is the person who always loses, and that simply is not the case.