Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Lawyer Who Founded Prenda Law Just Got Disbarred (engadget.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the see-you-later-litigator dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader lactose99 writes: One of the original copyright trolls finally got their comeuppance. From TFA: "John L. Steele, a Chicago lawyer who pled guilty to perjury, fraud and money laundering resulting from alleged 'honeypot' schemes, has just been disbarred by an Illinois court." John L. Steele, as you may know, is one of the principals of Prenda Law, a notorious copyright troll who has been featured on /. several times. The article goes on to describe how the Prenda lawyers used honeypot-like tactics to trick people into downloads and then subsequently scammed them for copyright violations.
Their operation brought in $6 million in settlement fees, reports Engadget, adding "While it is illegal to download copyrighted files from file-sharing sites, it is also against the law to extort downloaders."

62 comments

  1. Oh man by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Not disbarred! Now this poor soul will have to practice law in another state. How about some fines greater than his scammed income?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make him disbarred from all the nations part of the U.N.

    2. Re:Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about some fines greater than his scammed income?

      Hell no! He had no problem ruining lifes, how about something like 500'000$ *per violation*, like he did for a single song-download??

    3. Re: Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right? Can't we frame extortion as a type of violence? It is offensive, and it is theft. Using the law like a weapon should get you illegal weapons charges too.

    4. Re:Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to see these scumbags getting reamed, but, the bigger problem still remains.

      Prenda's extortion, "pay me [some amount of money] or I'll sue you and it will cost you more to defend yourself", only worked because it's impossible for a person to defend themself at a reasonable cost.

    5. Re:Oh man by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not disbarred! Now this poor soul will have to practice law in another state. How about some fines greater than his scammed income?

      The first question any bar association asks is "have you been subject to discipline by any other bar?" He's not going to practice law ever again.

    6. Re:Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he practiced wasn't law. So it's not "ever again." It's "ever."

    7. Re:Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure he is. This is a dupe of course, as it was covered several days ago after the Ars Technica article. But it was pretty clear that he accepted "voluntary" disbarment rather than go through the full on hearings and all. And it was a four year thing - after which he simply has to show that he has "reformed" and has his life in order and he is back in.

    8. Re:Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Think again. Canter & Siegel, the first professional spammers, were disbarred from *5* states before they stopped practicing law. They didn't stop until Martha died.

    9. Re: Oh man by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      While state bars are independent of each other, disbarment in one state means the end to a legal career in all states.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, this is the same kind of deal President Clinton got when he was disbarred.

  2. Yanks go home1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    "disbarred"!!!??? So he was barred but is now unbarred. Do wish Yanks would learn the fucking language proper liek!

    1. Re:Yanks go home1! by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he has undergone a barrectomy.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    2. Re: Yanks go home1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he was a barrister (in the United States, he would be a "member of the Bar.")

      So, in being disbarred, he now no longer is.

      The language used is correct, and any barrister / lawyer knows what a disbarment is.

      That I must explain this is a testimony to the ignorance of persons like yourself.

    3. Re: Yanks go home1! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      That I must explain this is a testimony to the ignorance of persons like yourself.

      Everyone is ignorant of a lot of terms outside their own domain.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  3. Just by thegreatbob · · Score: 0

    This happened almost a week ago, but this is Slashdot so, grudgingly, I'll accept our new usage of the word 'just' in this context. Arstechnica has a good article:
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't the headline be "the ex-Lawyer who founded Prenda Law..."?

  4. Is /. really this slow with news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawyer who founded Prenda Law is disbarred | Ars Technica
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
    5/22/2017, 9:21 AM

    1. Re: Is /. really this slow with news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a news site it is a discussion forum. Seriously, slashdot has broke like 5 stories since the 90's. It's obvious it isn't the sites focus. If it was, slashdot would have reporters, and the firehose would not exist.

    2. Re: Is /. really this slow with news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really expecting breaking new from here but it is a (mostly) useful source for tech new without a lot of the noise of other sites.

  5. What took so long? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "John L. Steele, a Chicago lawyer who pled guilty to perjury, fraud and money laundering resulting from alleged 'honeypot' schemes, has just been disbarred by an Illinois court."

    Great, but what took so long?

    I'd have been happier if he served some serious prison time, but this is better than nothing.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:What took so long? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is separate from his convictions. He's still going to prison, he just hasn't been sentenced yet. Think of it as the icing on the cake.

    2. Re:What took so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "John L. Steele, a Chicago lawyer who pled guilty to perjury, fraud and money laundering resulting from alleged 'honeypot' schemes, has just been disbarred by an Illinois court."

      Great, but what took so long?

      I'd have been happier if he served some serious prison time, but this is better than nothing.

      The name of the company can be translated to "takes", feminine. So roughly translated to "bitch that takes". So I agree. That fucker needs to be fucked some more and not in a fun way. To set an example may be?

    3. Re:What took so long? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      It took so long because you can't sue lawyers for malpractice. The rate at which lawyers are disbarred is about 0.08% per year. Compared to about 0.3% of doctors losing their license for malpractice. So either lawyers are 4x more honest than doctors, or self-policing by the American Bar Association is inadequate.

      Since lawyers insist being able to sue doctors for malpractice is vital for keeping the medical profession honest, why not let us sue lawyers for malpractice? After all, what's good for the goose...

    4. Re: What took so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct about the meaning of "takes" without an associated feminine meaning, but it is more than just "takes". It can also mean "grab", "take ahold of", or, depending on how it's used, it can also mean jewelery, such as a bracelet or necklace.

    5. Re:What took so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can absolutely 100% in all US states sue a Lawyer for Malpractice.

    6. Re:What took so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a courtroom where the case is argued by lawyers, and presided over by a current/former lawyer, with an appeals process decided by lawyers. This is a similar issue to what is going on in Law enforcement, in theory officers should arrest other officers caught committing illegal acts (assault, theft, perjury, etc) but in realty a "you watch my back I'll watch yours" mindset settles in over time and no one will be held accountable. As with anything you need an independent party to keep things honest.

    7. Re:What took so long? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It took so long because you can't sue lawyers for malpractice. The rate at which lawyers are disbarred is about 0.08% per year. Compared to about 0.3% of doctors losing their license for malpractice. So either lawyers are 4x more honest than doctors, or self-policing by the American Bar Association is inadequate.

      The corollary to that is that lawyers are 4 times less likely to be punished for improper, illegal or negligent practice.

      Since lawyers insist being able to sue doctors for malpractice is vital for keeping the medical profession honest, why not let us sue lawyers for malpractice? After all, what's good for the goose...

      If we're using the old goose/gander cliche, shouldn't we perform medical experimentation on the lawyers that get disbarred?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:What took so long? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      He's still going to prison, he just hasn't been sentenced yet.

      I nominate this for the "Feel Good" story of the week.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  6. Jack Thompson? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Maybe he can get with Jack Thompson and start a law firm in Florida...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re: Jack Thompson? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Well Thompson is disbarred in Florida so that is not likely.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. They just got greedy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    when they were just buying up porno and suing people for what they owned they did just fine. It worked until they started doing things that were actively illegal. I wonder if anyone else is out there running the original scam and just keeping a lower profile doing it legally.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
    The article ends with this line:

    Their operation brought in $6 million in settlement fees, reports Engadget, adding "While it is illegal to download copyrighted files from file-sharing sites, it is also against the law to extort downloaders."

    A threat to initiate legal action is not extortion. Otherwise, how would anyone bring any case to court?

    This lawyer had pled guilty to "perjury, fraud and money laundering" - not extortion. He was disbarred for perjury, fraud, and money laundering, not extortion. Sheesh people, use some common sense, or at least read the summary and note any contradictions.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threatening legal action is not extortion. Threatening legal action but offering to forgo it for an onerous amount of money might be extortion, depending upon the details.

    2. Re: Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also not illegal to download copyrighted material. It's only illegal if the rights holder disallows it.

    3. Re: Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you strategically and knowingly misrepresent the facts when entering your lawsuit THEN it becomes perjury.

    4. Re:Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Basing the lawsuit on fraud and/or entrapment, with excessive damages, against defendants who lack resources to defend themselves in court, can be considered ethically extortionate even if the act itself cannot be successfully prosecuted as the crime of extortion.

    5. Re: Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even at that, it's murky as to whether downloading is ever illegal. No one gets sued for downloading. It's uploading (or more technically "making available," which most filesharing software does by default) that gets people in trouble.

    6. Re:Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by Drishmung · · Score: 1
      It sounds like it meets the definition of "barratry" which is a crime in most states, but is difficult to prove. I'm guessing perjury and fraud were easier to prove (money laundering is just a catchall to inflate penalties if you have some other offence to start with).

      IANAL, in case that isn't blindingly obvious.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    7. Re:Threats of lawsuits are not extortion by phorm · · Score: 1

      IIRC, in many cases these trolls would misrepresent the information they had in order to get subscriber details for their "demand" letters. That's where the "perjury" part came in.

  9. Illegal to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it is illegal to download copyrighted files from file-sharing sites

    The downloading is illegal? Since when? I thought it was the uploading that was illegal. Perhaps thats implied when using bittorrent, but let's be accurate at least.

    1. Re: Illegal to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No both were always illegal.
      Just downloading and having some pirated material is illegal, but those are individual counts. But uploading is twice as illegal because sharing means your legit copy is illegal now that you violated the license.

    2. Re: Illegal to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if it is a copyright holder doing the uploading?

    3. Re: Illegal to download? by elvesrus · · Score: 1

      In this case it wasn't a matter of violating the license. It was their own to do with as they pleased. The problem was making content freely available and then suing people who accepted what they offered.

    4. Re: Illegal to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloading is illegal... but Federal courts don't like their time wasted over downloading a $20 movie that will be in a Walmart bargain bin,, and have issued "court rules" for lawyers not to submit those cases, or piss off the judges.

      These guys made a habit of misrepresenting the nature of the cases they filed with the game of "lawsuit notices" they were playing... Federal judges really don't like that.

    5. Re: Illegal to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get disbarred and eventually goto jail. Didn't you read the article?

  10. He should apply for an FBI job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >The article goes on to describe how the Prenda lawyers used honeypot-like tactics to trick people into downloads and then subsequently scammed them for copyright violations.

  11. 'Bout time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject.

    Captcha: dismiss

  12. If only more layers were subject to penalties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So *few* get reprimanded. At least this one scum bucket did.

  13. While it is illegal to download copyrighted files" by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    While it is illegal to download copyrighted files

    Often illegal but certainly not always illegal, this of course depends entirely on whether the copyright holder has given permission and/or what license the files are under.

    it is also against the law to extort downloaders

    Well of course it is, extortion is by definition illegal, but there's a thin line between extortion and lawful prevention of copyright infringement.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  14. Swift justice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, the Illinois fire department curbed accusations of inactivity by starting to consider extinguishing the fire that has been raging downtown for 10 years. "The quality of our fire brigade is important to us and you wouldn't just want to have us dump Chicago River water on a flagration without careful and measured consideration."

    I mean, WTF?!?

  15. HEEP! by chthon · · Score: 1

    If you don't understand it, then you have a lot of reading to do.

  16. Skin him alive on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a message to the other trolls.

  17. Re:While it is illegal to download copyrighted fil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For example, if the copyright owner, say, puts the material onto torrent sites for people to freely download, then downloading it is perfectly legal. They usually get around this (inexplicably; it should be dealt with as what it exactly is) usually by handing free copies over to a subsidiary department or hired "third party" whose sole purpose is to distribute these online for free and see who bites.

  18. Re:While it is illegal to download copyrighted fil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Often illegal

    Downloading is virtually never illegal, as it is itself fair use, and a precondition to exercising other ways of fair use rights.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use