The cases you're talking about (the non-porn ones) happened many years ago. I mean Tennenbaum was 10 years ago, Thomas was about the same. However, the main difference is that instead of just straight suing, and then offering a settlement and suing, here they'll sue (john doe for ex parte discovery) then offer a settlement, but then NOT sue again. They go out of their way to not conclude the litigation.
The Patel case in Georgia shows that perfectly. They Doe-sued in DC (in the court of former RIAA lawyer Beryll Howell) to get the info, then sent a demand to Patel here in GA. When he didn't pay up (or reply), they filed a case in Georgia. Then when he didn't respond, they filed for a default judgement which they got. However, within a week of filing for and getting the default judgement, Patel hired a lawyer, who then filed asking for consideration to litigate with a reason for the non-response. Since it was timely and courts prefer litigation over a default, it looked like the court would re-open the case. So Prenda dismissed the case before the judge could set aside the default.
If there's one thing that get's a judge's attention, it's a case where the plaintiff's are so eager, they push for a default judgement, but when they had it and might lose it, they'll actually dismiss the case rather than risk losing. It means they knew they had absolutely no case, and judges (especially Senior (and former Chief) Judge O'Kelley don't like that at all. (He also doesn't like the internet, but that's another story, and probably related to the fact he was appointed to this court by Nixon in 1970)
but that's why it's extortion. There's no good-faith effort to litigate to right a wrong. it's litigation purely for the purpose of identification, and to collect money from those who are apt to pay up, or who ignore it and hope it'll go away (and so get defaults). Demanding money with threats is extortion, because threats are all they have - they have no facts.
The judge can write the text of the order any way he wants. As long as the legal points are in accord with case law, and all the correct legal references are there, it doesn't matter what manner he uses to deliver the OPINION of the court.
Also, if they were going to go for 'nutso judge', they would have to claim that in the appeal, they didn't (and in fact not a single mention was made of the references (which means I won the twitter pool). Finally, any 'nutso judge' claim would also have to look at the hearing transcripts, which do NOT have such references.
Finally, TV lies. Law and order is nothing like being in an actual court hearing (I've sat at the defense table for one of the other Prenda cases referenced in the hearing - Patel in Georgia). Just as CSI/NCIS is complete crap when it comes to forensics (although it seems the FBI is too) and tech in general (you don't want to know about an episode I was asked to consult on 10+years ago - it was so bad I turned it down because it would have killed my integrity and soul).
Judges have wide lattitude in the text of their orders. As long as they cover the points of law backing their orders (otherwise it'd be appealed successfully) there's no other requirement on content. Being a judge is kinda boring, so sometimes they let off some steam by trying to distinguish the order in some way. Most don't make news, but this being a set of cases watched internationally, did.
Other examples include a judge ordering a game of rock-scissors-paper on both counsels to decide where a deposition hearing would take place, it did its job of chastising the lawyers. And as someone who reads WAY too many legal briefs, the star trek order here was a refreshing break, as well as limited to the plain-language sections, leaving the legalese alone, for you, the purist.
I typo'd, I have posted a correction, and fixed it. I also clipped the video and included it on the piece so you can see for yourself exactly what he said. Not my intent to deceive anyone.
"Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO. The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage."
Great, just one problem
That's NOT what Net Neutrality is about. You do realise we have had net neutrality in function if not name for many years, ended about 7 years ago, right? That without it, the market *can't* sort it out, and local governments can't do anything about it.
If you don't understand the issue, then it's understandable why you don't seem to support it. You seem to think it's something very different than what it is. And they WANT the title2 provisions, for funding, just not on providing the services they've been paid for.
Nope, bang on wrong.
He's the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit - a unit of the CoL police, funded with a few million from the movie industry, to 'work on copyright issues nationally', and the CoL cops got it because theyre 'the lead cops for fraud nationwide'.
Just to clear up, its not quite like the US,where the forces are limited to geographical restrictions, certain squads and units are 'national' in usage.
Not really telling us anything we didn't already know though, is it? They've been saying this for months. (although I'll admit not in the NYT or PBS - it's something I follow since it was my research for TorrentFreak that started all this when we proved Comcast were screwing with Bittorrent traffic back in the summer of 07)
indeed it is http://ktetch.co.uk/2014/09/co... . I wrote that by approaching the matter the same way I did the claim of Comcast screwing with Bittorrent in 07. I found they were doing it in 07 (which led to TorrentFreak, who I work for, publishing about it, then the AP and EFF checking my results, and then the FCC starting the whole Net Neutrality thing). Not the case here, and there's no substantiation, and a lot of internal contradiction in the telling, as well as spouting absolute crap (the 6-strikes thing)
And yeah, who eneds privacy because it makes some 'investigator's job hard. I'm pretty sure we can knock crime on the head if we throw privacy out of the window and abolish pesky things like 'search warrants'.
In fact, let's do just what you say in meatspace - lets lock down cities, and then send squads of cops door-to-door in every town. We'll clean up the 'crime' that's there, and there won't have to do any petty investigating. orangina's all around!
The issue is not fake domain info. The issue is legally acceptable information in the UK (pseudonym not used for the purpose of deception - all your 'reasons' involve deception), and then some 'verification' which doesn't mean 'trying to contact (because hot damn! when they did that, it worked) but means matching entry on their database, with entry on another database they've paid for (and if you're not in their paid database, then it's government ID NOW or else.
Nominet had my home address for 2 years. no problems. any legal requirement to contact me beyond what was on the contact page (which had email and phone) could be dealt with via the standard legal way (such as a simple norwich pharmacal order) or via the authorities asking nicely.
it's just like the license plate, Can you show me where I can look up your name and home address online, for free, with just your license plate? You can't? Oh. Why's that? Because anyone with a significant reason to know would have reason to involve an authority that could find out, eh? Amazing.
TL;dr - you're lazy, and you want to make things for everyone else worse, because it makes your job a little easier. How nice of you to decide that being able to relax at your job is more important than my desire not to be SWATed, because I discussed my run-in with convicted hacker Jeremy Hammond and annoyed his supporters by shattering their illusions (I've actually done that, and yes his supporters have actively pizza-bombed people who spoke against him last year)
I was first told that stuff by their 'front line' staff (who turned out to have only worked for Nominet since March, all her pervious work was working in clothing stores, or as a hairdresser, except for a brief period as a software salesperson (her public linkedin profile is at the bottom of the 3rd link)
That quote is by their 'second level' support, who took over the issue at the direction of the acting customer service head, following my complaint.
It was reiterated by the acting head of customer services in emails this week.
If it had been one person, sure, I can see it. It was 3, a newbie, a long term senior support, and the executive in charge of support. That puts it very much in the 'deliberate' category. More goalpost moving than in a Dolly Sisters v Dimwell Shove.
read the last link,
Anyway, Nominet is demanding ID to 'validate' names, even though under UK law, pseudonyms not designed to deceive are legal for use, else they sieze the domains. They do this despite accepting the pseudnym and the legal right to use one in the UK, and the identity of the person in the case (me)
Basically, if you have a UK domain, and they can't 'verify' you in the big brother databases, you got to send them ID now.
The main problem is the constant 'goal shifting'. First it was because there was a widget link to Amazon for my book I disabled it
Then it was "I had google adverts". I disabled them.
Then I had 'lots of links to trading sites" and "email subscription module"
And then I filed a complaint for being absurd, and so the next morning they published my home address.
UK Gov calls a business anything that makes a profit. It also accepts that hobbies can bring in some money, but when it becomes profitable, then it's not a business and is a hobby.
Nominet calls a site commercial based on the "I'll know it when I see it" standard, with an extremist mindset.To quote the 'senior Nominet Customer advisor' who was chosen to deal with this case,
I would like to agree with a point you raised 'pretty much ANY website is a 'trading website''. This is the case and it's rare that a.uk domain name is able to opt-out of having their address details displayed.
It's the same as indecency. What's acceptable to one, may be offensive to another. Should we go to the extremist view, 'skin showing is indecent' to appease the extremists, or should things reflect societal norms? Like 'all skin is indecent', anything involving anything commercial, even at one remove, makes this site commercial' is an extremist view.
Does linking to your twitter profile, or a facebook page make you 'commercial'? Just read a good book, and wanted to share that on your site, with a link to where you can buy it means you're a business? Nominet says so. is that normal in the current state of society?
So very very true sir.
Those who call for an end to privacy, usually have something to gain from it.
A functioning society requires elements of privacy, or it will become dysfunctional.
Except that any personal site HAS to have their 'correct info' there, and any hint of 'commercialism' (such as linking to 'trading sites') and that private info - your home address - is now going to be published.
I bet no-one can see absolutely ANYTHING wrong with that at all.... like pizza-bombing or SWATing (SO19-ing?) someone. Because that never EVER happens.
What makes me think that? well, I'd guess the attitueds to other crimes in the county, like sexual assaults. Merely threatening with a gun isn't much of a crime by comparison, especially if it's by a white guy (potential posse member!) on a non-white guy (show your papers!), well, unless you're someone investigating or running against Joe. Then you can be a white guy and threatened and no-one will do anything either.
Ever been to mexico? Don't suppose you've read their Constitution either. You know, where they have their version of the 2nd amendment (it's their 10th, iirc). They have the right to keep arms. andALSO the right to bear them in pubic under police regulation.
Likewise in Guatamala and Columbia. In fact, most countries with a right to bear arms have a high homicide rate.
By Rioters, do you mean the riots that started when the police shot someone? Oh and shot another officer and claimed the guy did it. The public that's increasingly fed up of the unaccoutnable police becoming ever more violent? A police that is becoming more violent because changes in the way crimes are reported and classified means what was a nuisence and a caution offence, is now also a 'violent offense', so that the ACPO can lobby for more powers?
By the way, baseball's not that common in the UK. What you'd call a 'run' wouldn't even show as a sales blip in the US.
By the way, saying 'a group of doctors said' isn't really saying much. a mch BIGGER group of doctors fervently believe that we're all aliens murdered by Xenu 75 Million years ago. Should we laugh at the US? Or Sarah Palin. Need I say more?
And I'll bet your're white. Because you wouldn't act like that if you weren't.
Slashdot Mirror
correct on all but the size, its just under 1800sq ft, here is a link to zazzle for their specific condo in the puece.
It was indeed a great summery. I've clipped that section of video out, and will be playing it at all my future talks on this topic.
The cases you're talking about (the non-porn ones) happened many years ago. I mean Tennenbaum was 10 years ago, Thomas was about the same. However, the main difference is that instead of just straight suing, and then offering a settlement and suing, here they'll sue (john doe for ex parte discovery) then offer a settlement, but then NOT sue again. They go out of their way to not conclude the litigation.
The Patel case in Georgia shows that perfectly. They Doe-sued in DC (in the court of former RIAA lawyer Beryll Howell) to get the info, then sent a demand to Patel here in GA. When he didn't pay up (or reply), they filed a case in Georgia. Then when he didn't respond, they filed for a default judgement which they got. However, within a week of filing for and getting the default judgement, Patel hired a lawyer, who then filed asking for consideration to litigate with a reason for the non-response. Since it was timely and courts prefer litigation over a default, it looked like the court would re-open the case. So Prenda dismissed the case before the judge could set aside the default.
If there's one thing that get's a judge's attention, it's a case where the plaintiff's are so eager, they push for a default judgement, but when they had it and might lose it, they'll actually dismiss the case rather than risk losing. It means they knew they had absolutely no case, and judges (especially Senior (and former Chief) Judge O'Kelley don't like that at all. (He also doesn't like the internet, but that's another story, and probably related to the fact he was appointed to this court by Nixon in 1970)
but that's why it's extortion. There's no good-faith effort to litigate to right a wrong. it's litigation purely for the purpose of identification, and to collect money from those who are apt to pay up, or who ignore it and hope it'll go away (and so get defaults). Demanding money with threats is extortion, because threats are all they have - they have no facts.
The judge can write the text of the order any way he wants. As long as the legal points are in accord with case law, and all the correct legal references are there, it doesn't matter what manner he uses to deliver the OPINION of the court.
Also, if they were going to go for 'nutso judge', they would have to claim that in the appeal, they didn't (and in fact not a single mention was made of the references (which means I won the twitter pool). Finally, any 'nutso judge' claim would also have to look at the hearing transcripts, which do NOT have such references.
Finally, TV lies. Law and order is nothing like being in an actual court hearing (I've sat at the defense table for one of the other Prenda cases referenced in the hearing - Patel in Georgia). Just as CSI/NCIS is complete crap when it comes to forensics (although it seems the FBI is too) and tech in general (you don't want to know about an episode I was asked to consult on 10+years ago - it was so bad I turned it down because it would have killed my integrity and soul).
Judges have wide lattitude in the text of their orders. As long as they cover the points of law backing their orders (otherwise it'd be appealed successfully) there's no other requirement on content. Being a judge is kinda boring, so sometimes they let off some steam by trying to distinguish the order in some way. Most don't make news, but this being a set of cases watched internationally, did.
Other examples include a judge ordering a game of rock-scissors-paper on both counsels to decide where a deposition hearing would take place, it did its job of chastising the lawyers. And as someone who reads WAY too many legal briefs, the star trek order here was a refreshing break, as well as limited to the plain-language sections, leaving the legalese alone, for you, the purist.
I typo'd, I have posted a correction, and fixed it. I also clipped the video and included it on the piece so you can see for yourself exactly what he said. Not my intent to deceive anyone.
nope, My bad on a typo (I'm gonna blame a mixture of allergy and Bronchitis medication) but it should have been Ingenious.
Here's one three-line example:
That's 5 references in 2 sentences.
Great, just one problem That's NOT what Net Neutrality is about. You do realise we have had net neutrality in function if not name for many years, ended about 7 years ago, right? That without it, the market *can't* sort it out, and local governments can't do anything about it. If you don't understand the issue, then it's understandable why you don't seem to support it. You seem to think it's something very different than what it is. And they WANT the title2 provisions, for funding, just not on providing the services they've been paid for.
Nope, bang on wrong. He's the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit - a unit of the CoL police, funded with a few million from the movie industry, to 'work on copyright issues nationally', and the CoL cops got it because theyre 'the lead cops for fraud nationwide'. Just to clear up, its not quite like the US,where the forces are limited to geographical restrictions, certain squads and units are 'national' in usage.
Not really telling us anything we didn't already know though, is it? They've been saying this for months. (although I'll admit not in the NYT or PBS - it's something I follow since it was my research for TorrentFreak that started all this when we proved Comcast were screwing with Bittorrent traffic back in the summer of 07)
indeed it is http://ktetch.co.uk/2014/09/co... . I wrote that by approaching the matter the same way I did the claim of Comcast screwing with Bittorrent in 07. I found they were doing it in 07 (which led to TorrentFreak, who I work for, publishing about it, then the AP and EFF checking my results, and then the FCC starting the whole Net Neutrality thing). Not the case here, and there's no substantiation, and a lot of internal contradiction in the telling, as well as spouting absolute crap (the 6-strikes thing)
whaa work is so hard
And yeah, who eneds privacy because it makes some 'investigator's job hard. I'm pretty sure we can knock crime on the head if we throw privacy out of the window and abolish pesky things like 'search warrants'.
In fact, let's do just what you say in meatspace - lets lock down cities, and then send squads of cops door-to-door in every town. We'll clean up the 'crime' that's there, and there won't have to do any petty investigating. orangina's all around!
The issue is not fake domain info. The issue is legally acceptable information in the UK (pseudonym not used for the purpose of deception - all your 'reasons' involve deception), and then some 'verification' which doesn't mean 'trying to contact (because hot damn! when they did that, it worked) but means matching entry on their database, with entry on another database they've paid for (and if you're not in their paid database, then it's government ID NOW or else.
Nominet had my home address for 2 years. no problems. any legal requirement to contact me beyond what was on the contact page (which had email and phone) could be dealt with via the standard legal way (such as a simple norwich pharmacal order) or via the authorities asking nicely.
it's just like the license plate, Can you show me where I can look up your name and home address online, for free, with just your license plate? You can't? Oh. Why's that? Because anyone with a significant reason to know would have reason to involve an authority that could find out, eh? Amazing.
TL;dr - you're lazy, and you want to make things for everyone else worse, because it makes your job a little easier. How nice of you to decide that being able to relax at your job is more important than my desire not to be SWATed, because I discussed my run-in with convicted hacker Jeremy Hammond and annoyed his supporters by shattering their illusions (I've actually done that, and yes his supporters have actively pizza-bombed people who spoke against him last year)
I was first told that stuff by their 'front line' staff (who turned out to have only worked for Nominet since March, all her pervious work was working in clothing stores, or as a hairdresser, except for a brief period as a software salesperson (her public linkedin profile is at the bottom of the 3rd link)
That quote is by their 'second level' support, who took over the issue at the direction of the acting customer service head, following my complaint.
It was reiterated by the acting head of customer services in emails this week.
If it had been one person, sure, I can see it. It was 3, a newbie, a long term senior support, and the executive in charge of support.
That puts it very much in the 'deliberate' category. More goalpost moving than in a Dolly Sisters v Dimwell Shove.
read the last link, Anyway, Nominet is demanding ID to 'validate' names, even though under UK law, pseudonyms not designed to deceive are legal for use, else they sieze the domains. They do this despite accepting the pseudnym and the legal right to use one in the UK, and the identity of the person in the case (me)
Basically, if you have a UK domain, and they can't 'verify' you in the big brother databases, you got to send them ID now.
I did say usually
I disabled it Then it was "I had google adverts". I disabled them. Then I had 'lots of links to trading sites" and "email subscription module" And then I filed a complaint for being absurd, and so the next morning they published my home address. UK Gov calls a business anything that makes a profit. It also accepts that hobbies can bring in some money, but when it becomes profitable, then it's not a business and is a hobby. Nominet calls a site commercial based on the "I'll know it when I see it" standard, with an extremist mindset.To quote the 'senior Nominet Customer advisor' who was chosen to deal with this case,
It's the same as indecency. What's acceptable to one, may be offensive to another. Should we go to the extremist view, 'skin showing is indecent' to appease the extremists, or should things reflect societal norms? Like 'all skin is indecent', anything involving anything commercial, even at one remove, makes this site commercial' is an extremist view. Does linking to your twitter profile, or a facebook page make you 'commercial'? Just read a good book, and wanted to share that on your site, with a link to where you can buy it means you're a business? Nominet says so. is that normal in the current state of society?
So very very true sir. Those who call for an end to privacy, usually have something to gain from it. A functioning society requires elements of privacy, or it will become dysfunctional.
Except that any personal site HAS to have their 'correct info' there, and any hint of 'commercialism' (such as linking to 'trading sites') and that private info - your home address - is now going to be published. I bet no-one can see absolutely ANYTHING wrong with that at all.... like pizza-bombing or SWATing (SO19-ing?) someone. Because that never EVER happens.
"MPAA evidence" because it's all made up and fact/reality light
It's nothing new. I wrote about this a year ago, when the same issues came up http://falkvinge.net/2012/06/29/your-email-privacy-is-under-increasing-threat/
They've been saying it for years. Here's a video of them saying it from 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMuGnFdQ0s
What makes me think that? well, I'd guess the attitueds to other crimes in the county, like sexual assaults. Merely threatening with a gun isn't much of a crime by comparison, especially if it's by a white guy (potential posse member!) on a non-white guy (show your papers!), well, unless you're someone investigating or running against Joe. Then you can be a white guy and threatened and no-one will do anything either.
Ever been to mexico? Don't suppose you've read their Constitution either. You know, where they have their version of the 2nd amendment (it's their 10th, iirc). They have the right to keep arms. andALSO the right to bear them in pubic under police regulation. Likewise in Guatamala and Columbia. In fact, most countries with a right to bear arms have a high homicide rate.
By Rioters, do you mean the riots that started when the police shot someone? Oh and shot another officer and claimed the guy did it.
The public that's increasingly fed up of the unaccoutnable police becoming ever more violent? A police that is becoming more violent because changes in the way crimes are reported and classified means what was a nuisence and a caution offence, is now also a 'violent offense', so that the ACPO can lobby for more powers?
By the way, baseball's not that common in the UK. What you'd call a 'run' wouldn't even show as a sales blip in the US.
By the way, saying 'a group of doctors said' isn't really saying much. a mch BIGGER group of doctors fervently believe that we're all aliens murdered by Xenu 75 Million years ago. Should we laugh at the US? Or Sarah Palin. Need I say more?
And I'll bet your're white. Because you wouldn't act like that if you weren't.