Prenda Lawyer Claims Judge 'Abhors' Copyright Holders After Judge Becomes Curious About Who Alan Cooper Really Is

from the discovery dept

We've been covering the bizarre situation surrounding some of copyright troll Prenda Law's cases that involve two companies -- AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 -- where a mysterious person named "Alan Cooper" was listed as CEO. That, alone, isn't so mysterious. But what made it odd was that a guy who took care of one of John Steele's homes reached out to some of the courts hearing cases involving those two companies to note that his name is Alan Cooper, and he had reason to believe that Prenda had used his name illegally as the pretend CEO of these companies. A lawyer in California fighting some of these Prenda / Ingenuity 13 cases, Morgan Pietz, called this to the attention of the court. In response, Prenda's California lawyer, Brett Gibbs, threw a bit of a hissy fit in which he refused to answer some simple questions concerning who actually runs Ingenuity 13, and who "Alan Cooper" really is. Gibbs then sought sanctions against Pietz, which were quickly rejected (pdf) by Judge Otis Wright.

Pietz then asked the court to basically put the case on hold and to order Gibbs / Prenda to respond to his questions concerning AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13:
This motion is made on the ground that "good cause" exists to authorize the limited discovery requested, per Rule 26(d)(1), because, very recently, deeply troubling factual allegations have been made which suggest the plaintiff is engaged in a widespread and systemic fraud on the Courts affecting thousands of ISP subscribers. Specifically, very troubling questions have been raised as to whether Prenda Law, Inc., has misappropriated the identity of one Mr. Alan Cooper of Minnesota, holding him out in federal court filings as the principal of plaintiff Ingenuity 13, a shell entity organized in St. Kitts and Nevis, without Mr. Cooper's knowledge or consent. For weeks, undersigned counsel, and others, have sought answers from Prenda Law, Inc. and its clients AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC, to try and put these concerns to rest. None of the answers proffered to date have been at all reassuring; to the extent Prenda has engaged on the issue at all, the only answers provided have been evasive to a degree that is almost comical.
The filing goes on to point out that Prenda could have avoided all of this by simply producing the Alan Cooper in question and showing that it's not John Steele's housekeeper.
If Prenda Law would simply identify the "Alan Cooper" who it claims is the true principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC and AF Holdings, LLC, or even confirm that such a person actually exists (notwithstanding the allegations of Alan Cooper of Minnesota), this ex parte application would not be necessary. Essentially, whether or not there is another Alan Cooper is the million-dollar question. However, Prenda Law has explicitly stated that it will not address any of the troubling factual circumstances raised by Mr. Cooper, or answer any questions on this topic, unless it is compelled to do so.
Courts don't often grant this kind of thing... but this time it did. Right after Christmas the judge granted the order in full, meaning that Gibbs and Prenda are now required to answer the following questions:
  1. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC — yes or no?
  2. If the answer to the first interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business address, and telephone number.
  3. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in the past, the principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC — yes or no?
  4. If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.
  5. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the principal of AF Holdings, LLC — yes or no?
  6. If the answer to the fifth interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business address, and telephone number.
  7. Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in the past, the principal of AF Holdings, LLC — yes or no?
  8. If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.
  9. If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state each position this Alan Cooper held at Ingenuity 13, LLC and the dates such position was held.
  10. If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state each position this Alan Cooper held at AF Holdings, LLC and the dates such position was held.
  11. Eleventh Special Interrogatory: Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of Ingenuity 13, LLC?
  12. Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of AF Holdings, LLC?
  13. On November 26, 2012, when undersigned counsel emailed Brett Gibbs to ask for a routine extension request, Mr. Gibbs responded by email “I would have to check with our client about that request. Just an FYI, our client usually does not like to grant these types of requests on short notice unless there is a reasonable chance that settlement may occur in the case.” Later, Mr. Gibbs purported to have an answer on his query to the “client” regarding an extension. Who is the client contact at Ingenuity 13, LLC that Mr. Gibbs spoke with on this matter? Note, no details of the communication are being requested, just the name of the client contact.
  14. Reference is made to the following civil actions filed by AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC in the Northern District of California: 4:2012-cv-02049-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02393-CRB; 5:2012-cv-02394-LHK; 3:2012-cv-02396-EMC; 3:2012-cv-02404-SC; 4:2012-cv-02411-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02415-CRB; 4:2012-cv-03248-PJH; 3:2012-cv-04218-WHA; 5:2012-cv-04219-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04446-EJD; 5:2012-cv-04447-RMW; 5:2012-cv-04448-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04982-CRB; 3:2012-cv-04216-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04217-RS; 5:2012-cv-04445-LHK; 3:2012-cv-04449-SC; 3:2012-cv-04450-MMC; 3:2012-cv-04976-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04977-WHA; 4:2012-cv-04978-PJH; 5:2012-cv-04979-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04980-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04981-RS. With respect to the copyright assignments attached to the complaints in these actions, as Exhibit B thereto, which all appear to have a similar signature by "Alan Cooper," please state whether the person who signed these assignments was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is represented by attorney Paul Godfread — yes or no?
  15. If the answer to the fourteenth interrogatory is no, then state all contact information for the person that did sign these documents, including all known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.
The order also requires them to produce identification documents for the people identified in the questions above, along with proof of their employment at the companies in question. Oh yeah, and also to produce the "signature" of Alan Cooper on documentation which Gibbs had claimed (in earlier court documents) that he had seen on various other court documents.

Given that the judge has, in short order, denied Gibbs' request for sanctions while granting Pietz's request for such discovery, it would appear that the judge isn't buying Prenda's story and is at least curious as to whether or not Prenda can turn up an actual Alan Cooper who is not John Steele's housekeeper. It appears that Prenda has until January 10th to produce the information. Of course, instead of doing that, Prenda appears to be throwing the judicial equivalent of a shit fit.

On New Year's Eve, Gibbs filed one of the more extraordinary motions you'll see, arguing that Judge Wright, in merely asking Gibbs to answer who the CEO is of Ingenuity 13, is impossibly biased against copyright holders and should be removed from the case. I am not joking.
The story Plaintiff now sets forth is rather simple: Honorable Judge Otis D. Wright, II simply abhors plaintiffs who attempt to assert their rights with respect to online infringement of pornography copyrights. Honorable Judge Wright’s abhorrence of such assertions of right under the Copyright Act has risen to a level such that a neutral observer would have reasonable grounds to question Honorable Judge Wright’s impartiality. Indeed, in light of Honorable Judge Wright’s conduct, Plaintiff contends that it would be impossible to convince a neutral observer that Honorable Judge Wright regards this particular type of case impartially.
What follows is a rather ridiculous diatribe, in which Gibbs argues that somehow Judge Wright has it in for companies like the ones he represents, because they dare to enforce their copyrights. He points to an earlier ruling from Judge Wright in a Malibu Media case in which the judge is clearly aware of how copyright trolling works, and says it's somehow unfair for the judge to actually call these companies out on the fact that they're using the court system as part of a business model, rather than for a legitimate judicial purpose. More importantly, he never points out why this absolves him from having to identify just who is Alan Cooper, and whether or not Prenda lied to the court about Alan Cooper and the various companies he's associated with. Of course, nowhere does the evidence show that Judge Wright is biased against copyright holders -- merely concerned that those who are engaged in copyright trolling have a legitimate purpose for what they're doing. His actions, to date, have all revolved around requiring such companies to prove that they're not just in the legal shakedown business -- but rather than do that, Gibbs is throwing a temper tantrum. Crazy.






Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    rw (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 5:48am

    Sounds just like the old Righthaven.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 7:24am

    Insult the judge?

    I don't claim to be some great legal mind, but insulting the judge so directly in your case doesn't seem to be a good way to win it. Or is Gibbs intentionally trying to provoke the judge into saying something he can then use to then show that the judge isn't impartial? Even that seems destined to failed miserably.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Manabi (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 7:49am

      Re: Insult the judge?

      If the allegations about Alan Cooper are correct, insulting the judge to try to avoid answering those questions might actually be the only thing Gibbs can do. I suspect that if they are true (and given Gibbs' reaction, it's looking highly likely they are), he's in deep, deep trouble. As in contempt of court, going to jail trouble. Committing fraud on the courts is much, much worse than simply insulting a judge.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 7:59am

        Re: Re: Insult the judge?

        Committing fraud on the courts is much, much worse than simply insulting a judge.

        But that's the thing, insulting the judge only makes it worse. Continuing a fraud on the court after being called on it, while pissing off the one person that could be lenient to the mistake is sheer lunacy.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Manabi (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Insult the judge?

          Yes, but this is apparently a "Hail Mary" pass attempt. I believe Gibbs is thinking "If I can get this judge kicked off, maybe the next one will ignore this whole Alan Cooper thing." I believe this is the only change he's got, and it's a mighty slim one.

          I don't think it's a particularly smart one, but smart people don't get themselves into situations like this in the first place.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:00am

        Re: Re: Insult the judge?

        Pretty much, the fact that there has been no mention of who Alan Cooper is looks very bad. If he did exist, it would be fairly easy for the company he runs to simply state "he exists" and give some simple contact information and put the entire thing to rest.

        This run around makes it look very much like the entire company is a fraud and they're F'd.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Just some guy, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Re: Insult the judge?

        Maybe Gibbs could make up some elaborate story about how "housekeeper" is code for "CEO". I mean, whenever I clean my home I feel like a million bucks. ("There's a hundred dollar bill wrapped around this ticket, Mr. Bailystock...")

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 7:44am

    Stranger than fiction

    You can't make this stuff up.

    *Grabs popcorn*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 7:53am

    WOT = wall of text.

    But this legal dullity* is appropriate place to use a bit of text ran across last night -- attributed because I don't steal:
    --------------
    http://archive.org/details/UnknownWorld

    Reviewer: Vic Demise - 1.00 out of 5 stars - January 4, 2011 Subject: No....Just, no. More boring than watching C-SPAN on a slow day, as they discuss "HR162-B Amendment L" on House Sub-committee expenditures for the second fiscal quarter, and related allocations pertaining to National Park restroom paper toilet seat cover dispensers, and the requisite height at which they should be fixed to walls, including which gauge anchor bolts are to be used, based on average humidity in the off-season, not withstanding previous resolutions already passed concerning the diameter of washers in use since 1958 for said purpose... (More boring than that)
    ------------

    [* dullity is a nonce-word, but you know what it means]






    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    A "safe haven" for pirates. Vulgar weenies welcome.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:00am

      Re: WOT = wall of text.

      Again, more insanity. I have no idea, none, of what OOTB is trying to idea. At least with previous posts, he was somewhat responding to the article. This one? What does restroom toilet paper have to do with Prenda?

      FYI, dullity is not a word, at least not one in a reputable dictionary. I also don't know what you mean by "wall of text". A wall of text is a long, well, wall of text, with very few spaces or no paragraphs at all. Which this article clearly has.

      How is Techdirt a "safe haven" for copyright infringers? Do you honestly believe that someone who infringes can just go to this site and magically be safe from law enforcement?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:00am

        Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

        "trying to idea" should be "trying to say".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chris-Mouse (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

        What does restroom toilet paper have to do with Prenda?

        Well, Given how easy it would be to disprove these allegations, and the fact that Prenda has not done so, I suspect that shares in Prenda Law are going to become valuable only for their utility as toilet paper.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Alana (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 5:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

          Either that or he's suggesting the judge print out Prenda's accusations and use them as toilet paper.

          I'm 100% behind this motion.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Dreddsnik, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:21am

        Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

        I THINK he's trying to use the word 'duality' in a sentence, and not only spelling it wrong but misapplying the concept.

        That or he's just an ass.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:24am

        Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

        Why do you people still bother with ootb?

        He has no interest whatsoever in discussing the issues. He's just here to criticise everything. And then, when someone points out that he might be wrong, he labels them weenies, ankle-biters or whatever other weird name he comes up with, while at the same time accusing US of only resorting to ad homs.

        He's a lost cause. Ignore (or report, if you like) and move on.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:31am

          Re: Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

          I think a part of replying to some of these trolls is informing people who might otherwise fall for their comments and agree with them for their use of inflammatory words or emotional appeals.

          It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing.

          If we don't reply some who aren't as informed might believe them and further spread misinformation. If we do reply they get the "attention" they want and keep posting.

          I'd rather respond and point by point or sentence by sentence debunk their brand of stupidity than let it slide just for the people who MIGHT believe the nonsense they spew. bob and OotB are particularly horrid in what they post. Neither has ever heard of facts and if they have they refuse to acknowledge them, much less cite them.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Shadow Dragon (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

            What I like to do troll to give them a taste of their own medicine as well as report them just to annoy them.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

            I think a part of replying to some of these trolls is informing people who might otherwise fall for their comments and agree with them for their use of inflammatory words or emotional appeals.


            When I reply to the trolls, it's with this in mind. However, the vast majority of their comments don't need such a rebuttal. They're so obviously nutty or incoherent that they won't be taken seriously by very many people at all.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:42am

          Re: Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

          Yeah, I agree with this.

          Just report and move on. It's what I do. I never read his posts.

          He doesn't deserve to be responded to. At all. He's admitted before that his sole purpose for being here is to pollute the discussion and try to derail it.

          I know some don't like that posts can be so easily buried here, but I enjoy the discussions here and I hate, hate, the troll spam and that is exactly what ootb is.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:01am

      Re: WOT = wall of text.

      Thou shalt not post whilst drunk!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RD, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:27am

      Re: WOT = wall of text.

      "But this legal dullity* is appropriate place to use a bit of text ran across last night -- attributed because I don't steal:"

      You copied an entire quote from the site. According to your corporate masters (such as the AP) you are a defacto thief. Attribution does NOT absolve you of the crime of theft, according to Big Copyright. You are NOT allowed to just lift an entire piece of someone else's work and use it any way you see fit without either a) getting explicit permission first or b) paying the proper licensing fee. If you are denied, you just have to LIVE WITHOUT. If the cost is too high, you don't get to just use it anyway. You are a hypocritical thief and your masters will be cutting you off soon.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:39am

      Re: WOT = wall of text.

      "But this legal dullity* is appropriate place to use a bit of text ran across last night -- attributed because I don't steal:"

      This boy has to be paid per post by his media mogul masters.
      It's the only explanation for seeing him here where, as usual, he adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: WOT = wall of text.

        I always wondered what would happen if I replied to one of those 'work from home filling out simple forms online' e-mails would have been....

        Now I know, I could have been the next OOTB, if I had just been willing to pander their drivel...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 2:30pm

      Re: WOT = wall of text.

      Saying that this is dull (and thus implying Techdirt shouldn't cover it) is like going to Groklaw and saying a story about SCO is dull.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 4:57pm

      Re: WOT = wall of text.

      I'm on a Mexican radiohhhh-kay...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 11:37am

      Re: WOT = wall of text.

      Boring? Pots and kettles come to mind with this out-and-out troll. Mind you, he's probably so ignorant, he wouldn't know that old associated saying.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 7:58am

    Wait, is there actually such a thing as "pornography copyrights"? I thought I read a while back that copyright law didn't apply to porn, or that nobody knew whether or not it did.
    Just how far off the rails is Gibbs going here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dr Duck, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:44am

      Re: Porn copyright

      There's no special thing called a 'pornography copyright', but certainly anything legal with an identifiable author is entitled to copyright.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:17am

        Re: Re: Porn copyright

        Whether or not pornography is actually covered under copyright is actually up for debate. An individual being sued by one of these copyright trolls is attempting to test this theory in court: https://torrentfreak.com/can-porn-be-copyrighted-120817/ The basic argument is that pornography does not promote the sciences or useful arts.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:26am

          Re: Re: Re: Porn copyright

          > The basic argument is that pornography does not promote the sciences or useful arts.


          It may depend on how you define 'science'.

          Or 'art'. Or 'useful'. Or 'promote'.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 10:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Porn copyright

            Or "or"...

            No matter how many times I read the constitutional line on the purpose of copyright, I simply can't find a euphemism in there to exploit for this.


            So, that's what she said!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 10:08am

          Re: Re: Re: Porn copyright

          The basic argument is that pornography does not promote the sciences or useful arts.
          And "The Expendables 2", to name but one, does????

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 1:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: Porn copyright

          Isn't part of the argument that there are not enough creative elements to make it copyrightable?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 2:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Porn copyright

            Isn't part of the argument that there are not enough creative elements to make it copyrightable?
            Given the number of re-makes, re-hashes, "based-on"'s and sequels coming out of hollywood, I'm struggling to see the difference there between porn and mainstream cinema...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:06am

    >> but rather than do that, Gibbs is throwing a temper tantrum. Crazy.

    You might have hit the nail on the head Mike, Especially with that last word.

    Since that whole diatribe by Gibbs is basically to any reasonable observer who has had even the slightest contact of anything to do with courts anywhere ever of stating in no uncertain terms "with all due respect to the Honourable officer of the court.. Go and get Stuffed" and liable to make the court and it's honour be very swayed into creating major sanctions up to and including contempt charges (and even ethics violations that could remove licenses) maybe Gibbs in his infinite wisdom *coughs* is trying to play the mental incapax card..

    ie: I'm going to act as crazy as a loon and make everyone take pity on me and then go find that River in Egypt called De Nile

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:11am

      Re:

      Trying to provoke pity is an old trick in the Gibbs's arsenal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 11:21am

      Re:

      I think it is well played...

      When he gets convicted he can be placed in a loony bin instead of a prison.

      On the other hand, I think he has to be careful about what mental illness he tries to fake. Psychosis, depression, Tourettes and phobias seem like Hail Marys as defences. A bipolar disorder or schizophrenia diagnosis, is probably his best bets but those are very serious and incurable ones.
      You can always fake an autism spectrum disorder, but a case lawyer with that is a masochist.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    S. T. Stone, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:07am

    Man, I feel like I should have to pay for entertainment like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:28am

      Re:

      What do you think that the "you must be a pirate tax" on blank media is for? These lawyers (read: entertainers) must be paid somehow.



      PS: I don't think that the US has this, but for the purposes of silliness, I'll ignore that fact.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:29am

        Re: Re:

        I don't think that the US has this


        We do, unfortunately.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 1:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't think that the US has this
          We do, unfortunately.

          I don't think we have the "you must be a pirate" tax on all blank media in the US. I believe we have it on blank audio/video tapes, but not on optical media (yet.)

          OTOH I could be mistaken; I seem to remember someone saying that it only applies to CDs that are marketed for burning "music" and "video," so some brands can save a buck by marketing them as "data" CDs, even though they all do the exact same damn thing.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 3:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I seem to remember someone saying that it only applies to CDs that are marketed for burning "music" and "video," so some brands can save a buck by marketing them as "data" CDs, even though they all do the exact same damn thing.


            This is correct. The tax applies also to blank magnetic media as well as recorders and CD burners. It does not apply to DVDs (yet).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      Shhhh, Prenda's new business model.

      Sue for payment for entertainment rendered...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:07am

    Where are you going, Mark?

    And a splash of spicy butter for your popcorn...

    Despite not being a licensed attorney, Lutz IMO is (was?) one of the few core Prenda people (in addition to Paul and Peter Hansmeiers, John Steele, Paul Duffy, and Brett Gibbs). He was responsible for placing harassing calls, and made tens of thousands of such calls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:21am

    Why do people hate enforcing copyright?

    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    The hateful end, good artist meet envy

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 8:35am

    Judge Otis D. Wright, II simply abhors plaintiffs

    Its amazing the lengths the greedtards will go for copyright. Man, its one thing to come here and call us freetards, but now... now they accuse a judge of, in a round about way, of calling the judge a freetard piracy apologist. Now THERE is a REAL lord high piracy apologist.

    Wont end well for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:21am

    It's nice to see the judicial branch isn't just rolling over and taking it from the trolls like the legislative and executive branches are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:22am

    That sounds familiar

    Honorable Judge Otis D. Wright, II simply abhors plaintiffs who attempt to assert their rights with respect to online infringement of pornography copyrights.


    Hey, that rings a bell! It's one of the standard retorts various trolls use here, and is just as specious.

    To oppose the manner in which a thing is done is not the same as opposing the thing itself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:26am

    Prenda Law is just another point in a disturbing trend lately.

    http://stop-project-paperless.com/the-patents/

    Monopolists trying to squeeze the little guys.

    These ain't promoting progress, not at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:54am

    usually, the best form of defense is attack, perhaps in this case we will see a something different. i think if i were the lawyer, i would have done whatever i could to divert attention completely. accusing the judge under these circumstances could be the worst career move he ever makes!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    balaknair, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 12:12pm

    When in a deep hole, dig deeper, by insulting the judge, no less. Did this guy go to the same law school Charles Carreon attended?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 1:50pm

    Sounds more like the firm should have been named PRETENDA Law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 2:35pm

      Re:

      Everyone stealing my ideas...
      I should have patented calling them Pretenda.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 3:35pm

        Re: Re:

        I would testify for you. I searched the comments on my site: the first mention almost a year ago is... drumroll....


        that anonymous coward says:
        January 4, 2012 at 11:13 pm

        Prenda.... is that short for Pretend? Its a Pretend lawfirm!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 3rd, 2013 @ 5:43am

        Re: Re:

        I figured someone had said it before in one of the multitude of articles about them, just didn't see it here in this one.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 2:43pm

    Gibbs tells the Judge to goto the den of evil copyright haters, and then gets pissed off the Judge learns how they are scamming the system?
    I've left a few messages for Judges and Clerks on FCT (fightcopyrighttrolls.com) inviting them to ask questions and to read up on all of the problems in these cases.

    I mean it isn't like Pretenda isn't in good standing in IL, having avoided filing reports and just jumping ship to a new name... er wait.

    Its not like Pretenda retained criminal council to defend themselves in another court after their agents were put under oath... er wait.

    Its not like statements to the court were filed under penalty of perjury that were then retracted and replaced with new stories that were conflicting...er wait.

    There is no way any of their clients might be facing charges that could pierce the corporate veil because of wrong doing with sham copyright transfers and suing for content not actually owned by the plaintiff at the time of filings...er wait.

    There is no way that an expert in their cases has left not a single footprint to show they are a real company as they claim...er wait.

    They never ever considered colluding with a defense council in a sham case just to try and hide a mass doe case in sheeps clothing...er wait.

    They are so fucked, the light from fucked will take 10,000 years to reach them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 4:54pm

    NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!

    Isn't that what Alan Cooper is famous for saying? Oh wait...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Maxwell (profile), Jan 2nd, 2013 @ 9:22pm

    What's next now ?

    Prenda should double down and sue the judge for felony interference with buisness model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This