Re: Re: Re: Tinfoil hat time - who talked to the Feds?
Personally I wouldn’t blame too hard neither JSTOR nor MIT for their initial overreaction of calling the authorities. I’ll try to explain why.
Still blame because they could investigate and settle the matters themselves. In my child’s college (as in many others) the underage drinking and soft drugs are ongoing problems. Nonetheless, the college would fight tooth and nail not to hand out offenders to the police. They even don’t allow city police to patrol the campus.
But you know what happens if you hand out a student who possesses some amount of marijuana to the law enforcement: possible jail time and ruined life. In the case with Aaron the university probably did not expect the Kafkaesque consequences.
In this case it was more like calling the police in a domestic fight: in most cases policemen arrive and do what they are supposed to do: to calm down and scare the debaucher, maybe issue a $100 fine. None of the parties usually even think about pressing criminal charges.
What happened after it became clear that things turned ugly — how MIT and JSTOR behaved — is much-much more important than the fact of the initial contact with the law. JSTOR had the guts to try to call it off, while MIT authorities cowardly closed their eyes (and even kissed government’s ass by voluntarily submitting evidence). And yes, both could and should have done more.
...though, reports of the Justice Department's website being taken down were wrong...
I have a theory about the roots of the confusion. DOJ sites were not accessible yesterday to me — when I used VPN. I tried a couple of serves: same result. Meanwhile, I had no problem loading the said sites while being connected directly via my ISP.
So my theory is: some attacks did take place, but as a part of DDoS protection, some IP addresses were blocked, and the fact that VPN servers are blacklisted shouldn't surprise anyone.
Here is a piece that contradicts your speculations (note that I'm not trying to take sides or be an ass, but simply pointing to a contradicting piece I stumbled upon in 20 minutes after reading this comment):
Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney, told The Associated Press on Sunday that the case "was horribly overblown" because JSTOR itself believed that Swartz had "the right" to download from the site. Swartz was not formally affiliated with MIT, but was a fellow at nearby Harvard University. MIT maintains an open campus and open computer network, Peters said. He said that made Swartz's accessing the network legal.
JSTOR's attorney, Mary Jo White — formerly the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan — had called the lead Boston prosecutor in the case and asked him to drop it, said Peters, also a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan who is now based in California.
Mike, the name of the movie is a doubly ironic: I don't know if you know, but John Steele's moniker among porn producers is "Buffy." It was a response to John appearing on adult industry conventions with a pin "Pirate Slayer."
It definitely matters far beyond schadenfreude, but I don't disagree that the is no "something more specific to how that's actually related." In other words, we don't have enough evidence to fit this fact nicely into the puzzle.
Mark Lutz is not a dispensable paralegal to brush off whatever happens to him. He was an integral part of Steele's/Hansmeiers's moneymaking conspiracy, and, undeniably, he was (is) trusted — maybe even more than Brett Gibbs (who sometimes learns about some critical facts after me and/or opposing party attorneys).
What will make this curious case of an individual relevant is a potential summon and refusal to appear. I already mentioned the fingerpointing at Luts in connection with "Coopergate," so it is not implausible that he will be summoned. I assume that he is still a US citizen. What I don't know is if his "permanent travel" will be accepted as an excuse not to attend a civil hearing (if a criminal investigation is/will be commenced again Prenda, it will be a different story).
To summarize: I understand the reasons of being cautious while speculating without proper evidence on hand. Lutz's departure is not a mind-bogging fact either per se. No rush, time will tell if we witness something more interesting.
It very well may be that this point is already in the past. I don't have any inside knowledge to speculate, neither can I appeal to the source (both Weber and Leone blocked me on Twitter immediately after I advised them that lying under oath was not a good idea), but the fact is: Sunlust killed all its 34 lawsuits in December.
It is a fact that he planned his move prior to that comedy hearing and maybe his relocation has nothing to do with Prenda's house of cards falling apart, but it is still a curious fact: Gibbs, when pressured about AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 in the course of Coopergate, pointed his finger to Lutz as the only person that is knowledgeable about these mysterious (and maybe even outright fake) companies.
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.
Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download.
Than why not to indicate that ripping the cellophane wrapping is also prohibited: indeed some may rip the wrapper with the intent to take off the disk and lend it (without case) to a guy who will copy it, or, worse, who would sharpen the disk and slid someone's throat?
Mike, "...Ziyi has refused to put up a bond, as required under California law" is a bit misleading and may be interpreted as every plaintiff always posts a bond in California. In fact, this happens rarely.
There is a California (some other states have it too) rule that allows a defendant to ask to post an undertaking in certain circumstances (likelihood of defendant's win and the foreign status of the Plaintiff — "foreign" meaning out of California), but it is up to the judge to decide (and set the amount).
This rule was successfully invoked by Nick Ranallo v. Prenda in one case and trying to do the same in another. There is an ongoing battle: not surprisingly the trolls don't want to part with money: although the judge has ordered to post $48K, it is unlikely that the crooks will comply.