Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case

from the that's-not-going-to-go-over-well dept

While not everyone agrees with the EFF’s position on various issues, the group is still pretty widely respected in legal circles. So it seems a bit odd that a copyright troll has apparently decided to spend an entire filing trying to block the EFF from filing an amicus brief (“friend of the court” brief) in one of its cases, attacking the EFF directly as some sort of “radical” and “quasi-anarchist” group. The lawsuit involves Prenda Law, who took over the cases formerly brought by divorce lawyer-turned-copyright troll John Steele. I hadn’t been following it closely, but sometime last year, Steele apparently handed his practice off to Prenda — though there have been some questions over whether or not Steele is still involved and to the legality of the transfers.

Either way, Prenda clearly does not like the EFF and basically spends the entire filing insulting the organization based on next to nothing. A few examples:

  • The EFF is opposed to any effective enforcement and litigation of intellectual property law, which seeks a platform by which to advance its agenda.
  • The EFF is an anti-intellectual property group, which appears in the present action merely in order to obstruct or delay Plaintiff’s copyright infringement litigation.
  • The EFF’s crusade continues, despite their lack of success, not out of any concern for proper application of the law.
  • The EFF Is a Radical Special-Interest Group Generally Opposed to Any Effective Or Efficient Enforcement of Intellectual Property Law
  • This mission is radical, quasi-anarchist, and intrinsically opposed to any effective enforcement of intellectual property rights.
  • their history of advocating lawlessness on the Internet suggests that their purpose is not to help this Court administer justice, but to hinder and obstruct the process

It also focuses on the fact that the EFF failed in one of its attempts to question whether or not joining together so many defendants was proper — in a case presided over by a judge who had only recently joined the bench, after a stint as an RIAA lobbyist. It ignores that the EFF has won its argument that joinder is improper many more times than it has lost. Hopefully the court sees through this.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: eff, prenda

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
95 Comments
Designerfx (profile) says:

Re: Re:

it’s the good old political way, coming back around.

I hope politicians are happy to have used this technique so often that basically everyone uses it for mudslinging now.

Yet another example of “when you do something stupid, and do it publicly, other people are going to copy it”. On a bigger scale, I really hope politicians become more aware of idiocy like this, instead of “let’s overreact again and let other people use it to their advantage”.

Suja (profile) says:

1. The MAFIAA is opposed to any effective enforcement and litigation of fair use & freedom of expression, which seeks a platform by which to advance its agenda.

2. The MAFIAA is an anti-cultural freedom group, which appears in the present action merely in order to milk as much money as possible from the public via Plaintiffs & copyright infringement litigation.

3. The MAFIAA?s crusade continues, despite their lack of success, not out of any concern for proper application of the law.

4. The MAFIAA Is a Radical Special-Interest Group Generally Opposed to Any Effective Or Efficient Enforcement of Freedom of Culture, Speech or Public interest.

5. This mission is radical, corrupt, and intrinsically opposed to any effective enforcement of public rights.

6. Their history of advocating totalitarian control on the Internet suggests that their purpose is not to help this Court administer justice, but to hinder and obstruct the process.

zZzZz

Anonymous Coward says:

I just saw this video making a long board by 901martha on Jun 25, 2011, I almost cried, why can’t every kid start designing and making their own stuff?

Anyways, I wonder if a boy that designed and manufactured his own long board could get in trouble for “stealing” drawings from someone else, when I saw the drawings on the board, alarm bells started ringing in my head, is that drawing original? was inspired by something else? would anybody sue children trying to stop them from using those in their toys?

Also I saw the iModela 3D Printer which is a mini CNC router that can carve objects. In the table I was seeing a lot of adorable characters produced by it.

Would this people have the balls to sue people for producing illegal physical objects?

We are living in interesting times.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Duffy is known for filing and dumping cases when they get assigned to Judges who don’t roll over and give him what he wants. He then refiles and hopes for a better assignment. Someone might think that is forum shopping, but no ones said boo about it.

Pretenda (nope thats how I read it cope) is working in Florida so they can take advantage of the state law for a Writ of Pure Discovery. This allows them to ignore the rules about joinder and other things that are settled in the trolling cases. They often pile multiple works into 1 cheap $350 filing, where in the Federal Courts each one needs to be filed for each film.

SJD seems pretty sure that Steele is still connected to Pretenda, but they are currently getting their teeth kicked in.
A case was filed against Hard Drive for their shakedown, and asks the court among other things to rule that porn does not further the arts and can not be copyrighted.
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/01/31/defendant-strikes-back-sues-hard-drive-productions-and-steeles-extortion-outfit/

I hope SJD has time to stop by and shed more light on this. Steele isn’t one of my main targets so I’m not as up to date as I could be.

sophisticatedjanedoe says:

Thanks TAC, and thanks Mike for spreading the word (and linking).

As it always happens, I have very urgent errands that will keep me afk for the most of the day πŸ™ And I got to go now.

In short: yes, I do believe that Steele is still active and is actually behind all the Prenda operations, including this brief, he always was, but since he has been caught replying for Duffy, he is more cautious.

Actually it would be fun to out Steele with some more solid proof (and some of my readers claim that Steele is not in Florida, but never left Chicago), and I’m sure that we can do it soon.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Hey SJD, have you seen this? An article about Steele’s Prenda “sale” that claims it may violate Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct regulating sales of law firms:

http://current.com/entertainment/movies/93610130_copyright-troll-john-steele-moves-into-prendas-suite-despite-retiring-wanted-to-ask-him-about-it-but-prenda-intentionally-broke-its-own-contact-form-wtf-these-are-ip-lawyers.htm

bob (profile) says:

The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

Why it was just a month or so ago when your gift to the EFF would be triple matched by Blake Krikorian and by the Brin Wojcicki Foundation.

http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/give-to-eff-today-and-your-do.html

It should be no surprise that they’re big friends of whatever Big Search wants. Two days ago they applauded — their word– Google’s newly found clarity. In other words, the EFF doesn’t care when Big Search stomps all over your privacy as long as they’re clear enough in your disclosure.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-google%27s-privacy-policy

Is this a proper way for a “charity” to be spending it’s money? They’re essentially a lobbying organization that goes after anyone who might threaten Big Search’s business model.

So go ahead. Rail against the Big Media companies. They’re pikers compared to the billionaires at Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

Okay, they’re slipping the money through tax loopholes for charity, but they’re still doing good, right? I mean it’s in their interest, but they’re still doing good. Doesn’t that make it okay to bend the tax laws in funny ways? I mean I know I would be upset if some coal company was doing the same thing, but it’s okay here if you ask me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

“…the EFF doesn’t care when Big Search stomps all over your privacy as long as they’re clear enough in your disclosure”

The answer’s obvious, even to you, boy.
Don’t use “Big Search”!

If you don’t like the show, change the channel.

As Bugs Bunny would say: “Wotta maroon!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

Did you even read the article you’re summarizing as ‘ignoring the privacy of Google users is to be applauded?’ The subtitle reads: “It Shouldn’t Take a Letter from Congress for Google to Give Straight Answers About Privacy Policy Changes”
They don’t applaud anything other than the clarity of Google’s follow-up to the letter from congress and even when they do that they point out how ridiculous it is that it took that kind of action to get said clarity: “This is a great deal clearer than their original notification, so we applaud that. It?s unfortunate that it took a letter from Congress to get them to give the public straightforward explanations.”
Then there’s an entire paragraph about ways to keep your data separate in spite of the new policy ending with: “To help users who wish to keep separate accounts, Google should make the process simpler and easier.”

bob (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

Sure I read it. But did you read what I wrote:

In other words, the EFF doesn’t care when Big Search stomps all over your privacy as long as they’re clear enough in your disclosure.

So what if they scolded them about the letter from Congress. When Google became clear enough for them, they started applauding.

If they cared about Google’s privacy invasions in the same way that they cared about non-funders, they would be doing more than just offering the tepid solution of breaking up your non-private data into a few inconvenient parts. They would be asking why Google was keeping ANY of the data.

The rest of the press release is just beating Google with a wet noodle. Look how they treat other non-funding groups. Then compare.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

You’re either a liar or an idiot. Either you can’t understand what was written or you’re flat out lying about it. The applauded the clarity of the follow up statement only. They did not applaud the action in general nor the vagueness that followed it. Yet you keep harping on the word ‘applaud’ as if it’s a applies to everything Google does.

They don’t have to ask why Google is keeping the data because they know, just like you know and I know because Google says why they keep the data.

Maybe they treat Google different than ‘non-funding groups’ because Google acts different from the groups they treat differently and that same difference is what leads Google to fund them in the first place. Can you name a single issue where they sided with Google against the public interest? If repeating the word ‘applaud’ from an article clearly not in favor of the direction Google is heading is the best you can do…

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

What civil rights?

I’ll let the EFF speak for themselves.

“When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990?well before the Internet was on most people’s radar?and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The EFF is just astroturfing for Big Search

This is a particularly atrocious bit of rhetoric and double speak

“It should be no surprise that they’re big friends of whatever Big Search wants. Two days ago they applauded — their word– Google’s newly found clarity. In other words, the EFF doesn’t care when Big Search stomps all over your privacy as long as they’re clear enough in your disclosure.” (emphasis mine)

You say they applauded as if what they were applauding was the new privacy policy when nothing could be further from the truth and that fact is clearly evident in the links you yourself are providing, I guess assuming no one will actually read them. The EFF did not applaud the newly found clarity in the privacy policy. They called it “vague” and said “Google?s original explanation left much to be desired.” They lambasted Google for waiting for a letter from congress before making they changes clear: “It Shouldn’t Take a Letter from Congress for Google to Give Straight Answers About Privacy Policy Changes” and they only applauded the clarity of the updated statements, which are clear, and then went on to point out how bad the updates could be for users and why. If the EFF really ‘doesn’t care’ when Google stomps all over privacy then why do they devote so much of the article you link to explaining how users can restore the separation of data after the Google privacy policy update? If they really don’t care then why is the rest of the article you linked the EFF mocking Google for not being more straightforward more quickly? No, you’re more interested in making up a narrative you know to be false based on the materials you provide as if they back up your position. The only other alternative is that you didn’t read the article (carelessness) or didn’t understand it (stupidity).

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Wait, didn’t Reddit pay Google $1,000,000 when they wanted Wikipedia to black out for a day?

No no, I know… Senator Wyden paid Reddit $2,000,000 so that they would tell Google to tell Wikipedia to tell Anonymous to black out everything for a day.

What am I saying! It was Dodd who paid Congress to black out Wikipedia who then bought Google who then pirated Reddit who then hacked Anonymous who then sold the Internet to North Korea!

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Anonymous Coward says:

When the EFF was created, it was a good group with noble goals. However, since the group was lead by people like Lessig for too long, they have turned from a rights group into more of a issue oriented lobby group. All of their good work ends up negated by their current adversarial approaches when it comes to dealing with any content creator.

Really, the EFF has hurt themselves, and are now are on par with the Moral Majority and Parents Television Council. They are not longer fighting for what is right, they are fighting for what they want, no matter how many people are hurt by it.

They had a good run… but just like Lessig’s first amendment arguments about copyright, they are tired and less and less relevant.

bob (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yes, I often challenge them to tell me one example of how they’ve helped the copyright holder recently. After all, they keep talking about protecting my rights online. Yet all of their cases involve making it easier for Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware to operate without sharing anything with the content creators.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Good morning, Robert. I would challenge you to show me one single instance where the copyright holders have needed any help aside from their swollen wallets? They have already purchased extended copyright terms beyond any resemblance of fairness based on the original agreement with the public, they have purchased ever more draconian legislation which they have missed not a single opportunity to abuse, and finally they seem to have no problem extracting multi-million dollar judgements against housewives and students with no regard for due process or constitutionally excessive statutory damages. So if you could maybe just show one instance where the EFF hasn’t acted in the interests of those that actually need their help, I’d really appreciate it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Would you look at that. A post from today where the EFF is trying to help the real content creators: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/dear-hollywood-open-letter-hardworking-men-and-women-entertainment-industries
and here’s another, again from today, where the EFF commits to trying to help content creators: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/megauploads-innocent-users-deserve-their-data-back
and here’s another, this time from last week, where the EFF again is helping creators: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/help-protect-gadget-jailbreakers-and-video-artists-legal-threats

I’m sure you’ve already written them off in some crazy narrative about piracy, hardware, and search where anything less than maximalism on copyright is part of some vast conspiracy instead of simply being against the public interest.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Too good! Not even identifying himself anymore. We’ve all been goading him lately and he finally cracked! I dearly hope he comes to troll the threads about Hard Drive Productions Inc.’s pending demise. I would love to hear a first hand report from John about how the phone conversations went after HDP was served!

First person to actually be served with a summons over John’s antics is one of his own clients. Gotta love it!

sophisticatedjanedoe says:

Re: Re:

Wow, yet another nasty comment. What I wise man Steele is!

Its a good thing you don?t allow posts telling your sheeple reading this stupid site that all your efforts have netted zero success to date. Can?t wait to read more of your stupid shit (always enjoy a good laugh) and having it kicked out (as usual). Maybe you should just spend more time in your mom?s basement jerking off and less time embarrassing yourself in court.

(To preempt any doubts that this is just a forum troll and not the famous pirate-hunter, believe me – it’s him)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Nah, you want to watch them squirm, just have their children download a whole slew of songs, and then get taken to court.

As the children are underage, that means(I think) any judgement would be levied against the parents, hence forcing them to either defend the same thing they’ve been suing other people for, and thereby destroying their trollish careers, or lose the case and go broke paying the fines.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...