Malibu Media Picks Fight With Wrong Defendant, Now Facing Abuse Of Process Allegations

from the A-CHALLENGER-APPEARS dept

Malibu Media continues to burn judicial bridges. This is due to its habit of juggling hundreds of lit torches at any given time. Sooner or later, a few are going to get dropped. The prolific copyright troll continues to issue speculative invoices at the rate of dozens a month. Federal judges all around the country are sitting on backlogs of Malibu Media filings. But one thing remains certain: pushback by defendants tends to result in judicial examination of MM’s courtroom tactics. And that’s the last thing this serial litigant wants.

When cases are actually examined on their merits, judges have been less than impressed. Some have noticed Malibu Media has little interest in actually serving defendants. Some have refused to let the troll dismiss cases the instant it experiences a little judicial friction. And, in Northern California, a judge has all but banned Malibu Media cases from his courtroom.

Here comes more bad news for Malibu Media. As Sophisticated Jane Doe reports, MM looked ready to cut-and-run on another settlement attempt gone haywire. Instead of making off with some money or its assertions unquestioned, the defendant countersued, alleging abuse of process by the troll. The judge handling the case isn’t sold on the copyright infringement counterclaim but isn’t going to let MM dismiss the case and bypass possible consequences for its process abuses. The judge also explains why he won’t do this with a short rundown of Malibu’s trolling tactic. From the order [PDF]:

The Court notes Plaintiff’s penchant for litigation, which includes its filing of more than 100 cases in this district, more than 200 cases in the Southern District of Ohio, and hundreds more across the country….. While Defendant’s [copyright] counterclaim is redundant, the Court finds that his concern of Plaintiff filing suit in the future without a determination on the merits is very real. The Court, therefore, hereby notices the parties that it will not accept a voluntary dismissal of the instant case unless it is with the consent of both parties.

This prevents Malibu Media from dismissing its lawsuit because things aren’t going the way it thought they would. I’m sure Malibu isn’t thrilled with this turn of events, because it allows the defendant to move forward with his abuse allegations.

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff “made knowing misrepresentations in its Amended Complaint,” that it pleaded copyright infringement “despite knowing that an IP address alone is insufficient to identify an infringer,” and that it “intentionally failed to disclose and concealed pertinent and material information regarding [P]laintiff’s knowledge of the falsity of certain claims[.]” See Answer at 12–13. Defendant specifically alleges that Plaintiff instituted the action “without any genuine intent to proceed,” and that it “used the completed service to publicly shame [Defendant].”

And here it is broken down even further — pretty much a concise summation of every copyright trolling operation ever.

Assuming that these allegations are true, as the Court must at this stage, Defendant has adequately pleaded a cause of action for abuse of process. The first element, the ulterior motive, is clear: Plaintiff seeks to extort a settlement payment. The second element, the coercive act after the issuance of process, is satisfied by the alleged knowing misrepresentations Plaintiff made in its Amended Complaint.

This is only part of the list of counterclaims [PDF] made by the defendant — claims that will now be examined by a judge which will likely require Malibu to turn over information it would rather keep secret about its extensive trolling operation.

Plaintiff willfully abused, misused and/or misapplied the process for an end other than that which it was designed to accomplish.

Plaintiff intentionally failed to disclose and concealed pertinent and material information regarding plaintiff’s knowledge of the falsity of certain claims and the ulterior or illegitimate purpose for which the Complaints were employed.

Specifically, plaintiff failed to disclose and concealed pertinent and material information that includes but is not limited to the following:

a. Plaintiff instituted the original action without any genuine intent to proceed against defendant herein, but rather as a vehicle to obtain discovery of the identity and contact information of defendant and others;

b. Plaintiff knows it has no basis for naming defendant/counterclaimant as the infringer, yet continues to assert the claims against him;

c. Plaintiff assert its claims in order to influence the conduct of defendant in ways that are not related to the merits of its claims;

d. Plaintiff used the completed service to publicly shame defendant/counterclaimant; and

e. Plaintiff intends the current action to hang as a sword over defendant’s head, to extort unwarranted payments to settle claims not supportable as a matter of law.

I would love to see a copy of Malibu’s risk/reward analysis. Every lawsuit filed carries with it the chance its malfeasance will be exposed. There are a lot of variables Malibu can’t control but it still must see enough profit to offset the risks raised by filing lawsuits by the fistful. But it won’t remain that way forever. Trying to convert IP addresses into paychecks is a terrible con and Malibu is no artist.


Companies: malibu media

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 “Malibu Media Picks Fight With Wrong Defendant, Now Facing Abuse Of Process Allegations”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
60 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

By same token, it's easy to lawyerize un-found-able charges.

But that in no way bears on merit of the copyright claims, which is what Techdirt tries to package in here.

Key problem with copyright cases has ALWAYS been that it’s difficult to prosecute, and orders of magnitude more difficult now on “teh internets”. But difficulty and lack of risk doesn’t magically make copyright infringement, distribution of someone’s valuable work, piracy in short, legal or moral.

Basically all Malibu Media does is provide Techdirt with way to attack copyright, so I’d advise ending this valiant innovation…

Those who support copyright can click to https://torrentfreak.com for a counter-dose of hoots: the news of late is near all dire for pirates, but Techdirt doesn’t report that!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: By same token, it's easy to lawyerize un-found-able charges.

the news of late is near all dire for pirates, but Techdirt doesn’t report that!

Odd; I seem to recall Techdirt reporting this last month.

The issue isn’t with copyrights or even copyright law; the issue is with the interpretation and application of copyright law.

For example, the Vimeo case that is now at 9 years in the court system because the various judges can’t agree on how to interpret the DMCA and copyright in their situation… even though we’re dealing with pre-1972 recordings that aren’t covered by copyright law in the first place. They HAVE now been found to be covered by safe harbour provisions of the DMCA however.

The problem here is that the laws are imprecise, open to interpretation, and the intent behind them is often lost by those with a particular agenda (usually to make short-term profit) and those who have listened to those with a particular agenda for so long they’ve lost awareness of the full landscape.

And that’s why it’s important for sites like TechDirt to keep raising this same issue over and over again… because if they stop doing it, people will stop knowing and caring how the law was designed to be used in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: By same token, it's easy to lawyerize un-found-able charges.

This article isn’t attacking copyrights. It’s attacking questionable legal entities that produce nothing and their sole source of income is getting people to pay settlement fees who may or may not have done the deed of which they are accused in the first place.

It’s a con and a sham and has nothing to do with copyright other than Malibu Media is abusing copyright law to make money. That’s what you are defending, a corporation who is deliberately, maliciously, and willfully forcing people to pay them for a crime they probably didn’t even commit because it’s cheaper than to try and prove their innocence in court.

distribution of someone’s valuable work

You might want to re-phrase your statement. The way it’s worded has the meaning that ANY distribution, including the legal ways, is illegal, immoral, and copyright infringement. In its current wording, your statement means that no author or creator of content could distribute his work to ANYONE, because distribution of any kind is wrong. This means he couldn’t engage a publisher to sell it for him in stores or online, which means he couldn’t make any money off it.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

“Our courts are halls of justice where fairness and the rule of law triumph, and my office will use every available resource to stop corrupt lawyers from abusing our system of justice.”

“The FBI remains committed to uncovering fraud such as this to protect the integrity of our civil justice system.”

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161216/14262736298/team-prenda-finally-goes-to-jail-hansmeier-steele-indicted-arrested.shtml#c597

We have a fscking list… since Dec 2016 these morons haven’t bothered to look at it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Ah sweet schadenfreude...

A judge that refused to let them pull the standard troll/extortionist tactic of ‘Our targets are willing and able to fight back, cut and run’ and is allowing the defense to pose some questions? Rare and all the more entertaining because of that.

I suspect that the defendant’s lawyer will be on the receiving end of some increasingly desperate ‘settlement offers’ in order to get them to drop this, as having their SOP laid bare in court, where it could be refereed to in other cases by other defendants is not something MM will be eager for.

tp (profile) says:

Hilarious

Our friends at Malibu Media are going for the kill. The defendant admitted way too much in their brief, given the reputation of the plaintiff. After counterclaims gets dismissed by mere notification that the evil stuff didn’t happen in this case, but the counterclaimplaintiff googled for some crap from the net and tried to submit that as a fact. So this case is a clear win for the Malibu. Denying the inevitable progression of the cases against professional copyright trolls is a losing proposition.

Basically courts do not sit idly on the face of the parties trying to annoy other side of the table. Proper defendant would first regognize the value of plaintiff’s pornographic copyrighted works, and then try to find a resolution where both sides interests are being met. But no, this guy decided to hit where it hurts hardest, with abuse of process counterclaim.

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Re: Hilarious

Voted funny. Seriously, what part of “IP address isn’t evidence” do you not understand?

“Proper defendant” would be one who has something to answer for, not a ticked-off innocent trying to crowbar a troll out of his wallet.

Do you really believe that “speculative invoicing” is a valid business model? Why?

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hilarious

Seriously, what part of “IP address isn’t evidence” do you not understand?

Sure, their evidence at this point is flaky at best, but if their evidence-gathering operation is any good, their computer system has clear steps stored where the defendant has shared their copyrighted work in a bittorrent swarm, and the case is over at that point. Obviously ip address is enough to locate the operation, but actual persons involved might still be a littl fuzzy at that point. But once the people’s responses are received, that position will be clear too.

> ot a ticked-off innocent trying to crowbar a troll out of his wallet.

Well, money issues are always difficult in these cases. Malibu is asseting 300,000 dollars damage awards when they chose copyright infringement as their main club to attack with. If that’s not significant enough problem to overcome, then I don’t know what is.

> Do you really believe that “speculative invoicing” is a valid business model?

It’s not defendant’s job to examine plaintiff’s financial matters or how they’re getting their money from. Defendants job is to follow the troll’s process and watch where it leads, and try to understand the concerns of the other side of the table. While blindfolded defendants might be in big trouble if they don’t realize the scope of plaintiff’s operation, but proper defendants do not let rumours and gossips going around in the market to interfere with their newly formed business relationship, even if plaintiff’s product is discusting.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Hilarious

their evidence at this point is flaky at best

This completely contradicts this statement:

Obviously ip address is enough to locate the operation

Also, in no way is an IP address enough to locate an operation. Case in point, VPNs.

Defendants job is to follow the troll’s process

Obvious troll is obvious. You were doing pretty good imitating tp right up until you slipped up and called them a bunch of trolls. Anyone who actually supported them would never think of them as trolls and wouldn’t refer to them as such. They would think of them as victims.

Commendations are in order for the attempt but really, tp, blue and the others do not need any help.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hilarious

> their evidence at this point is flaky at best
> This completely contradicts this statement:
> > Obviously ip address is enough to locate the operation

Except that Malibu’s biggest problem isnt proving the computer location, but they need to prove that copyright infringement actually happened (from that ip address, by certain person)

> Also, in no way is an IP address enough to locate an operation. Case in point, VPNs.

Biggest takeaway is that the defendant thought that malibu is seeding the bittorrent swarm with their own copyrighted works. This means defendant was actually using bittorrent, and was already aware that the material they accessed was illegal, but didn’t take steps to change to another (more legal) system. Thus this paperwork by the defendant is strong proof for malibu that the copyright infringement actually happened, and no amount of arguing about the location of the computer is going to fix that problem. So the location of the computer and all the proofs about ip addresses are completely irrelevant after their messed up paperwork.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Hilarious

An affirmative defense or counterclaim admits nothing.

Your example about dog is pretty good one.

But on the other hand, it tells alot about the defendant’s operation, which affirmative defenses are available to him, If the available defenses are some bullshit where they need to mark the other side of the table idiots(even though they’re professional trolls), then the implication is that there’s significant problems in the defendant’s way of handling the situation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Hilarious

If the available defenses are some bullshit where they need to mark the other side of the table idiots(even though they’re professional trolls)

So calling an idiot an idiot and a troll a troll is not allowed? That’s rich.

What about a liar? If the troll is lying is the defendant not allowed to call them out on it? Because that’s exactly what’s going on here. MM is lying about having any evidence or proof (other than an IP address, which is evidence and proof of nothing) and the defendant is calling BS.

Their defense isn’t a bunch of BS, it’s saying "Hey! We didn’t do what you accused of us doing and the proof you presented is a bunch of BS that proves nothing!". If I accuse you of stealing from my house and all I have is doctored video footage of a guy who may or may not be you stealing from me, it is absolutely a valid defense to point out that I doctored my video footage. At that point my case against you falls apart.

This is no different. MM was caught deliberately seeding their own content, which means they have no legal ground to stand on EVEN IF someone downloaded it because it’s the equivalent of them standing on the street corner handing out DVDs for free, then turning around and suing the people who took them for theft. The law doesn’t work that way. If you give it out for free that’s your own damn fault.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hilarious

Except that Malibu’s biggest problem isnt proving the computer location, but they need to prove that copyright infringement actually happened (from that ip address, by certain person)

An IP address does not prove location, nor does it prove that a particular person was the infringer. This has been proven to be extremely inaccurate to the point where the judge even bothers to point it out that the IP address is not proof or evidence of anything.

Biggest takeaway is that the defendant thought that malibu is seeding the bittorrent swarm with their own copyrighted works.

Not big at all, easy to verify.

This means defendant was actually using bittorrent,

Nope. This could have been done as part of discovery by lawyers during their investigation. Regardless, you don’t actually have to download (read access or infringe) to see who the seeders of a torrent are.

was already aware that the material they accessed was illegal

As has been stated by the judge, defendant, TD, myself and scores of other people, there is no evidence, much less proof, that the defendant even accessed this content in the first place. ALL they have is an IP address, which is proof of nothing.

but didn’t take steps to change to another (more legal) system

Probably because they weren’t even engaging in said illegal activity.

Thus this paperwork by the defendant is strong proof for malibu that the copyright infringement actually happened

For all the reasons I stated above and more, it’s not strong proof, it’s not proof, it’s not even evidence. MM has nothing.

no amount of arguing about the location of the computer is going to fix that problem

Um, you do realize that if the actual computer that downloaded the content was halfway around the world that that’s a pretty strong case that the defendant had nothing to do with it right?

So the location of the computer and all the proofs about ip addresses are completely irrelevant after their messed up paperwork.

The paperwork isn’t messed up and even if it was, the computer location and IP addresses are ABSOLUTELY relevant. If the guy didn’t even have access to the computer that downloaded it because it wasn’t his, he can’t be responsible because he didn’t actually download anything. But regardless, you can’t prove one way or the other based on IP address alone, which is the ONLY piece of evidence MM has. None of the statements made by the defense was even remotely indicative of an admission of wrongdoing.

Stop shilling. It’s sad and pathetic that you have to divorce yourself from reality and ignore common facts about how the world works just to get a paycheck. There are better ways to make money.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Hilarious

> but didn’t take steps to change to another (more legal) system

> Probably because they weren’t even engaging in said illegal activity.

This is big slippery slope. In legal circles, bittorrent technology has already been declared extreamly dangerous for accused pirates. Basically if they can prove that defendent used bittorrent, they’re already proven 90% of the necessary steps for copyright infringement and at least that the defendant didn’t care about following legal rules. And this finding goes long way towards making Malibu win the case.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Hilarious

This is big slippery slope.

Yes, yes it is. It is a GIANT slippery slope to assume that using a common internet technology automatically makes you a pirate. Bittorrent is used for many more things than just pirating content. It’s a transfer protocol, nothing more, nothing less. Blizzard uses it to distribute updates to end users for World of Warcraft. You going to call Blizzard a bunch of filthy pirates now?

Basically if they can prove that defendent used bittorrent, they’re already proven 90% of the necessary steps for copyright infringement

No, all that proves is they are using a freely available tool on the internet for some purpose. Whether that purpose is legal or illegal has nothing to do with the fact that they were using bittorrent or not.

and at least that the defendant didn’t care about following legal rules.

Again, bittorrent is legal software to use. It’s what you do with it that may or may not be illegal. There are many legal uses for bittorrent. What it does prove is the defendant didn’t go out and steal some paid for torrent application, they used a legal free client.

And this finding goes long way towards making Malibu win the case.

It does nothing of the sort. All it does is make MM and you look like a bunch of idiots because you either don’t understand how to internet or you just flat out don’t care whether the person actually committed the crime in question, as long as you get paid.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Hilarious

No, all that proves is they are using a freely available tool on the internet for some purpose.

This isn’t true. Bittorrent is special for multiple reasons: 1) it does transfer files very quickly 2) there’s large number of pirates using it 3) the network does “publishing”. 4) it’s difficult to remove files from the network, and thus copyright damage is maximized. 5) end users need to browse through tons of pirated content to find legal content, 6) bittorrent has dubious reputation and the activity is generally considered illegal, 7) there has been many lawsuits targeting bittorrent usage

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Hilarious

  1. it does transfer files very quickly True, but not illegal, in fact this is desirable by literally everyone and every business.
  2. there’s large number of pirates using it Define large but potentially true. This does not make it illegal to use.
  3. the network does "publishing" Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Files are hosted on servers or computers and clients connect directly to multiple servers/computers to download content. The network is just computers connecting to each other and serving up files, no different than if you went to Microsoft and hit the "download" button. Either way, this is not illegal in and of itself. It is only illegal if you are hosting/downloading illegal content. The actual tool to do it is just that, a tool.
  4. it’s difficult to remove files from the network, and thus copyright damage is maximized. Yes? And? The same can be said about the internet as a whole. That doesn’t make using it illegal, just using it for illegal purposes. By that logic, anyone who uses the internet is a pirate because the internet can be used for piracy.
  5. end users need to browse through tons of pirated content to find legal content Not really, it’s called searching. Usually people use a site like torrent sites to search for the content they want, what’s returned is generally only things relating to what you want. If you’re searching for legit content, you’ll get legit results. If you’re searching for pirated content, you’ll get pirated results. See how that works?
  6. bittorrent has dubious reputation Not even remotely true.
    and the activity is generally considered illegal Also not even remotely true. Many individuals and companies use it for legitimate purposes and it is well recognized as a legitimate, legal, and useful tool. Get your facts straight.
  7. there has been many lawsuits targeting bittorrent usage Possibly true, got stats on that? Even if there are though, the subject of those cases is of interest. Are they suing people just for using bittorrent, regardless of whether they performed an illegal act with it? If that’s the case then all of those lawsuits were likely laughed out of court and are still laughing. If those lawsuits were against people because they used bittorrent to pirate content, well then they aren’t actually suing them for just using bittorrent are they? They’re suing them for pirating content.

None of your points makes the usage of bittorrent even remotely questionable, let alone illegal. The only thing that has any bearing on it was whether bittorrent was used to pirate content in this case. MM has failed to present any proof of that.

You fail.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Hilarious

None of your points makes the usage of bittorrent even remotely questionable, let alone illegal.

Lets consider what the legal alternatives are doing, for example web browsers:
1) web browser download feature allows only one file at the time, thus limiting large downloads.
2) while large number of users are using web browsers, most of the users are not considered pirates and pirates moved to other technologies.
3) web servers handle publishing, but browsers limit the scope of the infringement by allowing only DISPLAYing the content, not distribution.
4) it’s easy to remove a file from web site, by deleting the file on the server and the files doesnt get replicated all over the globe
5) most of the content in the web is published by the authors of the content
6) web browsers have good reputation
7) there hasnt been significant legal activity in browsers

So web browsers are clearly in better position in every one of the steps mentioned.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Hilarious

sigh Once again, your facts are completely wrong.

  1. This is just flat wrong, web browsers do allow you to download multiple files, simultaneously. Don’t believe me? Go try it, I do it all the time and so does everyone else, except for you apparently.
  2. Most users of bittorrent are not considered pirates either. Again, get your facts straight. Additionally, I could provide (or you could go find a bunch yourself) of websites that allow you to download pirated content directly through a web browser. It’s really not hard, a simple Google search for "download <insert movie name here> online free" will net you thousands of results.
  3. This is just wrong and not how browsers work at all. Browsers display exactly what is on the web server and (as you noted in your first point) browsers let you download content from said servers.
  4. If it is only on that one web site, yes. But as soon as something is available on that one web site, you can be guaranteed that multiple other people have downloaded it and uploaded it to their own sites/servers. That’s why people say "If you don’t want anyone to know about something, don’t put it on the internet because it will be there, permanently".
  5. Oh really? I’d like to see you prove that. Also, where do you think you download torrent files? That would be the web. And where do you think all of the servers/computers are connected to seed all the torrents? That would be the internet.
  6. Indeed they do. So does bittorrent. But that has jack all to do with whether it is legal to use or not.
  7. I think you meant "significant illegal activity"? Regardless of which way you meant it, you’re dead wrong. There is significant legal and illegal activity involved web browsers. After all, the only way to get a torrent file to use in bittorrent is to you know, use a web browser to download it from a torrent site.

So clearly web browsers are no better or worse than bittorrent, and you do not understand anything that you are talking about and are either spouting a bunch of nonsense or are parrotting what you’ve been told to say.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Hilarious

web browsers do allow you to download multiple files, simultaneously.

note that you need humans to do manual steps to activate each download, because te user interface has explicitly been designed to slow down large downloads. If it becomes problematic in the future for example because of .zip files overcoming the one file limitation, them i’m sure browsers will fix their user interface.

> Browsers display exactly what is on the web server

sure, but browsers never automatically distributed the stuff all over the globe in permanent locations. Every browser session just deleted the files once it was displayed, and thus there wont be permanent copy anywhere else than in the original server maintained by the author. All the copying operations required humans to manually do the steps…

> that multiple other people have downloaded it and uploaded it to their own sites/servers.

i.e. manual steps are required to do it. It doesnt do illegal stuff behind your back.

> But that has jack all to do with whether it is legal to use or not.

It’s illegal to use a service that has poor reputation legally. End users need to constantly evaluate the services they use, and if the (previously legal) service gets flooded with pirated content, end users need to stop using it.

> I think you meant “significant illegal activity”?

no, the “legal activity” meant obviously “legal paperwork in form of lawsuits”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Hilarious

Not going to quote your text but will tag them in order.

  1. There are many websites that allow you to select and download multiple files with one click. Also, you have to download a torrent file for each torrent you want to download. Once you have downloaded all those, you can MANUALLY tell bittorrent to download all files referenced by the torrent files at once. Really no difference from a web browser. Also, you don’t have to have a zip file to download multiple files at once. You can have multiple downloads, with multiple files, from multiple sites running simultaneously. Obviously you don’t understand how browsers work.
  2. Neither does bittorrent. It takes people setting up their computer/server to do that, just like a web server with downloads. Bittorrent is just one way of accomplishing that end. The browser DOES NOT DELETE any files you download, that’s the whole point of downloading them. If I go out to Microsoft.com and download a Windows 10 .iso file, it gets downloaded locally to my hard drive. From there I can upload it anywhere I want, which is my point. Bittorrent still requires human to do manual steps, it doesn’t happen automatically. Your ignorance on how any computer technology works is astounding.
  3. Bittorrent does do illegal stuff behind your back either. It requires manual steps by people to upload pirated torrents and manual steps by people to download said torrents. It doesn’t do anything you don’t tell it to do.
  4. It is not illegal to use a service that has a poor reputation. What kind of crap is this? If the sole purpose of the service is to perform an illegal act and that’s all it does, then yes, it would be illegal to use it. Bittorrent is not illegal in and of itself and AS I HAVE STATED MANY TIMES there are many legal uses of it. Yes, you should make sure the software use is legal but bittorrent, by itself is 100% legal. Your use of it may vary. However, if a service becomes flooded with pirate content, that still does not mean you should stop using it. Providers of a software application are not responsible for how others use that application. That’s like saying Ford is responsible for all drunk driving accidents.
  5. Not obviously. Learn English. Regardless, as I explained the point is irrelevant because it’s the content of the lawsuits. Are you suing just because someone used a browser/bittorrent for anything? Even if they did nothing illegal? Or are you suing because they did something illegal and happened to use a browser/bittorrent as the tool to carry it out. You still haven’t provided any evidence of cases for the former.
tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Hilarious

I started to reply to tp, but then I said “Why???”

from the discussion, there’s several possible defenses to copyright infringement that could actually work:
1) “I haven’t seen any pirated content in the service that I use”
2) “The services that I use, are limiting the scope of download/distribute operations enough that it seems all legal”
3) “we consider reputation of <service we use> to be good”
4) “we have a license from the author to Display the content”
5) “there hasn’t been known legal problems in the services that we use, even though we’ve seen other services fail miserably”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Hilarious

2, 3, and 5 would never be accepted as valid defenses on their own. A judge would laugh you out of court.

Some additional acceptable defenses:

6) you don’t have any evidence that actually connects me to the crime
7) you were handing out this stuff for free to begin with, how do you expect anyone to know they need to pay for it if you are handing it out for free?

tp says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Hilarious

the base premise is not a valid defense.

the judge needs information what actually happened, i.e. the facts of the case. If the people are thinking their activity is legal for some reason even though they use bittorrent, then judge needs to have exact steps what makes it legal, even though there are significant problems with the technology they use.

The defenses they use, does not need to come from law books. Original ideas might be more difficult to understand, but they’re still as valid defenses as the stuff copy-pasted from legal books.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Hilarious

significant problems with the technology they use

What significant problems? It allows people, businesses, and systems to share files with increased speed and reduced bandwidth usage. As far as I know it works really well. The fact that some bad actors found a way to use it maliciously is completely and totally irrelevant.

In this case, the judge does understand this and is rightfully smacking around Malibu for abusing the law.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Hilarious

What significant problems?

Download operation has been considered dangerous for a long time related to copyright, because it was originally used for distributing copyrighted works illegally. Thus anything that uses it, needs to be carefully designed to prevent abuse of the feature. This has been known problem for a long time.

> The fact that some bad actors found a way to use it maliciously

Yes, but when the technology is being misused, the author of the tech needs to immediately try to fix the mistake. But it needs quick actions from the original author to build technology that actually prevents the misuse. While it has been traditionally difficult to find way to solve the whole copyright problem, fixes to the technology can significantly reduce the problems. Redesigning the user interface, adding limitations to the technology or preventing some use cases are possible ways how it can be handled.

Where the author is unwilling or unable to sort out the problems, it has tendency to become illegal technology and then it’s end users responsibility to avoid usage of the tech.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Hilarious

Yes, but when the technology is being misused, the author of the tech needs to immediately try to fix the mistake.

You mean like car manufacturers have to stop drivers speeding or driving while impaired, or gun manufacturers to stop guns being used for murder, or …..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Hilarious

Exactly. Everything will be abused and misused and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

How about the printing press? That’s been used to distribute copyrighted works illegally for hundreds of years! I guess we should stop using it then since it’s illegal technology. No more books for the world, nope.

Get a clue tp, your arguments are worthless nonsense.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Hilarious

the only way something becomes illegal tech is if the government passes a law making it illegal.

Proper gadget manufacturer considers his own technology illegal until it has been sufficiently developed to prevent misuses of the technology. This rule applies to all technology in the world, not just the obviously dangerous ones.

tp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:25 Hilarious

So what’s the point?

The whole question is about Malibu sending speculative invoices and settlement demands to ordinary people who use bittorrent technology after seeding the network with their own copyrighted works.

It requires professional trolls to invent such evil plan and be confident enough of the plan even after hundreds of people are going to be pissed after receiving the settlement demands.

Real problem is the world view that half the population is doing illegal operations — but this view is supported by the rule that all product development activity need to consider their own products as illegal until it’s fully developed to prevent misuses of the technology.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:25 Hilarious

There’s also the fact that the dumbass demanded to be paid for a project that isn’t commercially available, yet he claims to be widely in use by the MPAA and the general public, and absolutely won’t admit what it is.

His admission that he considers Malibu Media to be “friends” is pretty fucking damning, though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hilarious

Our friends at Malibu Media are going for the kill

If by that you mean are going to get absolutely slaughtered for bringing such a bogus lawsuit and vastly abusing copyright law, then yes, I agree with you. But the rest of your post is delusional and divorced from reality in the extreme.

So this case is a clear win for the Malibu

There is no universe or reality where this is even remotely true.

Contrary to your claims, the defendant has provided ample evidence to suggest MM is abusing the law and has zero proof that the defendant did anything wrong. The judge has, rightly, recognized this as sound reasoning and logic, and coupled with MM’s other cases and history has told MM in no uncertain terms "either come up with some actual evidence of wrongdoing or I’m going to throw every rule in the book at you and I think we both know you don’t want that because you broke pretty much every rule in the book".

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Re: Re: Hilarious

What AC says. tp, here’s your problem:

Except that Malibu’s biggest problem isnt proving the computer location, but they need to prove that copyright infringement actually happened (from that ip address, by certain person)

Owning the computer in question doesn’t mean that individual committed infringement. Since IP addresses are an hilariously inaccurate way of pinpointing location the case is bogus from the get-go; mine frequently announces my location as being many miles from where I actually live.

Speculative invoicing accompanied by threats is a thing; several commenters here, including That Anonymous Coward, have been treated in this way even though they never committed the infringement they were accused of.

It is most certainly not the “proper defendant’s” job to understand where the other side is coming from, their only duty is to defend themselves. Malibu are trolls, pure and simple. They deserve no special consideration.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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 »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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