Court Refuses To Dismiss Righthaven Lawsuit Just Because Righthaven Bought The Copyright After Infringement Happened

from the trolling-allowed dept

We've noted a variety of creative defenses being tested in response to lawsuits from Righthaven. One attempt was to claim that Righthaven had no standing, because it did not hold the copyright when the actual infringement occurred. That's because the way Righthaven works is it searches for copies of parts of articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal (or the new newspapers who just signed up) and only then buys the copyright in question for the purpose of suing.

While it may have been a novel theory to say that you can't sue in such situations, there was little legal basis for that claim, and a judge has rejected it as a reason to dismiss. The judge did say that the issue could be explored further at trial, but the defendant in this case clearly read the writing on the wall and quickly settled the case, realizing that it's cheaper to settle than to fight. That, of course, is exactly what Righthaven's whole business model is predicated on.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 2:54pm

    Out of curiosity, how much does it cost to buy the copyrights for those articles?

    They aren't actually suing for tens of thousands of dollars for content that took only hundreds of dollars to produce, are they?

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 2:57pm

    Re:

    They aren't actually suing for tens of thousands of dollars for content that took only hundreds of dollars to produce, are they?

    Of course! Otherwise there wouldn't be any "profit"!

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    Eugene (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    Just to help clarify, can someone who knows about the details of this stuff explain *why* you're able to sue someone for infringing on a copyright you don't have until after the infringment happens? Because to me that sounds like one of those can o' worms things, where tons on unintentional infringement could happen prior to a copyright creation, and then everybody gets sued for being incapable of predicting the future...

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:05pm

    Re: Unpredictable Future

    (pretending to be corporate scum)
    Sounds like a winning business model to me... In fact, I think you've just defined my company's new direction! Thanks.
    (/scum)

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:11pm

    Re:

    "Just to help clarify, can someone who knows about the details of this stuff explain *why* you're able to sue someone for infringing on a copyright you don't have until after the infringment happens? Because to me that sounds like one of those can o' worms things, where tons on unintentional infringement could happen prior to a copyright creation, and then everybody gets sued for being incapable of predicting the future..."

    In a nutshell, its because of the 1976 copyright act, which made ANYTHING copyrighted AUTOMATICALLY upon creation. So, you write an article or book, it is copyrighted RIGHT NOW. Before this, you would have to register a work specifically to get a copyright. The other wrinkle in this, is that, technically, you still need to register the work (even tho its "covered" automatically at time of creation) in order to get more/higher damages if you need to sue. If you dont, you can still sue, but the damages are far less than if you hold an actual, registered copyright.

    Righthaven is trying to have it both ways. They are trying to use the "automatic copyright" as a basis for suing (which, technically, they can) but then ALSO trying to game the copyright system by filing a registration of the copyright AFTER the alleged infringement, in order to get the higher damages. I cant see this sort of thing holding up in court. It wont prevent them from suing, but it damn well SHOULD prevent them from getting the multiple damages that the registration would allow, if it had been done properly PRIOR to reported infringement.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:17pm

    Re:

    Out of curiosity, how much does it cost to buy the copyrights for those articles?


    No one knows. The terms of the relationship between LVRJ and Righthaven are kept secret. But LVRJ's parent company funded Righthaven, so I'm guessing the terms are basically "x% of whatever you can squeeze out of everyone."

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Re: Discovery

    > No one knows. The terms of the relationship between LVRJ and
    > Righthaven are kept secret.

    All it takes is one person to fight them all the way to bring them to light. If a lawsuit proceeds to trial, the defense would be entitled to those details as part of the discovery process.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Discovery

    It would make an interesting defence, to argue that statutory damages (that's what they are claiming, right?) should be capped to something really tiny because of the value of the copyrights. Such common sense isn't very common in the legal system, though.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:55pm

    Who the hell reads their rags anyway? Idiots? You betcha!

    What kind of journalistic douchebaggery does the LVJR represent? Who cares? I'd never read their stupid rag, or any copy of it, legitimate or otherwise. Bunch of lame-ass punks trying a new twist on the old extortion racket. Here's my take on lawsuits in general - sue me.....get bullet between eyes....case moot. Works like a charm. No appeals, either.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 3:59pm

    It seems that for this argument to even make sense, the timeline would have to be:

    1. Righthaven notices the violation,
    2. The violator happens to take down the content, and then
    3. Righthaven buys the copyright.

    I imagine if that were indeed the sequence of events, the issue of standing could get pretty interesting. I somehow doubt though that it's the case in any of these lawsuits.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 4:03pm

    Block them with Privoxy.

    http://www.privoxy.org/user-manual/quickstart.html#QUICKSTART-AD-BLOCKING

    We should start sharing block list for those type of companies.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 4:13pm

    It doesn't cost much to defend, unless you hire a *lawyer*.

    There seems none among the victims of this racket who have enough grit to take the case to a jury and point out the obvious *racketeering*. Doesn't matter even if The Facts and The Law are against you, just state your case to a jury and rely on common sense and fair play -- which *most* people have, unless they've been *educated*. Some business owners they are, to just pay off when leaned on. Is that independence and entreprenurial spirit? Or is it and MBA and Excel? -- I'm sure they're getting "legal" advice, but that comes from the same bunch of vultures as the plaintiff is using, who profit from controversies, with a "good lawyer, bad lawyer" game.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 4:32pm

    Re: Re:

    Righthaven is trying to have it both ways. They are trying to use the "automatic copyright" as a basis for suing (which, technically, they can) but then ALSO trying to game the copyright system by filing a registration of the copyright AFTER the alleged infringement, in order to get the higher damages.

    That doesn't sound right. Where did you see that Righthaven is registering the copyright AFTER the infringement?

    Even if you're right, you have to keep in mind that there is a grace period from the date of publication to register and have it work retroactively to the date of publication. Perhaps Righthaven is simply registering in this grace period.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    TAM PR Comment Development Company, Ltd., Sep 1st, 2010 @ 4:32pm

    "Righthaven's whole business model is predicated on."

    Wrong again, Mike. Got a citation for that?

    If not, you should do more research or else redact that statement because it may be false. Righthaven is an awesome company that innovates regularly. In fact, they just hired twenty more employees to keep up with the boom in business.

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 4:35pm

    Re: It doesn't cost much to defend, unless you hire a *lawyer*.

    What planet do you come from?

    You really think an average joe stands a chance against a team of lawyers? They'll hit you so fast and so hard that you won't even be able to stand after it is all said and done.

    They'll find every loophole and dissect every word you say to screw you.

    The system is gamed. There is no justice. It's a fight to the death where only the best lawyer team wins.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 5:08pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And that make it right?

    I love the law, is how you can screw others without having to do much work.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 5:11pm

    One thing this highlights is that the system is based on certain rules that can be used to screw others independent of right or wrong.

    People can also make use of the law, we just need to find out what the parasites depend on and use the same exact laws to screw them.

    Like the GPL you can't attack the GPL or CC commons without attacking copyright itself.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 5:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "That doesn't sound right. Where did you see that Righthaven is registering the copyright AFTER the infringement?"

    Uh...from this:

    "That's because the way Righthaven works is it searches for copies of parts of articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal (or the new newspapers who just signed up) and only then buys the copyright in question for the purpose of suing."

    On the other hand, you may be right about the grace period. would just depend on the timing. I still think it makes a shady semi-abuse of copyright law tho.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 6:06pm

    @AC: I come from the *real* America, where odds don't matter; principle does.

    And I've personally embarrassed cops, lawyers, and judges. All you need is the truth. You aren't alone in the court when you've a jury, just need to convince them that you are indeed Average Joe and your fight is theirs.

    But apparently you *are* such a coward that you can't even uphold a handle on a website.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 6:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Gotcha. There's a difference between registering a copyright and buying a copyright from someone else. When Righthaven buys the copyright, it might already be registered, or it might not be. Either way, the rights are transferred, whatever those rights might be.

    The registration is what's important for being able to go for statutory damages, but like I said, there's a grace period for registering. They could register it after the infringement and still have statutory damages on the table as long as they register it during the grace period.

    It's not technically an abuse of copyright law to do what they're doing. Personally, I don't fault them for what they're doing, but to each his own.

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    testcore (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 6:42pm

    Re: Re: It doesn't cost much to defend, unless you hire a *lawyer*.

    Well, fortunately in this case those accused can get a team of lawyers. The EFF is looking for defendants to represent: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/eff-seeks-righthaven-defendants

    I, for one, really hope they find a few and screw the hell out of Righthaven, the business model and predatory copyright in general.

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 7:33pm

    Re:

    Honestly, I think that in order to file a lawsuit such as this, you should have to meet the following challenges:

    Upon discovering infringement:
    - You have to file a formal take-down notice to prevent accidental infringement from ever being an issue.
    - If the infringing party takes the material down within an acceptable time frame, the scenario is over. The right to sue is not granted.
    - If the infringing party fails to respond to the take-down notice, you have met the criteria to move forward.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 8:24pm

    I looked at a couple of the complaints that are posted on Scribd, and it is true that Righthaven is acquiring the copyrights after the infringement has occurred and then registering the copyright. They are doing so in within the grace period, so statutory damages are on the table. At least in the couple of cases I looked at.

    I also did some case law research on the issue of Righthaven having standing to sue for the infringements that happened before they were assigned the copyrights. The controlling case law in Nevada where these suits are being filed is perfectly clear--they have the right.

    Filing a motion to dismiss on the standing issue was a complete waste of time. Several others have tried the exact same thing, and all were denied. I'm not sure why this defendant thought it would be any different.

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 8:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Discovery

    All it takes is one person to fight them all the way to bring them to light. If a lawsuit proceeds to trial, the defense would be entitled to those details as part of the discovery process.

    They could probably get the judge to seal that information by claiming "trade secret". That's not exactly bringing them to light.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 1st, 2010 @ 8:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I love the law, is how you can screw others without having to do much work.

    That's how most rich people got that way. You don't get rich by working hard.

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 1st, 2010 @ 10:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Discovery

    The specifics of the deal between Righthaven and LVRJ are ompletely irrelevant, and they would not need to disclose that information. All that matters is that Righthaven was assigned the rights, which they were, and that they can demonstrate that, which they can.

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 4:29am

    Re: @AC: I come from the *real* America, where odds don't matter; principle does.

    "All you need is the truth."

    Truth is what you believe in. Or rather, what you can convince the judge and the jury to believe in. Don't forget that to some people, Christianity is the truth, while to other, Hinduism is. The problem is that "truth" is not a boolean value. It is not either "True" or "False". It depends on interpretation.

    What I am saying is that, under the current rules, the systems gives you WAY too much room for interpretation. And that can be used to screw you (or anyone), even if the truth is apparently on your side.

    Take your invasion of Iraq. A lot of important people claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction there.

    Where are those weapons? You doomed thousands of troops and civilians for, basically, nothing, just because some dolt managed to convince the "judge" that invading Iraq was a good idea.

    "But apparently you *are* such a coward that you can't even uphold a handle on a website."

    In the real _world_, I have the option to remain anonymous. I use it more because I am too lazy to create an account and log in than because of cowardice.

    You used that option too, to some extent. You don't post with your real name. You use a random alias which, effectively, makes you anonymous...and a coward (to a lesser extent than me, but a coward still).

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    JC, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    God, you are such a reprehensible human being.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 7:01am

    Re: @AC: I come from the *real* America, where odds don't matter; principle does.

    Oh, I forgot to mention, I like to masturbate, too.
    A LOT.

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not sure why my having an honest opinion makes me reprehensible. I value peoples' rights. I think it's reprehensible for people to infringe on other peoples' rights. I am not opposed to people enforcing their rights when other people infringe on those rights. What's so reprehensible about that?

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 1:23pm

    average_joe

    I'm not sure why my having an honest opinion makes me reprehensible.

    That depends on the opinion. An opinion can be both honest and objectionable.

    I value peoples' rights. I think it's reprehensible for people to infringe on other peoples' rights. I am not opposed to people enforcing their rights when other people infringe on those rights. What's so reprehensible about that?

    There's a difference between a legal right and a moral right. For example, at one time people had the legal right to own slaves. Still, that didn't make it morally right. History is replete with such examples.

    In the case at hand here, some people believe that copyrights and/or patents are morally wrong. Hence, they find enforcing and defending them to be wrong as well.

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    JC, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    While "technically" this lawsuit is about infringing on copyrights, what it actually amounts to is extortion via the law and I think you're smart enough to know that.

    What makes it reprehensible is that you choose to ignore the reality of the situation in favor of what is technically correct under the current law. People with your attitude have always had an attitude that amounts to "a bunch of people decided something is acceptable, therefore it is acceptable."

    Attitudes like that are responsible for slavery, genocide, political imprisonment, and the vast majority of societies ills. There will always be terrible people who want to do terrible things and, to our great misfortune, there will always be people like you to help them along. Why don't you try growing a conscience and asking yourself if what these people are doing is right. Not just legal or acceptable in the current context of society ... ask yourself if you think their actions are beneficial to mankind both now and in the future.

    You may think that sounds a little lofty for something as simple as a copyright matter; I think it's just a little more evolved.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 2:34pm

    Re: average_joe

    I'm sure some people find copyrights and/or patents to be morally wrong, but I don't think any sort of comparison to slavery is appropriate. It's a little too convenient that these same people just want to download stuff for free, and they don't care about the rights holders. I don't buy it. If other people buy it, that's their choice to make. I'm not out to convince people that I'm right.

     

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

  34.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't think it's extortion at all. I really don't. Not even close. How is somebody defending their rights extortion?

    I value people rights.

    Bringing up slavery, genocide, etc., doesn't convince me of anything. Way off the mark.

    I actually think that the victims here aren't the defendants--it's the rights holders.

    I know most people who comment in these threads disagree with me. I don't really care.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Re: average_joe

    I'm sure some people find copyrights and/or patents to be morally wrong, but I don't think any sort of comparison to slavery is appropriate.

    Well, there was none made beyond the fact that they were both legal but considered by some people to immoral. But if you want, then okay: slavery, copyrights and patents are similar in that they all take freedoms away.

    There, better now?

    It's a little too convenient that these same people just want to download stuff for free, and they don't care about the rights holders.

    Who are "these people" you're talking about?

    I'm not out to convince people that I'm right.

    That's good, because you're not doing a very good job of it.

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I know most people who comment in these threads disagree with me. I don't really care.

    Yeah, they should just shut up and get in the back of the bus, huh?

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    jc (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 5:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, well never mind about the being smart enough to understand then. Also, if you really and honestly think that this case is about a victim and an aggressor then I'm not really sure what to say to you. Neither the LVRJ or Rightshaven bothered to notify the defendant that they didn't want the material reposted and copyright is hardly a well understood and widely accepted concept.

    You can't possibly be arguing that what the defendant did is generally accepted as morally wrong (possibly the only way she would have inherently understood that there is a high likelihood of consequences for reposting content). And I doubt you could successfully convince anyone that her actions where malicious. So whats left? A company that buys the rights to content only after they know that there is an opportunity to extort someone for money. I only see 1 victim here and it isn't Rightshaven.

    Actually, I see 2 victims, the defendant, and you. You're the victim of a terrible education system and a culture that increasingly promotes the ideals of profit, ownership, and apathy.

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm a victim? Yeah, right. You have no idea what you're talking about. Whatever makes you feel good.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 6:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discovery

    > The specifics of the deal between Righthaven and
    > LVRJ are ompletely irrelevant, and they would not
    > need to disclose that information.

    Relevancy is an evidentiary standard used at trial, not at discovery. The federal rules provide wide latitude for both parties in discovery for civil suits. It's not uncommon for things like a party's sexual history to be requested (and granted) for something as simple and seemingly unconnected as a breach of contract case.

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    jc (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 7:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Way to respond to the content of the post. Actually, you sort of helped to prove my point (see apathy above).

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why should I respond to someone who attacks me personally? If you want to debate me, don't make it personal. That just shows a weakness on your part.

    Think what you want. I guarantee you this, you don't understand me.

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    jc (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm sorry if it seems personal, but I recognize your behavior as part of a larger problem with society. People who have been taught, incorrectly, that things can be owned, that a corporations rights can supersede those of an individual, and that the law is always correct, even if it's always changing.

    You claim I don't know you and you are correct, I can only know what you've written. You have displayed an opinion (in these posts and others) which seems devoid of empathy, understanding, and critical thinking skills. You accept that something is legal and therefore is right. When that is challenged, you claim that people can defend their "rights." When that is challenged you stop responding in a meaningful way. And through all of this, you fail to grasp on any level the basic "wrongness" of a company which buys copyrights, registers them after the fact, and then sues people as a business model. You even have the audacity to refer to them as victims, as though they had been beaten, raped, or murdered ... and you try to call me out for using more direct language (genocide, etc.)

    I'm going to wrap up with this (feel free to respond but I'm done so you can have the last word if you want.) I don't know you, I only know what you've written and reading what you've written fills me with mixed emotions. One part of me wants to have a meaningful discussion to see if we can come to some agreement. The other part, well, the other part sees you as someone who is so convinced that they are morally, intellectually, and socially superior that you can't imagine other people or their opinions matter. That part of me wonders how long before people with your attitude manage to destroy any chance humanity has of evolving.

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    jc (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: average_joe

    Not to mention, if he doesn't care, then why continue to post over and over again about how you're right and everyone else is wrong.

    Also, high fives on understanding the slavery comparison.

    And lastly, to average_joe, you admonish me for making personal attacks but here you are ranting about how "these same people just want to download stuff for free". I find that insulting and personal, you don't know me.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't recall ever saying that since something is legal that necessarily means it's right. Believe it or not, I'm not as intellectually void as you seem to think I am. You seem like a bright guy. We just don't see eye-to-eye. So what? I do think it's pretty funny you think people like me are destroying humanity. LOL! That's gonna make me smile all weekend. Have a great holiday.

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe

    Bringing up slavery and genocide and the like in the middle of an IP debate always cracks me up. Sure, a kid sitting at his computer downloading mp3s is just like MLK writing from the Birmingham jail. Give me a break.

    You're right, though, I don't know you. I'm OK with that. I'm sure you don't want to know me either. I'm destroying mankind after all. I'm brainwashed by the corporate machine. LOL!

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe

    Bringing up slavery and genocide and the like in the middle of an IP debate always cracks me up.

    And I imagine that 200 years ago you would have the type of person who enjoyed laughing at the slaves too. After all, they were "property", right?

    Sure, a kid sitting at his computer downloading mp3s is just like MLK writing from the Birmingham jail.

    You really think so? You seem to be the only one, then. By the way, you do realize that it's not illegal to download MP3's, don't you?

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe

    Wow! mp3s are legal? Holy cow!

    You can tell from the context I was referring to illegal downloading. Duh.

     

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

  48.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    One last thought... You know the US Copyright Group's campaign against illegal file sharing? Well, I did a bunch of legal research and came up with some great arguments that are potentially very helpful to the defendants. I briefed it all and shared it with the EFF. They thanked me and told me that my work had been forwarded to all of the attorneys they've put together to help the defendants. What did you do to help? I'm guessing you just sat around thinking about how great you are. I actually did something.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe

    You can tell from the context I was referring to illegal downloading. Duh.

    No, I can tell from the context that you were trying to say that downloading MP3's is illegal. Big difference.

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2010 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, I did a bunch of legal research and came up with some great arguments that are potentially very helpful to the defendants. I briefed it all and shared it with the EFF. They thanked me and told me that my work had been forwarded to all of the attorneys they've put together to help the defendants.

    Oh, really? How about sharing that with rest of us here? If what you claim is true, I suspect the EFF was just being polite to you.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 4th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Suspect all you want. I suspect you're a moron.

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2010 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Suspect all you want. I suspect you're a moron."

    Heh, name calling, the last resort of someone with nothing better to argue. Congratulations, I think you've just proven the other AC right.

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 12:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Oh, really? How about sharing that with rest of us here?"

    He's not going to do that because he's full of it.

     

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


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