Prenda Actually Wins A Round; Order To Pay Back Settlements Tossed In Minnesota

from the well-that's-unfortunate dept

For months now, we've been covering how Prenda had been losing pretty much every one of its legal fights concerning its fraudulent copyright trolling practices. I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, but Team Prenda has bounced back with an actual victory. You may recall that one of the (many) key Prenda cases was taking place in Minnesota, where magistrate judge Franklin Noel, becoming aware of what was happening with Prenda in other courts had reopened a bunch of Prenda (via AF Holdings) cases in Minnesota to explore if Team Prenda had committed fraud upon the court. Noel dug in, demanding actual answers to various questions that Team Prenda had avoided in other cases, eventually ruling against Team Prenda and (importantly) ordering the law firm to pay back all the settlement money it had taken in via those cases.

Well, it appears that's all for nothing now. Judge Joan Ericksen has apparently stepped in to put magistrate judge Noel in his place, pointing out that he went way beyond what a magistrate judge is allowed to do and then actually siding with Prenda lawyer Paul Hansmeier in saying that the fact that team Prenda forged Alan Cooper's signatures on the copyright assignment isn't fraud on the court... and, in fact, saying that it basically doesn't matter at all. First, as to a mere magistrate judge sniffing out these problems, judge Ericksen isn't having any of it:
AF Holdings consistently objected to the magistrate judge’s authority to determine whether it had committed a fraud on the Court. The magistrate judge had no such authority. See Reddick v. White, 456 F. App’x 191, 193 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“A motion for sanctions under the district court’s ‘inherent’ power is not a pretrial matter under § 636(B)(1)(a). Magistrate judges have no inherent Article III powers—they have only those powers vested in them by Congress. Congress has not created statutory authorization for magistrate judges to exercise inherent Article III powers.”
Furthermore, Ericksen points out that, as a magistrate judge, Noel can't really make an order like he did (which is likely accurate), but instead can just make a recommendation for a "real" judge like Ericksen to review. And Ericksen just doesn't seem concerned about the forgery, lying and other shenanigans from Team Prenda.
Cooper’s signatures were immaterial to the decision that granted AF Holdings expedited discovery.... AF Holdings’ submission of the agreements with Cooper’s signatures—legitimate or not, authorized or not—to evince the transfer of the copyrights to AF Holdings did not amount to a fraud on the Court.
It's somewhat disappointing to see a court not all that concerned that an effort that involved forgery is really no big deal, especially when it was about copyright trolling, a practice of abusing the court system to hound people into paying up to avoid having to fight a lawsuit.

That's unfortunate, but given how many other courts have ruled on Prenda's efforts and the multiple referrals to state bars, DOJ and others, I would imagine that this is merely a slight and brief reprieve for Team Prenda.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 3:33pm

    So what does count then?

    AF Holdings submission of the agreements with Coopers signatureslegitimate or not, authorized or notto evince the transfer of the copyrights to AF Holdings did not amount to a fraud on the Court.

    If forging documents and signatures, then used to sue or extort via threats to sue aren't considered 'fraud on the court', I have to wonder just what does reach that insanely high bar?

    They presented fraudulent, intentionally fraudulent at that, evidence to the court to get them to do something, if blatant lying like that isn't considered fraud, then I can't imagine what more they could do that would count to a judge like that.

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    kenichi tanaka (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:04pm

    I hate to side with Prenda Law on this but Judge Ericksen is correct on this one. While the courts can put a stop to Prenda's settlement letters going forward, forcing Prenda to pay back that settlement money that had already been paid to Prenda was a step over the lines.

    I'm all for stopping these law firms from actions like this but to force them to pay back monies they have already collected? The courts only have the ability to stop further collection efforts, not to force Prenda to send back monies already collected.

    Their fraud on the court is one thing, it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:04pm

    Re: So what does count then?

    INPUT: Prenda lawyer plead poverty against other santions

    INPUT: Judge let's Prenda slide on forgery

    OUTPUT: Where has Prenda's money gone? Long time passing...



    With apologies to Simon and Garfunkel.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:08pm

    Legitimately?

    it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.


    That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:10pm

    For those wondering why it seems to take so long to deal with Prenda and other such trolls, this is why. If they don't dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and be careful to stay within the bounds of what they're allowed to do, the trolls will be able to wiggle out of justice on technicalities just because one part was screwed up.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:14pm

    Re:

    They would not be collecting anything in those cases if the court had been made aware of the fraudulent documents filed in the case... or maybe it still wouldn't matter.
    Lawyers would NEVER knowingly do exactly what Prenda has done time and time again in court after court, so it doesn't matter.

    See cause one might think that a sham transfer with a fake name to a corporation might give rise to the idea that the accused never got to face their accuser. This shame document made it difficult for anyone to challenge and facts in the case. How can one investigate when the ownership is hidden? How are we to know there isn't another document in a folder somewhere where 'Alan Cooper' sold off the copyrights to someone else and they kept suing while not owning the rights to do such.

    Must protect the legal system... even at the expense of the people it victimized. Which is why it is nice that even with all of the other details now known about this, the victims if they wanted to try and sue to get back their money now can't bother to argue that the case was a shame because fraudulent documents don't matter in that district.

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    sorrykb (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:32pm

    Re: Re: So what does count then?

    And additional apologies to Pete Seeger?

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?

    Whoops, and Pete Seeger too.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:43pm

    Taking a scoop off Bullshit Mountain...

    Okay...

    I'm all for a few corrections, but the big questions upon the court are not being answered and from what's been said, it's just a little bit off the top of all of the problems of Prenda.

    I can't help but think that Prenda is breathing a sigh of relief right as they fall over the edge into the volcano.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    vegetaman (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:48pm

    Re: So what does count then?

    Well, since apparently lying to Congress under oath isn't perjury, I guess falsifying a signature on official court documents isn't either?

    At least... Provided you meet the following criteria:

    1) You are an Elite, or
    2) You are a Corporation, or
    3) You are a Lawyer, and
    4) You are not just a regular citizen

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:53pm

    Re:

    Their fraud on the court is one thing, it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.

    Unless how they got the judgements is via fraud on the courts.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:54pm

    BREAKING: As you know, today is a deadline to pay #260K in the Lightspeed case.

    Emboldened by today's Erickson's ruling, Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy paid their debt in full... in cash... in 70 dollar bills.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:56pm

    Swap a few words and re-read

    It only takes a few minor substitutions to see how that idea doesn't quite hold up.

    'While the courts can put a stop to a [scam artist's] ['settlement'] letters going forward, forcing the [scam artist] to pay back that ['settlement'] money that had already been paid to [them] was a step over the lines.

    I'm all for stopping these [scam artists] from actions like this but to force them to pay back monies they have already collected? The courts only have the ability to stop further collection efforts, not to force [scam artists] to send back monies already collected.'


    "Well I'm terribly sorry the plaintiff managed to scam you out of your life savings using fraudulent legal threats, but since he's got the money now, I'm afraid you're out of luck, all I can do is tell him in a stern voice not to get caught doing it again."

    That seem like a fair thing to you? It may or may not be legal, I couldn't say for sure either way, but allowing someone to keep the money they conned/threatened/extorted out of their victims certainly doesn't seem to me like how things should go, unless the punishments they suffer are extensive enough to make them lose at least as much as they managed to con out of people, so at the very least they aren't coming out of it with a net gain.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:58pm

    Yet another example (like a story I read earlier about the DuPont Heir getting off with a slap on the wrist) of how the further up the legal and political system you go, the less likely you are to get a fair deal in this country anymore.

    I have neither respect nor faith in either the legal or political system in this country anymore. I'd probably move if it weren't for the fact all the countries I might consider moving to didn't kowtow to the US at every turn.

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:59pm

    Re: Re: So what does count then?

    Have a 'sad but true'/insightful vote for that one, think you nailed it there.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 4:59pm

    Re:

    I'm all for stopping these law firms from actions like this but to force them to pay back monies they have already collected? The courts only have the ability to stop further collection efforts, not to force Prenda to send back monies already collected.

    Their fraud on the court is one thing, it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.


    Except the ruling is not about that at all. It was just about whether or not there was fraud on the court. So your analysis makes no sense.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:02pm

    Another note (bold emphasis is mine):
    (Courts have held that, in situations where the copyright [author] appears to have no dispute with its [assignee] on this matter, it would be anomalous to permit a third party infringer to invoke [Section 204(a)s signed writing requirement] against the [assignee]. (alterations in original)); Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (When there is no dispute between the copyright owner and transferee, it would be unusual and unwarranted to permit a third-party infringer to invoke 204(a) to avoid suit for copyright infringement. (internal quotation marks omitted)).

    Albeit it is a case law reference, it is, IMO, still insulting to use the term infringer affirmatively, while no determination on the merits against defendants has been made, neither as a judgment, nor a jury verdict.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:07pm

    Re: Re: So what does count then?

    4) You are not just a regular citizen

    No, if you are a regular citizen liar that doesn't get you nailed for perjury either.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    kenichi tanaka (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:10pm

    You guys keep forgetting that these file-sharers downloaded porn illegally. They got caught. Then they received a settlement letter. They paid the small settlement.

    So, where was the fraud?

    Just because Prenda Law is misleading the courts regarding their appearances and testimony doesn't mean it has anything to do with the monies they received.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    KevinEHayden (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:10pm

    University of Minnesota

    Interestingly enough, it seems that Judge Ericksen and Paul Hansmeir's father, Gordon, both attended University of
    Minnesota around the same time. I wonder if they know each other?

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:14pm

    Re:

    If $3,400 is a "small settlement" in your book, be my guest: there is a PayPal donation button on my site.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:15pm

    Re: University of Minnesota

    It was my first thought, but the graduation years are way apart... 1973 v 1981.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?

    don't bet on it, serf!

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:41pm

    Re:

    Yeah, it's not nearly as cut and dried as that.

    First of all, there was good evidence that Prenda themselves(Steele in particular if memory serves) had posted the files in question, so that people would download them and they could then turn around and threaten to sue those that did so.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/02204423292/new-anti-prenda-court-filing-lays-out-tons -evidence-suggesting-john-steele-uploaded-videos-to-bittorrent-himself.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/ articles/20130815/12351224190/comcast-confirms-that-steele-hansmeier-controlled-ip-address-used-to-s eed-content.shtml

    So, strike one.

    Second, all they were basing their lawsuits and threats of lawsuits on were IP addresses, which numerous courts have found to not be enough to positively identify someone. Add to that, the 'program' they used to gather the IP addresses was, again if memory serves, one run by a friend of Prenda, and one that they refused to let anyone check for accuracy.

    Strike two.

    Finally, just because someone paid, does in no way mean they were guilty. If presented with the choice of coughing up a few hundred, or even thousand dollars, or going to court, with the massive costs of time, money, and effort that involves even if you win, a lot of people are going to chose #1, even if they are completely innocent and know it.

    Furthermore, by suing over porn titles, people are given yet another reason to just pay rather than go to court, as even if they are completely innocent, they'll still be on record as accused of downloading porn(with some very... 'creative' titles I believe), something many people would be more than 'happy' to pay to avoid.

    Strike three, that argument's out.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 5:43pm

    This isn't good for Prenda

    The best outcome for Prenda is to lose all of its court cases, be compelled to pay back all funds, and have its attorneys disbarred. Maybe plead a charge or two, pay a fine (attorneys don't go to prison) and be done with it.

    Why?

    Because if that happens, then everyone watching will probably be satisfied that some semblance of justice has been done and that they've been punished sufficiently for their many, MANY crimes.

    And if it doesn't?

    I suspect that by and by, anonymous will take an interest. As you might have noticed, they tend to react eventually and inevitably to injustice. And I would really, really not want to be any of the Prenda principals if and when anonymous decided to turn its attention their way.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 6:20pm

    Re:

    You guys keep forgetting that these file-sharers downloaded porn illegally.

    No, I'm rather sure I remember that part.

    They got caught.

    Honey pots will do that.

    Then they received a settlement letter.

    As part of the scheme.

    They paid the small settlement.

    And somehow that makes the whole process 'not a fraud'?

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 6:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Strike four: "Plaintiff" AF Holdings is a pure sham, no such company ever existed on this planet. If filing a lawsuit for a bogus plaintiff is not a fraud upon the court, that what is?

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 6:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?

    I've watched it happen with one local serf.

    Perjury seems to be for serf VS government official.

     

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

  29. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    My Name Here, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 6:47pm

    Finally, good news for a change. It is encouraging to see that judges know their place and facilitate the enforcement of copyright.

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 6:50pm

    Re:

    Yeah, keep pretending that has anything to do with what Prenda was doing, maybe eventually someone who hasn't read anything about them will believe you.

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Wally, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 6:55pm

    It's somewhat disappointing to see a court not all that concerned that an effort that involved forgery is really no big deal, especially when it was about copyright trolling, a practice of abusing the court system to hound people into paying up to avoid having to fight a lawsuit.

    Couldn't be any more disappointing than a judge overstepping his or her bounds of power and due process thus giving scum like Prenda/AF Holdings a leg up...

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2014 @ 7:15pm

    Re:

    Isn't there a law about "profiting from a crime"

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 31st, 2014 @ 8:33pm

    Re:

    The others got most of it, you also managed to miss that Prenda was publishing peoples names on their website calling them guilty before the case ever got heard to increase the pressure to make them settle.
    You missed that their 'neverwrong' system "caught" at least 1 woman who did nothing wrong... and only after the media started asking questions they magically corrected that error after hounding her day and night to pay them for a 'crime' she didn't commit.
    You missed the flat out lies in their settlement letters, misrepresenting the law to ratchet up the pressure. One might question how an officer of the court is allowed to LIE about the law.

    Didn't you hear? They claim they got NO MONEY. They all worked for free.

     

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

  34. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 12:36am

    Re:

    horse with no name just can't stand it when due process is enforced.

     

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

  35.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Apr 1st, 2014 @ 12:39am

    Re:

    Wow, so you don't care at all about all the fraudulent dealings that Prenda have been up to. No, all that doesn't matter, as long as copyright is enforced

     

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

  36. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 3:15am

    Re: Re:

    Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Apr 1st, 2014 @ 3:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You mad, bro?

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 4:19am

    seems to me that rather than being pulled to one side by Prenda, she needs pulling to one side by other members of her profession and brought completely up to speed and then firmly put in her place with a little 'do you want to keep your job?' question tagged on the end.
    she is behaving like a certain judge who has sat on copyright trials after being a copyright industry employee, got a touch of bias from somewhere!

     

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

  39. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    the truth, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 4:25am

    women and power....

    Women past a certain age should not hold so much power! Think what you like but the fact is women are a million times more brutal that men when in power! Especially after that time in life when they dry up and become bitter against the world.

    Human nature

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 4:26am

    Gooooo US justice system. You're making us proud.

    In a half logical world, Team Prenda would be jailed. But not in the mighty US of A, no siree. There, they get paid to keep going. Well done.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 4:58am

    Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?

    Hate to burst your bubble, but most people of the "regular citizen" type are not afforded their day in court. They are subjected to the plea bargain meat grinder and go directly to jail without passing GO.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 5:01am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So - enforcing copyright law is synonymous with fraud ... sounds about right.

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 5:11am

    Re:

    (Sympathy For The Devil playing in the background)

    Affluenza is a real disease and it seems to be communicable. Recent theories suggest that the debilitating disease is transmitted from person to person via money. The more money you have, the more likely you are to contract the disease.

    Scientists at the Center for Disease Control are working closely with members of Congress in order to better understand the epidemic and develop a cure.

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 5:18am

    Re:

    You keep forgetting that IP Addresses can be spoofed, subnets can leached and your goddess Prenda never proved anything in a court of law, they simply extorted money from their victims.

    So, where is the fraud you ask .. if you refuse to look for something, it is likely that you will not find it.

    Just because someone is a bad actor doesn't mean they deserve scrutiny, amirite?

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 5:21am

    Re: women and power....

    Sexist idiot makes stupid remark, film at eleven.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 7:12am

    Re: Re:

    The cure is surprisingly simple - nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: So what does count then?

    One can get their day in court. It may just take 1.5 to 2 years. The idea seems to be you may beat the time, but you won't beat the ride.

     

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

  48.  
    icon
    ArJayK (profile), Apr 1st, 2014 @ 9:44am

    Darn! There goes their perfect record.

    Statistically speaking, I guess it had to happen sometime. I guess it's "A Million monkeys with typewriters ..." time.

     

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

  49.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 1st, 2014 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re:

    ...as long as the appearance of copyright is enforced.

    Slight change needed there, Prenda's actions had nothing to do with 'enforcing copyright', that was just the legal fiction they spun to justify their actions.

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Gerardo, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 12:47pm

    Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous

    Has Popehat been hacked? I got an anonymous banner this afternoon.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Apr 1st, 2014 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous

    Has Popehat been hacked? I got an anonymous banner this afternoon.

    Looks that way to me.

    www.popehat.com is showing an Anonymous banner with the window title of "You've been hacked by Anonymous" and all sub-pages are returning 404 errors.

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Zonker, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 3:30pm

    Watch as Prenda, emboldened by this ruling and always too clever by half, attempts to pay their upcoming sanctions with a forged check. Claims this is not a fraud on the court referencing this ruling and because the matter was settled with the forged check they do not have to repay the sanction. Watch the court rule that since it is the court/lawyers that have been defrauded instead of the common folk that Prenda *has* committed fraud on the court and *must* pay up.

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Apr 1st, 2014 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous

    I now officially hate April Fool's Day.

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2014 @ 6:18pm

    Re:

    Just Sayin' just hates it when due process is enforced.

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 2nd, 2014 @ 2:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Totally off offf offfff topic. popehat anonymous

    Only now? You might as well call it 'Trust nothing day', it'd be more accurate.

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 3rd, 2014 @ 6:03am

    Re: Legitimately?

    What Mason Wheeler says. How do we know it's legitimate? TAC has been on the end of this, and it wasn't legitimate in his case.

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 3rd, 2014 @ 6:10am

    Re:

    Old grannies, dead people and small children have been targeted in the same way and for the same reason (by the **AAs in other filesharing cases). Was that legitimate? No. IP address is not proof of infringement, and that's what they were using to go after a string of Does. Assume for the moment that you're right.

    TAC (That Anonymous Coward - the guy with the Guy Fawkes mask as an icon) was one of the Does unfairly targeted - based on IP address alone. That's all they had on him. I believe him when he says he didn't do it. Don't you?

    The only evidence to the contrary is an IP address. That's not proof of anything other than the presence of an internet connection. Have you ever tried to track down an individual via their IP address. Go on, try. Let us know how you get on.

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 3rd, 2014 @ 6:14am

    Re: Re:

    Behold thy god, his name is Copyright and all shall bow before him, particularly pirate-people who promote open source, etc. Those guys. He hates them.

    *Green smoke billows at the front and nearby, a shoe pokes out from behind a twitching curtain*

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Copyright the Great and Terrible has spoken!

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 3rd, 2014 @ 6:16am

    Re:

    It's that one time someone got annoyed and slapped a jerk. But that's assault. The letter of the law V the spirit of the law...

     

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

  60.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 3rd, 2014 @ 6:16am

    Re: women and power....

    Something you want to share with the group, bub?

     

    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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.