Judge Curious If Malibu Media Is Seeding Its Own Files And Engaged In Copyright Misuse

from the questions-to-ponder dept

It appears that a judge has begun to get a little more curious about copyright troll giant Malibu Media and how it goes about finding "infringers" to shakedown with settlement agreements. In the past, evidence showed that other similar copyright trolls like Prenda, were engaged in seeding their own content, which would make the file authorized, and thus the shakedown letters a form of "copyright misuse." There have long been rumors that Malibu Media, perhaps in association with the infamous "international men of mystery" running the behind-the-scenes operation out of Germany, may be seeding their own files as well.

Now, as Raul points out, it appears that at least one judge is willing to allow discovery on this point in one of the cases, involving Malibu Media against Matt Guastaferro in a Virginia court, and to examine if Malibu Media has "unclean hands" as a result of this:
In this case, Defendant has alleged that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the [unclean hands] doctrine "as Plaintiff's use of its copyrights violates public policy." ... Such an allegation does not appear to trigger the doctrine because it says nothing of how Malibu Media "encouraged, invited, aided, compounded, or fraudulently induced" Defendant's allegedly wrongful conduct.... Defendant's response to this motion, however, sets forth factual averments that do appear to support his invocation of the doctrine. For instance, he assets that "IPP or another agent of Malibu Media is responsible for initially seeding some of Malibu's content onto BitTorrent in the first place and for facilitating infringing downloads by BitTorrent users" in an attempt "to extract exorbitant sums from individuals for alleged copyright infringement."...

Malibu Media has moved to strike this defense on the basis that he has "not sufficiently alleged copyright misuse." ... In support thereof, he relies upon a recent decision of this Court, in which it granted Malibu Media's motion to strike "because Plaintiff cannot have unclean hands if Defendant did not sufficiently plead copyright misuse." .... The Court respectfully disagrees with this conclusion and considers the defense one that is better suited for resolution following discovery. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit did not premise its decision barring the copyright infringement claim pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands on an associated defense of copyright misuse.... Thus, the pleading requirement that Plaintiff urges here does not appear to exist.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff is on notice of Defendant's allegations that it "seeded" some of its content onto BitTorrent for the purpose of extracting settlements in the numerous copyright infringement suits that it has filed, the Court will decline to strike this defense as well.
This may not lead to anything, but it's fairly amazing that courts haven't been digging that deeply into Malibu Media's practices in similar cases.

Filed Under: copyright misuse, copyright troll, matt guastaferro, seeding, unclean hands
Companies: malibu media, xart


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 12:51pm

    "Would you look at the time..."

    Malibu Media will suddenly remember that they left the oven on, forgot to turn off the lights, left the spinklers on... basically whatever it takes to get out of the case as fast as possible.

    If they are guilty of what they're being accused of, they absolutely cannot have that come out in court where it can and will be brought up in future cases, so odds are good they are going to run as fast as they can write the letter dropping the case.

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

    • identicon
      David, 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:15pm

      Re: "Would you look at the time..."

      Too late. If they (or their agents) were seeding, they have to drop the case. Defense lawyers are watching, and if they drop the case, it will come up again and again, possibly ending much of their game. If they don't drop the case, and are discovered, they risk sanctions/etc.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:16pm

    This may not lead to anything, but it's fairly amazing that courts haven't been digging that deeply into Malibu Media's practices in similar cases.

    Courts don't dig; that's Guastaferro's lawyer's job. Johnson v. U.S., 780 F.2d 902, 910 (11th Cir. 1986). If Guastaferro can't afford to have his lawyer do the digging, this will not lead to anything.

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

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:19pm

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if the defendant who raised this defence is right, then it could be said that there's no case to answer here. After all, anybody who downloaded torrents seeded by Malibu Media are in the exact same position as those who purchased content sold by Malibu Media: legal owners of copies of films released by Malibu Media.

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

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:00pm

      Re:

      People who allegedly downloaded, because they can't prove who did it, would have saved whatever fraction of the $20 they would have paid for access to the whole catalog.

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

      • icon
        Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:22pm

        Re: Re:

        You mean those who allegedly torrented certain films, but were actually torrenting similarly named freeware? I phrased my statement the way I did because allegations =/= provable actions in every case.

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

        • icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think you are thinking of "The Good Uncle" and the case where there was confusion as some people were merely trying to DL the public domain film and ended up with some porn much to their shock and horror.
          Of course the lawyer pursuing that case was a bumbling fool who filed without having the copyrights, participated in the swarms of the gay porn he was demanding settlements for, and showed up at an adult industry convention in devil horns to play up how bad ass he was.
          Some guy with a Guy Fawkes avatar made his life unbearable & helped chase him out of porn... well that and the sanctions for him lying to a Judges face in court.

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

          • icon
            Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 7:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I never actually heard of that case before, I was simply referencing something I heard about a few years back that I can't remember the details of off the top of my head.

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

            • icon
              sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 7:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              4 years ago I compiled a list of the defendants in one copyright shakedown lawsuit that dealt with a single gay porn flick.

              Each of 244 Does received a demand letter, and each letter listed the actual title a victim tried to download. As you may see, >10% were wrongly targeted.

              The most disgusting is that the troll was aware, but it didn't stop this piece of shit from robbing laypeople.

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

            • icon
              That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 8:12pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I was discussing Evan Stone with the Good Uncle case, SJD points out the questionable actions on the Emule network where files could have multiple names.

              Some tried to leverage the, well you tried to violate someones copyright so pay us because we showed up.

              Emule was/is a terrifying place because of this, you could title a download "Snowden Leaks" and load up the archive with CP and he downloader wouldn't know until the file completed.

              Currently one can click magnet links posted, that do not have to reveal the contents until the transfer has already begun, and given the "Germans" 1 second hits someone who was mislead about a torrent could click stop as soon as they saw it wasn't a PD download yet still have a single recorded hit. Have their life turned over because of the claims that everyone who uses BT is a pirate out to "steal" billions of dollars of content. There might even be some evidence left behind, but the defendant never tried to infringe and stopped it when they saw it, and yet they need to face the $150K firing line.

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

              • icon
                Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 8:37pm

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

                Interesting info from both the sophisticated lady and the guy with the V for Vendetta mask, but I was literally referencing what I said; some people were downloading freeware from the Pirate Bay, then were quite surprised to discover .mp4 and .avi where they were expecting .exe in the zip files they received.

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

                • icon
                  That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 11:08pm

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

                  I am unaware of any lawsuits pursuing that on BT, so there are some small mercies in the world still.

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

                  • icon
                    Sheogorath (profile), 5 Aug 2015 @ 1:24pm

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

                    No, you're right, TAC. I misremembered what the actual phrase was. It wasn't BT as you say, it was the more wide phrase 'P2P software'.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:31pm

    This may not lead to anything, but it's fairly amazing that courts haven't been digging that deeply into Malibu Media's practices in similar cases.

    Yeah, it's so hard to find actual infringers that they must be making it up. Don't worry, I know how incredibly important stuff like this is to you. Anything to take eyes off of all of the infringers you so desperately, and "secretly," support.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:44pm

      Re:

      Think about it. If they are found to have seeded the files, then anyone who wants to can download them without recourse, though I cannot imagine why they would want to.

      While you are thinking about that, please explain the difference between bittorrent and a lending library (assuming the torrenters don't try to sell their downloads).

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 4:29pm

        Re: Re:

        What I think is that Mike loves stuff like this so he can point to the possible misdeeds of copyright owners and/or enforcers. He'll NEVER focus on the misdeeds of the millions and millions of intentional copyright infringers because he's fundamentally a dishonest person who can't even admit that he loves piracy and hates copyright.

        But, to your point, I haven't really thought about it. I can see how there's a good argument that seeding implies a license to download, but I'm not sure how that's comparable to a lending library. Just because you can borrow a book, that doesn't mean you have an implied license to copy it and/or distribute those copies.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 4:42pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders (who are often very different than creaters) and the extremes those groups go to to collect money that does not go to creaters.

          Implied licenses is not the point. If I borrow a movie, or a book, or a music CD from the library vs downloading it, what is the difference in the financial position of the rights holder? One can check any of those items out multiple times.

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

          • icon
            Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Libraries pay a licensing fee each time an item is checked out. That's why it's illegal to use bittorrent to share unlicensed content that you haven't created yourself. That's also why it's fine to use bittorrent to share copies of Audacity or Pixel Dungeon, for example, but Micro$##t might have something to say if you seed Security Essentials.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              For ebooks, apparently, but not for dead tree books. I also don't pay more to reread en ebook I own (I won't use Kindle or other DRM disabled ebooks).

              That the libraries are charged for each ebook borrow sounds like an extortionate money grab by the publishers. Why should ebooks be treated any different than dead tree book?

              I don't borrow ebooks from the library, never had a reason to.

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

              • icon
                Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 7:12pm

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

                So your library never lends out CDs and DVDs? F###ing legacy gatekeepers!

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 7:22pm

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

                  They do, I just don't avail myself of those services. I pay my cable fees and record what I might want to watch again.

                  Perfectly legal, and it drives certain greedy people crazy, which to my mind is an added, cost free bonus.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 2:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, because if that case is true, it came directly from the copyright holder. That emans that it was distributed legitimately, even though no money changed hands.

          This is not hard to grasp.

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

          • icon
            Bergman (profile), 1 Aug 2015 @ 6:53pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Exactly. This sort of thing is why there is no magic automated solution to determining what content on the internet is infringing.

            Take two files and seed them into BT. They are absolutely identical in every way -- same checksum, same file name, same format, and when read by player software both display the same thing. But one was seeded by a hacker-wannabe and the other was seeded by the legitimate copyright owner.

            Any automated system that currently exists will remove both because it can't tell the difference. But the thing is, the second file is 100% legal to download, because the copyright owner has the right to publish it that way.

            There's even a free speech issue in all of this -- when a law mandates that a copyright owner cannot publish their own copyrighted work, it violates their first amendment rights.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2015 @ 8:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Borrowing a book implies there is a physical (e.g. acutal libraries) or digital control (e.g. actual libraries or Kindle Lending Library) on how many copies may exist at a time. That doesn't fit the case here. The underpinning technology allegedly used by Malibu Media to sow the seeds (in this case it may be literal) of lawsuits doesn't truly allow for that type of control, enforcement, or oversight. If they seeded the torrent, then they effectively distributed it without condition to the public.

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

      • icon
        Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:28pm

        Re: Re:

        Bittorrent is entirely digital and each file comes in separate chunks from a multitude of users, whereas a lending library is primarily physical and each copy of work you borrow comes from a single location. Additionally, bittorrent results in a file you can keep for as long as you have use of it, a lending library features time limits. That do you?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not really. I have read the same book three or four times, from the library. The same goes for ones I purchased, oh and the same goes for the ebooks I purchased. The library allows extentions and allows me to check the same book out more than once.

          Feel free to check out the follow up question in the response post.

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

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:06pm

      Re:

      You understand that despite their protestations to the court and the media they target the people they swore they would never target.
      You understand that they target the name on the bill, without any evidence to support that claim.
      You understand when they get someone who is innocent who is fighting back they double down and threaten to run up the innocent mans costs defending against an action they know has no basis and is not brought in good faith.
      You understand that they publicly infer their targets enjoy CP and bestiality videos, to secure a speedy settlement.
      You understand they violate court orders and mislead the courts to hint at wrongdoing they can not prove even after their expert examined the evidence and came up empty as to evidence of being guilty so they throw more feces at the fan hoping some will stick and get them their settlement dollars.

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

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 7:25pm

      Re:

      "Yeah, it's so hard to find actual infringers that they must be making it up."

      No, it's hard to profit from actual infringers, which is what these clowns are trying to do. Try to look beyond your usual "dirty pirates!" schtick and take note of the fact that this purely abuse of the copyright system for profit. If you're really so sure copyright is the only thing preventing total cultural meltdown then you should be equally outraged against it's abuse by people who have zero interest in actually protecting artists or their output.

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

    • identicon
      Fin, 1 Aug 2015 @ 1:21am

      Re:

      Simply put. When millions and millions exercise civil disobedience the law is wrong.

      As long as the civil disobedience doesn't restrict the fundamental rights of all humans it either becomes defunct or if persuaded needs changing.

      History shows this will happen again and again. So moan all you want. But the battle between publishers and those generally making a quick buck on their behalf and the world is already won by those millions and millions you describe.

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

      • identicon
        observer, 3 Aug 2015 @ 5:13am

        Re: Re:

        It baffles me how they can acknowledge that there are millions of people who see no problem with downloads, but not take the logical next step. As you say, defying the will of the people is never a winning strategy in the long run: just ask the French aristocracy.

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

  • identicon
    Raul, 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:51pm

    Realistically this kind of discovery would cost a fortune as it would necessitate depositions and document production in Germany. Accordingly it will probably not happen. My hope is that this Order gets traction and sparks a judicial inquiry, at some point, like what Judge Wright did with Prenda. In the meantime I expect Malibu Media will offer generous settlement terms and this case will settle. On the other hand.....hopefully it will go the distance.

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

  • icon
    Groaker (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 4:02pm

    Fraud and more

    Would someone be so kind to explain why a seeder would not be guilty of a criminal act. Say fraud, extortion, or at least civil and criminal barratry.

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

  • icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 4:34pm

    ICYMI: A relevant article I wrote a year ago:

    Why do copyright trolls ignore the big fish (initial seeders)?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:35pm

    @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"

    AC, the US Constitution says: "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

    It's you and Mike who haven't read it. Nothing explicit about the public.

    The Copyright Clause is start of practical compromises so that "Authors and Inventors" can reveal their creations for public benefit without being ripped off by either individuals or commercial scale copying.

    Techdirt's position that the Copyright Clause is solely for public benefit is mere assertion that goes against the clear language. That you repeat Techdirt's position rather than quote the original is... well, typical of the site! It's faith-based teachings not actualities, let alone the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies -- yes, SOLE control: media only licenses you to read/view the content.

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

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 6 Aug 2015 @ 5:53am

      Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"

      Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      Science and the useful arts are promoted by securing for LIMITED times the exclusive right, not by the securing of the exclusive right.

      Exclusivity merely limits the use and development of the writings and discoveries to the rightsholder and the people they authorise to use them. It doesn't do much to actually promote them, it promotes instead the author/inventor's right to make money from them, and that's about it.

      Science and the useful arts are promoted when the information is made freely available and anyone who wants to can innovate on it. THAT is the benefit to the public.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:36pm

    @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"

    AC, the US Constitution says: "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

    It's you and Mike who haven't read it. Nothing explicit about the public.

    The Copyright Clause is start of practical compromises so that "Authors and Inventors" can reveal their creations for public benefit without being ripped off by either individuals or commercial scale copying.

    Techdirt's position that the Copyright Clause is solely for public benefit is mere assertion that goes against the clear language. That you repeat Techdirt's position rather than quote the original is... well, typical of the site! It's faith-based teachings not actualities, let alone the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies -- yes, SOLE control: media only licenses you to read/view the content.

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

    • icon
      sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:49pm

      Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"

      It is kind of ironic you invoke morality in a comment to the story about XArt.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:53pm

      Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"

      LOLOLOLOLOLOL

      Take the blinders off, and the MAFFIA's paycheck out of your ass.

      I noticed that you did not, or could not answer my question.

      Oh, I am now clicking report and will not engage you further as you only have one misguided point of view, and have proven that you misread enything your employers disagree with like the constitutions, copyright clause where the worrd 'sole' does not appear, along with other errors.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 4:12am

        Re: Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"

        The AC above isn't misguided.
        The only (SOLE) point of his posting isn't to convince or argue or anything else.
        Its 100% to derail the discussion in case someone pops up something damning or relevant to the case.

        This is why you get MPAA people posting random racist rants or suddenly out of the blue (see what I did there) saying stuff like women belong in the kitchen, it's ok to beat black kids etc......

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:02pm

      Nice cherry-picking there, can't possibly imagine why you only posted part of it(and of course your doing so is made even funnier by the '...rather than quote the original' line later in your comment).

      Now, let's see what the whole thing says...

      'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8'.

      As should be fairly clear by how it's written, in particular the 'To' and 'by' parts, the benefits to 'authors and inventors' are the means, not the goal. The goal is 'to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts', the exclusive rights is just the method to achieve that.

      If it was found that no copyright whatsoever, or copyright that lasted all of one week accomplished the goal better, then it would be fully consistent with the copyright clause to make those changes, no matter what that meant for copyright owners.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:38pm

      Re:

      Oh, look. It's out_of_the_blue singing his usual tragic love ballad to average_joe, who thinks that if corporations raise the price of healthcare and medicine, anyone who can't afford it should just die.

      Don't you two have to make out over a bed made out of baby bones or something?

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

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 7:33pm

      Re: @ "Mikes position is more along the lines that copyright is intended to benefit the public (read the Constitution) not just rights holders"

      "It's faith-based teachings not actualities, let alone the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies -- yes, SOLE control: media only licenses you to read/view the content."

      If you want creators to have sole control of copies (yes, SOLE control!) of their creations, perhaps you should turn your attention to the fact that the first thing most creators have to do when publishing their work is to completely relinquish that control to industry gatekeepers. There are few "actualities" in your claims of creator control.

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

    • icon
      ottermaton (profile), 1 Aug 2015 @ 4:39am

      quoting the Constitution out of context doesn't help your credibility

      Funny, just recently as I was reading the article "New Zealand Prime Minister Admits Drug Prices Will Rise Under TPP -- Leaves Out The Part About More People Dying" I was thinking (and nearly commented ... should have) "Where are the shills bemoaning 'the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies' even though that (twisted) form of "morality" will lead to people's deaths?"

      So, I guess now is as good as a time as any: Where were you on that issue? Afraid of showing your hypocrisy much?

      Not to mention you intentionally dropped the "by" from the phrase "securing for limited Times ..." in a feeble attempt to paint that action as the goal rather than the method. It's obvious, when viewing the entire phrase that securing the monopoly is simply the technique, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ..." which is to benefit ... I don't know, let's see ... the public! This feeble attempt at distortion is intellectually dishonest and destroys your credibility (as if you had any in the first place! ha!)

      And in response to this gem ...

      It's you and Mike who haven't read it. Nothing explicit about the public.

      ... I think this quote from Neal Stephenson says it best:
      β€œThe difference between stupid and intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety.”

      It's pretty clear on which side of that line you fall.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 8:29am

        Re:

        Oh, it's already very clear where out_of_the_blue stands on that topic. He's already posted, loud and clear: "If you can't afford it, do without".

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:12pm

    "it's fairly amazing that courts haven't been digging that deeply into Malibu Media's practices"

    It is much more terrifying that the courts have never asked if the lawyers aren't misleading the court, even as evidence of their contempt for the courts piles up.

    I have a rock, it keeps away tigers.
    One should demand that there be proof before we outfit everyone with tiger repelling rocks.

    I have a black box, it tells me who infringes.
    As long as I don't have to explain how, without technobabble and experts who coded in java once, and deal with the inability to identify the actual infringer with this tech so we will then demand fishing trips into peoples lives to pressure them into settling... because we will violate any court order that demands we live up to innocent until proven guilty, because someones reputation is worth more than a couple thousand.

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

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 31 Jul 2015 @ 10:15pm

    In four short words: I'm betting they are. Any way to rake in extra dollars by this mob isn't beyond the pale.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 4:05am

    Since Malibu Media refuses 100% to say where its funding comes from, shouldn't there be an IMMEDIATE investigation to see just how much the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS have given to them?

    AFter all, if they won't say where the funds are coming from, then they have zero percent chance of proving they AREN'T laundering cash for terrorists.

    THis would then reveal who the 'mystery men' are, or Malibu Media would suddenly find itself in gitmo.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 4:38am

    Abolish Copyright

    and the copyright trolls will go away.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 5:48am

    Should evidence come to light that the copyright troll is se4eding the media in question that they are shaking people down for downloading then should the copyright troll come out with the excuse that their ip address showing as being a seeder isn't prove of them seeding it then bang goes all their cases where they use the ip address is prove of the person downloading the file.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2015 @ 11:12am

    How are these precedents going to effect shareware?

    There are many products that are licensed free to use for non-commercial enterprises, but fee'd to commercial ones. Is that "seeding"? Would the courts definition of "seeding" reasonably describe the business model that built Netscape Corp?

    So while Copyright trolls are making some dirty moves, they aren't that much dirtier than conventional advertising. And in a lot of ways they are LESS dirty. I doubt Copyright trolls use the kind of psychologically invasive marketing techniques that are common in other markets.

    So there is a subjectivity here that could easily evolve into regulatory capture. More importantly, such regulatory capture would likely target distribution networks most commonly used by small producers of intellectual property.

    There is a difference between patent trolling, and copyright trolling. Patents are broadly scoped, and copyrights are narrowly scoped. We hazard ourselves for not giving that fact adequate deference.

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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