This Week In Techdirt History: July 21st – 27th
from the that-was-that dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2014, traffic to The Pirate Bay was yet again surging following an attempt to block it. The copyright revolving door was in full swing, with the main architect of PIPA becoming an MPAA lobbyist alongside one of Hollywood’s favorite former congressmen. Italy’s public prosecutor seized a giant webmail provider and cloud storage provider for shaky copyright reasons, a San Francisco eviction lawyer was abusing the DMCA to censor a protest video, and a musician whose work was at the center of a copyright lawsuit against YouTube slammed the lawsuit and copyright itself.
Meanwihle, The Intercept revealed the US government’s guidebook for putting people on the no-fly list, as well as the stunning extra scrutiny such people were then put under. And an ex-official from the State Department suggested that the NSA has even worse surveillance programs than the ones everyone was focused on.
Ten Years Ago
Sometimes there are shockingly perfect parallels between the present week and the past. Yesterday, we reported on Tulsi Gabbard’s frankly insane lawsuit against Google — and this week in 2009, we reported on a gamer suing Sony with the same non-starter claim: that the company violated his First Amendment rights by banning him from a PS3 game. One might have hoped this sort of constitutional nonsense would stay relegated to random gamers, rather than being elevated to presidential candidates.
Also this week in 2009: LSU was fining students for filesharing while apparently deeply misunderstanding the RIAA’s demands, copyright lobbyists and government officials were celebrating bogus piracy stats, BREIN was demanding the Pirate Bay itself start blocking Dutch ISPs, and the Associated Press announced its ill-fated plan to DRM the news.
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2004, panic gripped the copyright maximalists of Europe in the face of a looming horror: some popular rock songs starting to enter the public domain. The research director for the BSA admitted that the group misleads the public with how it describes its statistics, by changing “retail value of pirated software” to “sales lost to piracy” — a massive change, but subtle to those who don’t follow the subject closely. Nevertheless, Congress was pushing forward with the INDUCE act to fight piracy, holding hearings where the Copyright Office gave a full-throated endorsement of the bill and Orrin Hatch seemed not to notice that he basically admitted banning P2P systems is wrong. Congress was also pretty gung-ho on passing some sort of anti-spyware bill, details be damned. And this was also the week that Lindows became Linspire, after Microsoft gave up and just paid Michael Robertson a cool $20-million to buy the name.
Comments on “This Week In Techdirt History: July 21st – 27th”
This week in Techdirt history, you wrote about the wrong guy. I’m Richard Liebowitz, and I’m going to sue each and every one of you. Did you really think I would be cowed by your ridiculous article? I eat big media companies for lunch and dinner, and Techdirt will just be a light snack between meals. So, before I file, I will give you an out. Apologize. Say you’re sorry, say you did’t mean it, say it was just an error on your part, and I will forget about it. Both my client and I will forego the legal process if we receive a public apology. I just don’t think you understand that hard working attorneys and hard working photographers are entitled to as much respect as anyone else. Companies like Tech-dirt think they are immune to the law, immune to consequences and immune to justice. Not so. The law is on my side, and my client is the victim in the case you cite. Now, we are both victims of your defamation and slander. Apologize. Or else.
Re: Re:
Hmm. The thing I don’t understand is why Techdirt targeted this guy in the first place. He looks like the “robin-hood” of creative artists. He defends people who have been robbed by large corporations, and gives them a voice via court filings. I never heard anyone say he claims were bogus, he only files cases for people that have been ripped off. Why go after this guy? He’s helping artists. Who are you helping? The Chinese?
Re: Re: Re:
Getting those IP addresses to work again eh Hamilton?
Shiva Ayyadurai’s copyright on his own code really worked wonders for him in the court case, did it?
Re: Re:
I’m sorry, what is your definition of "large corporation" that would include a not-for-profit political blog?
Especially a not-for-profit which used one photo, took it down at first notice of infringement, offered $1000 to make it right (when it would have been just $200 to have complete editorial rights from the beginning), and may have had a genuine fair use claim to keep using it eternally without legally having to pay a cent?
If he was truly taking from the rich to give to the poor, he would be taking from the photographer, who is a for profit, and giving to the blog, would he not?
And either way, reporting on court documents isn’t defamation or slander. You can keep on digging deeper, but sooner or later, you’ll have to realize you’re standing on the septic tank.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I saw in original article that Leibowitz lost future potential business because of this particular moniker that was incorrectly applied to him. Many commenters thought he was criminal-like, deceptive and unreliable.
Lost money. Lost business. Lost reputation. And without any way to refute the term, because it has no meaning, other than a criminal connotation that should disqualify someone from the practice of law in the eyes of potential customers.
How nasty you guys are. How unwise the judge is. Who can remedy this error?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, I saw in original article
And I saw in original article that he didn’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Liebowitz is the only person who can fix this. All he has to do is quit digging.
Re: Re:
"His litigation strategy in this district fits squarely within the definition of a copyright troll."
Re: Re: Re:
Did she look that up in a law book? Did she consult Lexis/Nexix? Squarely? Really? Tell me again why a judge is inventing terms, interpreting opinion, and using personal animus to redefine the law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, Wait, I know, I studied law, my name is Mike Masdick. Oh, well, I flunked out and quit, but I learned a lot while I was there! Drunk mostly, usually high, irresponsible, the privileged child of very rich parents, but I LEARNED THIS LESSON, yes I did, just give me a minute, I’ll write an article.
Squarely, you see that has meaning. Usually, it means there are four criterion for passing the "troll test", as defined by (who again?), well, oh wait, I remember! Two tests, like two corners of a square, such that the result is a square result, that’s it. Squarely, troll, yes, Hmm.. I think it means they had too many cases. No, that’s not it. It means they won too many cases. No, rats, let me think.
Oh yeah, read Slade, that’s it! They said he’s a troll, and bad one at that. That’s where the judge learned that language, that’s a reasonable reference, just like the FBI and the CIA use, public news outlets, they’re reliable! Slade! Troll!
Whew. That was a tough one. But I’m right! I’m absolutely SURE about THAT!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Poor, ignorant, racist, and stupid is no way to go through life bro.
Re: Re: Re:2 How much money did he spend per vote?
Remember when you were sure about a Real Indian beating a fake one? What percent of the vote did yo boy get again? Was it just slightly over a rounding error?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please go on – tell us why you are qualified to tell a Judge with a law degree that she doesn’t know what she’s doing.
I’m dying to hear this one!
Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry, but the term has been widely used and recognized for over a decade.
That’s longer than dabbing, which is quite well-litigated already.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Then you would have no trouble explaining "squarely" in terms of multiple objective criterion that would allow a lay reader (or even a judicial reader) to make a determination and who is and who is not a troll.
Is every attorney that blusters about how expensive it will be to defend against them in order to "sell" a settlement proposal a troll? Because that’s pretty much all of them.
It is attorneys with a large number of cases filed in the past? How many? What’s the threshold?
What exactly are the four corners of objective criterion that the judge is referring to in this particular case. Can you (or anyone) articulate them?
No? Then you’re just judicial activist assholes inventing law that doesn’t exist to support your own personal biases.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"That’s just being a bully and yes, if looking for a payout because someone can’t afford to defend themselves, a troll."
Ok, if the defendant can’t afford to defend themselves, then you’re a troll.
And the judge is mistaken to apply the term in this case. You would agree with that. The defendant has millions of dollars in public and private contributions. That’s a well known fact.
Neither Leibowitz, nor his client, is a troll.
And yet you (and the judge) defame them anyway.
Shameful. I hope he sues you for defamation.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And yet you (and the judge) defame them anyway.
I don’t think you know what that means. Liebowitz already tried to get those remarks stricken from the record, and they were upheld.
You can keep explaining that the judge didn’t use Lexis-Nexis to come to that conclusion – and we will keep laughing at you.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Well, now that I know for CERTAIN that Leibowitz is reading these threads, I figured that giving him some more ammunition for his future legal arguments might be a useful public service.
I still don’t see “four corners” test to fit “squarely” into with regards to being a “troll”.
Do you have one, genius? Or are you just as full of shit as the judge with nothing useful to say?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Yeah… remember when you said that you were certain the judge in Ayyadurai vs. Masnick was reading the site?
Certainly helped the judge kill off Techdirt for good, didn’t it? All the prayers and Shiva/Melania fanfiction dreams really helped you out there!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Or are you just as full of shit as the judge with nothing useful to say?
I can say without a doubt in my mind that you are clearly off your meds again. Please see a doctor.
Also – I’d like to see your bar permit since your unhinged argument revolves around your practice of law. Fraudster, and a troll like your hero Leibowitz.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I really like what you’re saying. And you’re an "insider", right? You’re an agent of Techdirt, with your own "insider" badge.
Tell me more about what you really think, pussy.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I really like what you’re saying.
Thank you! My comments don’t get flagged as spam, so I must be doing something right.
And you’re an "insider", right? You’re an agent of Techdirt, with your own "insider" badge.
I signed up for an account. I had to consult Lexis-Nexis but I figured it out.
Tell me more about what you really think, pussy.
Strong words coming from a coward who can’t cite, can’t refute, and has lost his fuckin shit because a Judge called his pal a lousy troll. Bug trolls gotta stick together bro.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Do you have one, genius? Or are you just as full of shit as the judge with nothing useful to say?”
You still mad because Shivas judge told you bitches to get stuffed?
By the way how much dick did he have to suck to get the money to pay for that absolute shambles of a lawsuit?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Which "absolute shambles" are you referring to? And why would you think people would pay me to suck their dick? Do people pay you to suck your dick? Do you pay people to suck your dick? How much dick sucking and payment systems are you familiar with as it relates to your question about funding lawsuits. I heard about lawsuit funding, can you get it if you suck dick? If I let someone suck my dick, will they pay for a lawsuit? Can I meet them first, maybe have lunch?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
And why would you think people would pay me to suck their dick?
I don’t get it either.
Goodness knows nobody thinks your blowjobs are worth paying for, despite your whore mouth.
Re: Re: Re:8 Hamilton’s a little bitch
Like most bitches. You can dish it out but you can’t take it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Objection, there’s no need for language like that. Female dogs do not deserve to be lumped in with hypocritical, dishonest scum like that.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Goddamn hamilton you got an extra full nappy today.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You went from being Leibowitz to just defending him real quick bro. The real lawyer send you a C and D already?
Re: Re:
Hi AC!
Please tell me the time about when you first had sex, in an outhouse, with your mom… and a goat. Oh and don’t forget to tell us about how you like to eat little children for dessert!
Re:
Please cite what Techdirt said about Liebowitz that would qualify as actionable.
Re: Re:
i don’t recall if i even commented on the article, but come find me anyway.
Not sure which law(s) these are to which you refer. Facts are facts, and opinion is protected.
Now, if you have large warchests you are willing to use to silence people by bankrupting them via litigation, that’s one thing, but has nothing to do with the law or who is right. That’s just being a bully and yes, if looking for a payout because someone can’t afford to defend themselves, a troll.
Re: Re:
Bring it on motherfucker.
Re: Re:
Hey hamilton in the immortal words of your butt buddy Jhon crybaby smythe. “Bring it on motherfucker.”
You best watch out though. Dick Lie bowitz is a bad enough lawyer to sure your dumb ass for defamation and impersonation.
It’s not to late to apologise bro.
This Week in TD
Judge calls Richard Liebowitz a copyright troll in court. TD reports on it.
Trolls go nuts, hilarity ensues at trolls lose their shit. Can’t cite or refute to save their lives. Self help authors are still scam artists.
News at 11.
Somehow I had missed our post this week about a first amendment lawsuit regarding video game muting – so I didn’t even call out the most coincidental parallel between 2009 and now.
Re: Re:
i had actually wondered about that a bit, but both are good.