The following day, Friday, March 13, 2015, was my birthday. I was distracted and in a hurry and filed the documents erroneously.
(While I say "he," the text is most like written in Miami: I don't believe the Troll Center would let an inexperienced stooge handle such a serious situation unsupervised.)
Beside attacking Jason Sweet ("Defense counsel is a well-known anti-copyright lawyer" — this is funny!), our drama queen claims that it was him who notified the clerk. I would take it with a grain of salt given the way how he described a similar "mistake" in the Bellwether case:
Once Plaintiff and its counsel were made aware of the mistake, the clerk was immediately contacted and the problem was resolved
I know the circumstances of that event: it wasn't plaintiff's counsel who contacted the clerk.
While I don't claim that the defendant's name exposure was a deliberate action and not a blooper, the results of the poll above are telling: even given that the sample is admittedly biased, it's obvious that there is zero trust in what copyright extortionists say. And plenty of disgust of what they do.
There is no commercially available service that can even take advantage of the top-tier bandwidth. You don't need 50Mbps down to use Hulu, Netflix, iTunes or anything. Who the hell pays for 50Mbps down? P2P file-sharers. That's who pays. That's on the Internet side, they're making profits from those who want to file-share.
1. Chartier pisses off crew workers, including those who have access to pre-releases. 2. Pissed off workers leak pre-releases to the torrents as a revenge. 3. Chartier and his German friends shake down file-sharers. 4. Profit.
Like a sculptor works his magic by removing unnecessary mass, Tim crafted this peace by carefully removing any mentions of an infamous misguided editorial posted in the Chicago Maroon (University of Chicago student newspaper).
The Chilling Effects haters, no doubt, would argue that this is why it's important to remove Chilling Effects itself from Google, because people searching on Google might not find the originals, but would then find the takedown notices with links back to the originals.
In the dark 1930s in Russia there was a concept of “smuggling under the cover of criticism.” No matter how you cursed at an ideological enemy (essentially everyone not singing panegyrics to the Leader), if you quoted him/her, you could be prosecuted and sent to a labor camp.
The confusion is resulted from the first (wrong) link in the article. Should be this.
None of the Hansmeier's ADA lawsuits is a class action: class action lawsuits were mantioed in relation to his amateurish attempt to become a "professional objector," which is a different type of extortionate practice.