Adam Steinbaugh 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (39) comment rss

  • On the post: Our Legal Dispute With Shiva Ayyadurai Is Now Over

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 17 May, 2019 @ 11:43am

    Re: Millionaire MM now asks YOU to subsidize his lying!

    "By the way, DE FACTO, he's wrong on defamation law too." Hmm. Gonna agree with the federal judge who concluded otherwise, which is why (ahem) Shiva Ayyadurai had to appeal. I wonder how much Shiva Ayyadurai paid in lawyers' fees to have a link added to an article.

  • On the post: Gavin McInnes Files Laughably Silly Defamation Lawsuit Against Southern Poverty Law Center

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2019 @ 12:11pm

    Re:

    So there's an objectively falsifiable, legally-cognizable definition of "hate group"? What about "hate speech"?

  • On the post: Latest Filings In Our First Amendment Fight; Please Help Keep True Independent Journalism From Being Silenced

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2017 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Good Luck Guys

    Don't count on Techdirt being able to recover attorneys' fees, even if they're able to get the court to dismiss the action. Federal courts will often, if they can, dismiss using federal procedure, then rule that the anti-SLAPP motion is moot because the case has been dismissed.

    So if you haven't donated to the defense fund because you hope that Techdirt will win attorneys' fees, donate.

  • On the post: Latest Filings In Our First Amendment Fight; Please Help Keep True Independent Journalism From Being Silenced

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2017 @ 09:08am

    Re: Reputation Management

    Nice catch.

    The "one of the world's first" email systems line isn't a one-time slip-up. Ayyadurai's companies and websites have used that type of language for a long time. I've collected a few of them here: https://twitter.com/adamsteinbaugh/status/836223767974117380

  • On the post: The Completely Nonsensical Differences In Punishment For Revenge Porn Kings

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2015 @ 10:46am

    Brittain and the FTC

    Brittain got less than a wrist slap. The FTC has apparently never voted on whether or not to enter the consent agreement, even though it's been almost a year since it was first proposed.

    In other words, the FTC raised their ruler to slap Brittain's wrists, and then put the ruler down and wandered off.

  • On the post: Adam Miller Says He'll Reopen Bogus Copyright Lawsuit Against Critic, Declares 'War' On 'Communists' Who Mock Faith Healing

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2015 @ 07:17am

    Defense fund

    Guttormson apparently donated the fruits of her last legal defense fund, as she had promised, when Miller dismissed his initial suit following widespread criticism and attention to the matter.

    Now that the attention (and defense fund) has faded, he's again harassing Guttormson with the threat of vexatious, frivolous litigation.

    Guttormson has a second defense fund here.

  • On the post: Washington State Court Confused By Section 230, Says Backpage May Be Liable For User Posts

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2015 @ 04:25pm

    Unless SCOTUS takes it (which is... unlikely) or Washington's Supreme Court agrees to rehear it (also unlikely), ain't nowhere left to appeal.

  • On the post: City Of Inglewood Allotted $50,000 To Hire A Lawyer Flagrantly Abuse Copyright Law To Try To Silence A Citizen

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2015 @ 12:56pm

    Being optimistically pedantic here, but Inglewood didn't necessarily spend $50,000 -- they signed a retainer giving the attorney that amount, but that's for her firm to bill upon. Perhaps they believed that there was a decent chance this would go through substantial motion practice, so they needed a big warchest to draw upon. I think it's fairly clear that's not going to happen.

    So, if the attorney bills less than $50k on this case, Inglewood should get the balance refunded to them. And if we're judging the quality of Inglewood's opposition to the motions to strike and dismiss, Inglewood should get about... oh, I'd say, $50,000 back.

    That said, if Teixeira seeks his own attorney's fees (and he should), I suspect they'll be significant, and the total loss to Inglewood's citizens may be substantially more than $50,000.

  • On the post: City Tries To Silence YouTube Critic By Suing For Copyright Infringement

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2015 @ 11:50am

    Re: Bad faith argument

    The city might be right about the judicial notice issue, but I doubt it: they make a conclusory argument that there's some dispute about their authenticity, but they linked to the bloody videos in the complaint. In any event, I don't think it makes much of a difference: the city admits in its opposition that the videos contain added "derogatory" commentary. That's probably enough for the judge to toss the case even without taking judicial notice of the videos.

  • On the post: City Tries To Silence YouTube Critic By Suing For Copyright Infringement

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2015 @ 11:46am

    Re: copyright

    No -- you can register a copyright within three months of the first publication and still qualify for statutory damages. But the city didn't even come close to doing that.

  • On the post: Faith Healer Adam Miller Sues Over Critical YouTube Video, Guaranteeing It Tons Of Attention

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 09 May, 2015 @ 07:06pm

    Re: I thought this site was all about Free Speech

    You're right: he doesn't have to answer to a YouTube video he thinks is dumb. But the only person here who has to answer is the defendant, because Miller's dragging her into court.

  • On the post: Faith Healer Adam Miller Sues Over Critical YouTube Video, Guaranteeing It Tons Of Attention

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 07 May, 2015 @ 01:32pm

    Re: They haven't repealed their Anti-SLAPP law

    Unfortunately, Arizona's anti-SLAPP statute is limited to statements made to the government, and only some statements.

  • On the post: Faith Healer Adam Miller Sues Over Critical YouTube Video, Guaranteeing It Tons Of Attention

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 07 May, 2015 @ 12:40pm

    Someone managed to save Miller's responsive video, which was uploaded before the lawsuit was filed and (I believe) has since been deleted.

    The most interesting part, to me, is that he's accusing the woman of having engaged in "criminal activities" and asserts that he's going to "prosecute" her. Clearly hyperbolic (except to the extent that it might imply that she 'hacked' his account), but that's exactly what protects her speech.

  • On the post: Now That Basically All Revenge Porn Has Moved Out Of The US, Al Franken Says FBI Should Do Something

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2015 @ 01:07pm

    I think Franken's too late, but the FBI could have helped negate much of the controversy of revenge porn by acting sooner. 2257's regulations re: record-keeping -- assuming they're applicable to dedicated revenge porn sites -- are as close to a silver bullet as they come, because none of these sites kept anything approximating appropriate 2257 records. And the sole agency authorized to enforce 2257? The FBI.

    The FBI also could have done something about Craig Brittain's "IsAnybodyDown?" and "David Blade" extortion scam, which a number of people (including Ken White) have pointed out is wire fraud, among a host of other things. And if the FBI wants an easy way to quickly show Sen. Franklin that they're serious about the issue (in addition to the acts noted above), Craig Brittain is an easy and very well-known target. The federal statutes of limitations on both extortion and wire fraud are five years.

    But if the FBI/DOJ *really* wanted to have an impact, the last major revenge porn site -- which dwarfs any of those that preceded it -- is still active. Its operators might be hard to pick up, but it's not impossible, and the DOJ knows who they are.

  • On the post: Revenge Porn Site Owner Kevin Bollaert Sentenced To 18 Years In Prison

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2015 @ 09:32am

    One minor correction -- it was Bollaert's counsel (not the prosecutors) who brought up Brittain's lack of punishment.

    Bollaert was trying to make two related arguments with this: (1) that he believed his conduct to have been lawful (which would be a mitigating factor in sentencing) because two people (Brittain and Hunter Moore) had been all over the national news boasting about their sites without being charged; and (2) that Brittain's slap on the wrist from the FTC and Moore's potential sentence were comparable cases that the judge should use in determining what sentence Bollaert should get (i.e., probation or a few years' incarceration, but nowhere near the maximum.)

  • On the post: Court Tells AZ Legislator To Fix His Unconstitutional Revenge Porn Bill; He Immediately Makes It Much Worse

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2015 @ 11:52am

    One note: the court never found the law unconstitutional. Rather, before there was any motion practice at all, the state's attorney agreed that the law was probably unenforceable and negotiated a stay while the legislature re-works the law. Once the new iteration is passed, the plaintiffs will have the option of continuing their case, at which point the court will be able to proceed with reviewing the statute.

  • On the post: Sanctioned Revenge Porner Craig Brittain Says That Google Is Nothing But Copyright Infringement

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2015 @ 04:23pm

    Brittain's "I'm just interested in holding a big media company like Google accountable" is a facade so that he can try to knock out links critical of him without running the risk that the site's owners will ever find out. He won't put his money where his ever-running mouth is.

    If he sent a frivolous DMCA notice to me or my host, I'd sue in a heartbeat.

  • On the post: Shady Customer Complaint Site Charges $10,900 For Attempted Removals Of Negative Reviews

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 28 Jan, 2015 @ 06:00pm

    The site does, in fact, have an actual revenge porn forum -- titled "Revenge Lovers" -- distinct from its seedy "STD carriers" section. It doesn't have many people posted there quite yet, but I will note that a police report posted *on the site* indicates that the victim is under the age of 18 in the photos. Revenge child porn: a brave new frontier Breitenstein's site is exploring.

    Also, that "Sharon Eakins" who claimed to be my "landlord"? Turns out "Eakins" is also the maiden surname of one of Breitenstein's relatives. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

    And lastly, Breitenstein changed his Facebook profile name to "Dzianis Mohamed" to respond to Women Against Revenge Porn.

    ComplaintsBureau is totally real. Totally.

  • On the post: Roca Labs Sues Opposing Lawyer, Marc Randazza, Because Of What We Wrote On Techdirt

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2014 @ 06:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Read my comment in response to the post. The guy who runs that site (or someone working with him) apparently creates fake reviews. He found out I was going to be writing about his "revenge lovers" (aka revenge porn) section. Lo and behold, a complaint from my "landlord" appears a few days later accusing me of raping children, trashing my apartment, and bailing on the rent. And, shockingly, the "landlord" has the same last name as one of the site owner's relatives.

    I'm by no means a perfect person and have made plenty of mistakes in the past, and will likely do some things in the future that I'll later regret. There's plenty to criticize me for, but this ain't one of them.

    Also, the First Amendment has nothing to do with whether you can comment on a private site. Given your interest in being a "digger" into my background, your unclear English, and your lack of basic understanding of what the First Amendment means, I frankly wouldn't be surprised if you were affiliated with Roca.

  • On the post: Roca Labs Issues Bogus DMCA Takedown Notices To Google To Try To Hide PissedConsumer Reviews

    Adam Steinbaugh ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2014 @ 06:20pm

    Re: Is it possible...

    Doubtful. I've exchanged a number of emails with their principal, who indicated that he knew that the motion for a preliminary injunction (against PissedConsumer) was a long shot, but felt it was necessary to try to force some type of policy change with respect to the CDA. That was my takeaway from the exchange, anyway. So I think they get that their cases may be long-shots, but think they have SOME chance of success, however remote.

    Or they're just making some kind of stand which is unlikely to convince anyone anywhere that the CDA should be changed.

Next >>