Comments on: Judge to copyright troll: your lawsuits are shams, give it up http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Thu, 23 May 2013 21:22:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Jake0748 http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1138946 Jake0748 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1138946 Good. Yay, Chief Judge Hunt. We need many more like you. Good. Yay, Chief Judge Hunt. We need many more like you.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1138954 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1138954 some of us aren't 50 some of us aren’t 50

]]> By: zikman http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1138982 zikman Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1138982 I'm 22 years old. I started caring 4 years ago. I’m 22 years old. I started caring 4 years ago.

]]> By: querent http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139242 querent Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139242 Jumping off the pier is fun! Jumping off the pier is fun!

]]> By: geoelectric http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139766 geoelectric Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139766 Anon, normally I'd agree but if they're caught out for deliberate misrepresentation of their copyright ownership status, then the settlements may become fraudulent transactions. That cannot be nullified by a contract, since the contract itself would become void in such circumstances. Here's an example of how a legal settlement would be nullified in an analogous situation: http://www.ehow.com/list_6826494_justifiable-nullify-accident-settlement-agreement.html Anon, normally I’d agree but if they’re caught out for deliberate misrepresentation of their copyright ownership status, then the settlements may become fraudulent transactions. That cannot be nullified by a contract, since the contract itself would become void in such circumstances.

Here’s an example of how a legal settlement would be nullified in an analogous situation: http://www.ehow.com/list_6826494_justifiable-nullify-accident-settlement-agreement.html

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139006 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139006 I've been following EFF (and FSF - Richard Stallman - before them) since they started and have yet to disagree. Stallman tends to jump off the pier occasionally, but he's been basically right. Gatting back to the main point, IMHO the past victims of RIghthaven, those who have been conned into settling, are due total refunds, plus any legal fees. If I'm not mistaken, they also, collectively, have a civil class-action case against Righthaven and Stephens, jointly. In addition, I believe there is a substantial fraud and criminal conspiracy case against Righthaven and Stephens Media. I’ve been following EFF (and FSF – Richard Stallman – before them) since they started and have yet to disagree. Stallman tends to jump off the pier occasionally, but he’s been basically right.

Gatting back to the main point, IMHO the past victims of RIghthaven, those who have been conned into settling, are due total refunds, plus any legal fees. If I’m not mistaken, they also, collectively, have a civil class-action case against Righthaven and Stephens, jointly. In addition, I believe there is a substantial fraud and criminal conspiracy case against Righthaven and Stephens Media.

]]> By: Gulliver http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139016 Gulliver Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139016 Can I care retroactively? Cuz there's lots a crap that went down before I got here that concerns me. Can I care retroactively? Cuz there’s lots a crap that went down before I got here that concerns me.

]]> By: Cowicide http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139043 Cowicide Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139043 EFF, Fenwick & West LLP, and Chad Bowers ... <i>You all fuckin' rock!!!!!!!!!!!!</i> EFF, Fenwick & West LLP, and Chad Bowers … You all fuckin’ rock!!!!!!!!!!!!

]]> By: spocko http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1138789 spocko Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1138789 So the question is, do the people they got settlements from get their money back? So the question is, do the people they got settlements from get their money back?

]]> By: Laroquod http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139566 Laroquod Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139566 None of this can hold a candle to what it felt like to start caring 125 years ago… None of this can hold a candle to what it felt like to start caring 125 years ago…

]]> By: MrJM http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1138802 MrJM Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1138802 It's been 10 years and I'm still waiting for the Electronic Frontier Foundation take a position with which I disagree. Huzzah, EFF! Huzzah! It’s been 10 years and I’m still waiting for the Electronic Frontier Foundation take a position with which I disagree.

Huzzah, EFF!

Huzzah!

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139092 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139092 This seems appropriate: <Nelson> Ha ha! </Nelson> This seems appropriate:


Ha ha!

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139118 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139118 No. That's the thing about settling. It's settle, regardless of future outcome. Those that settled could try to sue saying they got shook down... but its usually in the settling contract language that both parties agree it's not a shake down. No. That’s the thing about settling. It’s settle, regardless of future outcome. Those that settled could try to sue saying they got shook down… but its usually in the settling contract language that both parties agree it’s not a shake down.

]]> By: Vnend http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1138881 Vnend Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1138881 You only started caring 10 years ago? Because the EFF is 21 years old. You only started caring 10 years ago?

Because the EFF is 21 years old.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1139962 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1139962 It seems like this would have been covered under common law prohibitions against barratry (harassing litigation) and champerty (3rd parties involved in litigation). Too bad we've mostly done away with those protections in our enlightened age. Champerty was considered contrary to the public good because 3rd parties did not have a legitimate interest in the suit. That is, they might have bought into the lawsuit by, for example, buying up debts or copyright claims, but they hadn't really suffered any damages. When debts can be transferred for a few cents on the dollar, people could (and did) buy up all of an enemy's outstanding debts, then demand immediate payment in full. Also, nickel and dime suits that wouldn't have been worthwhile for the original plaintiff are brought by these 3rd party trolls. That's inimical to the public interest because defendants are disproportionately damaged while the original plaintiffs are not made whole, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry http://www.overcounter.org/post/2880824164/economics-of-the-lawsuit-factory It seems like this would have been covered under common law prohibitions against barratry (harassing litigation) and champerty (3rd parties involved in litigation). Too bad we’ve mostly done away with those protections in our enlightened age.

Champerty was considered contrary to the public good because 3rd parties did not have a legitimate interest in the suit. That is, they might have bought into the lawsuit by, for example, buying up debts or copyright claims, but they hadn’t really suffered any damages. When debts can be transferred for a few cents on the dollar, people could (and did) buy up all of an enemy’s outstanding debts, then demand immediate payment in full. Also, nickel and dime suits that wouldn’t have been worthwhile for the original plaintiff are brought by these 3rd party trolls. That’s inimical to the public interest because defendants are disproportionately damaged while the original plaintiffs are not made whole, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
http://www.overcounter.org/post/2880824164/economics-of-the-lawsuit-factory

]]> By: sdmikev http://boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html#comment-1138942 sdmikev Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1138942 Could be that a decade is the length of time he's followed them. About the same for me, FWIW. Could be that a decade is the length of time he’s followed them.
About the same for me, FWIW.

]]>