Welcome to the century of the copyright troll: Prenda Law was just the beginning


13 Responses to “Welcome to the century of the copyright troll: Prenda Law was just the beginning”

  1. spacedmonkey says:

    The problem is that the laws are made by lawyers.  That’s a glaringly obvious conflict of interest.  It sure would be nice if we could just automatically disbar anyone whose name is on a DMCA notice that turns out to be false, but that’s not going to happen as long as the rules governing lawyers are made by, wait for it, lawyers. 

    • austinhamman says:

       “If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be
      otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty
      lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and
      talk by the hour? That one hundred and fifty lawyers should do business
      together ought not to be expected.” ~thomas jefferson

    • L_Mariachi says:

      Yeah, it would be much better if our laws were written by people untrained in law. And our building codes shouldn’t be written by engineers, and our furniture shouldn’t be built by carpenters. Don’t even get me started on dentists — why would 80% of them recommend sugarless gum if it were good for your teeth, when they have a vested interest in your teeth needing as much work as possible?

      • AnthonyC says:

        There is a distinction: dentists learn about medicine and dentistry, and engineers about science, both of which have externally verifiable criteria of truth and success. Law is a discipline that eats its own tail to a much greater degree. In part, it’s about writing and speaking precisely. In part, its about knowing the history of the field to be sure exactly what the words the other lawyers are using.

        We can’t quite right laws in plain everyday language – there needs to be a standard vocabulary consistent over time –  but the *ideas* that go into the laws should mostly come from relevant people who need not be lawyers.

  2. anon0mouse says:

    And THAT, my friends, is why we are F@*&d.  Prenda or no.  Hopefully, they’ll get disbarred, but they’re only one roach in a $#!t smeared kitchen.

    • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

      There are those of us who shine forth a beacon on these things, illuminating the dark things trolls want hidden.
      We ring the bell, we raise the alarm and somehow a blind eye is turned.
      I might not be the best poster child, but you don’t send nice people to war.

      Without the work done by Sophisticated Jane Doe, DieTrollDie, and so many others… Prenda would still be in business.  The threads of their unmaking might have started to show, but without all of the pulling done by the Anti-Copyright Troll Community they would have taken yet another name to whitewash the history and started again.

      Some of us are trying to clean the kitchen, but we need to overcome the people who want to shift the focus to if our hands are clean.

  3. nixiebunny says:

    The other big problem here is that the legal system’s procedures assume that lawyers are honest. (I know, I know…) This results in serious attention being paid to blatantly bogus claims and motions.

    I followed the ten year saga of SCO Group v IBM etc. on groklaw and a few boards. It really startled me how little attention judges pay to common sense, instead plowing forward for years on legal claims that could be disproven in a few hours. 

    • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

      Not just the system, but average people seem to think lawyers would never lie.  That if they send me this letter there must be some real claim and problems.
      Picture those people who show up in threads where you have video of a cop beating someone who did nothing to deserve it… and they will give you all of the possible reasons the target deserved it even if you can see from beginning to end they did nothing wrong.  People want to assume cops are here to protect and serve, anything they do is to keep all of us safe and bad people deserve bad things.

      On paper the claims were technically correct, it is what happened when the courts gave them leave and stopped looking over the shoulder that things went sideways.

  4. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    “It’s not always true – in many cases, an ISP subscriber is protected from liability for others’ downloading”

    Unless you belong to the big ISPs who all signed up for 6 Strikes. 
    Who needs to use copyright law when corporate law can supersede it?

  5. peregrinus says:

    I’ve always wondered why we keep feeding the monkeys.  Most entertainment is now so non-entertaining that I really don’t contribute much at all to the entertainment economy, although I’m plenty entertained.

    It is, though, an issue to be taken care of.  As society develops and changes, the law needs to respond (or, be prepared in advance haha).  Right now we’re in a period of sociological upheaval, and need to revisit the old assumptions.

    • Anton Gully says:

      Or, possibly, the old assumptions don’t need to be revisited because none of it is relevant –  the assumption, what it’s about and who made it, none of it will matter in a post-monolithic-entertainment-monopoly world. 

      That’s my hope.

      I just started reading Pirate Cinema last night (so I’m about a quarter of the way through it already because… compulsive) and it’s a sensationalistic account of what’ll never be, extrapolated from what already is. Right now the money is all coming from the corporate side of things but cash is a crude tool.

      Mickey Mouse will never go out of copyright – I was listening to the WTF podcast with Rob Schneider recently in which he, of all people, was gleefully anticipating the copyright on Steamboat Willy reverting to the public domain, but it’ll never happen and it doesn’t matter.

      The social nature of humans and the leverage that technology provides means that you can buy all the laws in the world but at some point either everyone becomes a criminal or you just have to give up because it’s costing you more to enforce than you’re ever going to get back. You can’t criminalize the instinct to share culture. Or you can, but it won’t take.

      Who is going to support an entertainment industry that regards people who want to be entertained as crooks who have to be wrangled like animals, when there are so many alternatives available for free, or better yet which you WANT to pay for or contribute towards?

  6. evilenginenumbernine says:

     The plan was to sell sex toys through the mail with inflated claims of sexual efficacy from a discreetly named toy shoppe. Then when the users returned the obviously crappy toys, send them a refund check with an effusively vulgar company name so that they’d be afraid to cash it. I agree that it’s pretty much the definition of what the porn trolls are doing. They may have even gotten the idea from that movie. Because, as Bacon puts it, “Who wants their bank manager to know that they tickle arse when they’re not paying checks.”

Leave a Reply