Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EFF Jumps In To Defend Bloggers Being Sued By Prenda

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the you're-going-down dept.

Electronic Frontier Foundation 87

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has entered the fray to defend the bloggers sued by Prenda Law Firm. Prenda, oblivious to such well known legal niceties as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the affirmative defense of truth, the difference between a defamatory statement of fact and the expression of a negative opinion, and the First Amendment, has immediately — and illegally — sought to subpoena information leading to the identities of the bloggers. I would not be surprised to see these "lawyers" get into even more hot water than they're already in. And I take my hat off to the EFF for stepping in here."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can I sue Slashdot for libel? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144385)

I'm not a coward, I just haven't registered yet. :p

Re:Can I sue Slashdot for libel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144635)

I'm not a coward, I just haven't registered yet. :p

Naw, AC is just a term of endearment. ;-)

AC's are the backbone of Slashdot (3)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145083)

Without them the site would descend into a blob of corporate gruel.

Re:AC's are the backbone of Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43146369)

Amen!

- Wal-Mart Stores ©

Re:Can I sue Slashdot for libel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145235)

Yes you can que Slashdot for libel, in fact I queued your moms ass last nite LOL

Re:Can I sue Slashdot for libel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145321)

That was his Dad's ass, you faggot!

Re:Can I sue Slashdot for libel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43147587)

"In my own defense, I must add, I thought him a girl at the moment of entry. "

EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144391)

EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases. They aren't around to help with more low-profile, but just as scary attempts to stifle free speech such as the Scuba Board [glassbox-design.com] lawsuit. As I recall, about a decade ago, when approached to help with a similar libel lawsuit brought on by one John Novak against people critical with his company, the EFF said they don't help with "routine libel cases".

Sheesh.

Much more helpful is the lawyer at Pope Hat [popehat.com] , who helps bloggers and other being attached with frivolous libel suits, whether the suits are high-profile or low-profile.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (5, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144875)

EFF has limited resources, money, man power.

As much as they may want to, they simply cannot take on every case that crops up. They have to go for higher profile ones, at least in part because it helps get them donations that they obviously use to take on other cases; plus they no doubt vet a case before agreeing to take it on, just because someone is decrying the end of free speech does not mean that there are not other facts in play that they simply aren't telling people in the news articles.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43146375)

So what your saying is they only support freedom when it is profitable and convenient for them to do so? The problem with there approach is that cases like this are where it is the easiest for defendants to find support as there are lots of freeloaders like the EFF that want to leverage it for publicity, while the less public cases that could really use support are left to rott.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146519)

"So what your saying is they only support freedom when it is profitable and convenient for them to do so?"

No, dipshit. The EFF is a non-profit, they do not sue when it is "profitable."

They have limited resources. Ever hear the phrase "pick your battles?"

If they try to fight every case, they go under within months and NOBODY wins, and no legal precedents are set.

Jesus fuck, are there really people this fucking clueless?

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146841)

I may be mistaken (IANAL) but this is a civil case (someone is being sued), so there will be no binding precedent set. The case may, however, be taken into account by the presiding judge.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43146973)

IAALSAAAC (I am a law student and an anonymous coward) and civil case law sets precedents just as criminal case law does. As you might imagine, civil case law precedent generally only effects civil cases, though that is not necessarily the case and depends on the nature of the precedent set.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (3, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43147911)

IAAPWUIAAMOQCAMOWTINNTETM (I Am A Person Who Uses Initialisms As A means Of Quickly Conveying A Message Only When There Is No Need To Explain The Meaning).

Surgeon General's Warning: This comment may contain irony.

Re: EFF only helps with the most high-profile case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148321)

You might want to take an English class of you're going to school to be a wordsmith. "Effect" doesn't even sound right you idiot.

Re: EFF only helps with the most high-profile case (0)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153847)

The word is being used correctly.
Buy a dictionary.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (1)

strikethree (811449) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157461)

Jesus fuck, are there really people this fucking clueless?

Yes; although some are just trolls.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43146989)

...never go full retard man

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43147039)

...never go full retard man

I think he reached 11. So it can be done!

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145335)

Ken from Popehat is awesome, but he does not personally provide representation to all the defendants he covers in his blog; nor does his law firm. (He has represented defendants in important first-amendment cases, but he writes about far more cases on his blog than he personally handles.)

What Ken does is send out the "Popehat Signal" -- basically, writing up the cases on his blog and asking for help -- in hopes of finding local lawyers who are willing to represent those defendants pro bono.

While this is certainly good, it is different from what the EFF does, which is actually provide counsel at their own expense. Ken doesn't have to pay a penny (well, hosting charges...) to send out the Popehat Signal. You shouldn't judge the two activities by the same standards.

Further, the EFF has newsletters, a website, and so on, in which they also engage in similar publicity activities to Ken.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (4, Informative)

Chryana (708485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145679)

Moreover, they're late to the party. There's been stories running at Arstechnica for months on how people associated with Prenda have been making asses of themselves in court, and downplaying their ties to the firm (By the way, if you have ten minutes to spare and enjoy reading these lawyer stories, you could do worst than to read this one [arstechnica.com] .). Funny how nobody appears to ever have been in Prenda's payroll, doing charity work for them or something. So yes, I'm not sure how much help these bloggers really need from the EFF as Prenda will probably have ran itself into the ground on its own pretty soon anyways.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149137)

EFF went after Prenda in one of their trolling lawsuits, Hard Drive Productions v. Does 1-1495. They are not strangers.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43146049)

One would figure as the EFF becomes more high profile, they would get involved with low-profile cases. As a user commented they have limited man power, but that seems like an excuse to defend the group, I would find it hard to believe other lawyers who actually have heart, and care for what they are fighting for, over obtaining fat wallets would become more involved with the EFF.

I do respect the EFF but I have had my issues with how they handle certain cases, when I'm sure any lawyer young or old that cares would more then likely get involved without the EFF stepping in. To me they take advantage of cases like this to only boast there own image, but I fear by doing so they will not stick to any principals that require them to help anyone and everyone defend against bad litigation when it comes to the internet. To me at this point they seem no different then a Lawyers who only handle injury claims, but will not handle cases that lead to an accident when there is no major injury but blatant evidence of wrong doing on someones part.

Good link you posted.

Re:EFF only helps with the most high-profile cases (2)

KGIII (973947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146611)

I ran into Pope Hat just the other day when I first came across this story. I'm not sure if I should be suing anyone but I spent the next couple of days pretty much glued to his site and the links that I found on his site. I added some overly large number of new bookmarks and have been perusing since. While Pope Hat is great and there may be some overlap between PH and EFF the reality is that they're not the same and that EFF has an entirely different goal.

I'm waitnig for the counter suit by EFF (5, Interesting)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144403)

Deliberate negligence, All costs x 3. When will they actually start enforcing the false claim rules in DMCA. The fines can be Very high.

Re:I'm waitnig for the counter suit by EFF (4, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144789)

Because the false claims section is toothless crap [cornell.edu] (c-3-A-v and vi). The only bit that is enforced by penalty of perjury is the declaration that the declarant represents who they say they do. The claim that the material is infringing isn't covered by perjury at all, just a "good faith belief".

Re:I'm waitnig for the counter suit by EFF (4, Informative)

micheas (231635) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145417)

Because the false claims section is toothless crap [cornell.edu] (c-3-A-v and vi). The only bit that is enforced by penalty of perjury is the declaration that the declarant represents who they say they do. The claim that the material is infringing isn't covered by perjury at all, just a "good faith belief".

However it appears that Prenda Law was not representing who they said they were representing. So this could be one of those rare times that the false claims section comes into play.

One thing that is not clear from the reports is whether or not the head of litigation at Morrison Foerster's LA office made a personal appearance on behalf of Verizon or not (He is listed as one of Verizon's attorney's on the declaration submitted by Verizon).

Re:I'm waitnig for the counter suit by EFF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43150945)

True, not only is Prenda Law not representing who they say they are, but their copyright claims are entirely not made "in good faith" because of this.

Re:I'm waitnig for the counter suit by EFF (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145349)

This isn't a copyright case. It's a libel case. Yes, Prenda are copyright trolls, but the particular case the EFF is getting involved in -- the one that involves bloggers -- is not a copyright case at all.

As such, the DMCA has nothing to do with it.

IANAL.

Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1, Interesting)

leftie (667677) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144413)

Prenda found someone to represent them. Orly Taitz.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (4, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144499)

> Orly Taitz

You can't make this shit up.

Well, this will definitely provide considerable ongoing entertainment. I feel sorry for the judge(s) though.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (4, Informative)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144613)

> Orly Taitz

You can't make this shit up.

Well, this will definitely provide considerable ongoing entertainment. I feel sorry for the judge(s) though.

I get what you mean, hoo boy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz [wikipedia.org]

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

jeremyp (130771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43147749)

OMG. The Wikipedia lists 17 court actions that she was involved in and none of which she won. Of particular interest is the one she lost in spite of the fact that the defendant (Barak Obama) failed to show up.

Who would hire her as a lawyer.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149089)

Well, as stated below, right now it is an unsubstantiated rumour that Orly Taitz is a lawyer for Prenda. Though who knows, since it seems Prenda's lawyers don't appear in court anyway.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (2)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149339)

Well, as stated below, right now it is an unsubstantiated rumour that Orly Taitz is a lawyer for Prenda.

It's an interesting rumor. It has the fascinating effect of lowering the credibility and reputation of both the clients and the legal team at the same time.

Lowering the reputation of either party should be impossible. Doing both simultaneously? Pure genius. Maybe they're hoping for some kind of numeric underflow where sufficient negative reputation rolls over into maximum positive reputation.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149343)

That's kinda scary. Take a look at her. She has two eyes, a nose, a mouth, two arms, two breasts - I presume there are two legs supporting her. She looks rather normal, if aging and weatherbeaten. Why don't nutcases look - well - NUTS? Hell, she looks almost attractive in this pic: http://api.ning.com/files/aOwvTWeocChEvVtCkbqfW6Uo45XBuD57L8oP1qFoQ1VghmM*TDK5dv3uBytUBnjlWB6IQzYzZMP2zaS4kGkSZib6LNzoUSzA/Taitz2.jpg [ning.com]

Alright, I scrolled through Google's images of Orly, and the above is the only image of her that wouldn't scare me sober if she hit on me in a bar. Good God - I had no idea that a Jewish girl could be THAT homely!

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43153541)

...simply stunning. Thanks for the entertaining read!

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145387)

It appears that you can make this shit up, because I can find no evidence to suggest that Prenda Law has any connection whatsoever with Orly Taitz.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145653)

It appears that you can make this shit up, because I can find no evidence to suggest that Prenda Law has any connection whatsoever with Orly Taitz.

Agreed. I googled the shit out of it, and the only reference to it was leftie's comment. MOD GP DOWN!

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145525)

I'm reminded of the Simpson's episode where Bart gets swindled by his lawyer after suing the Krusty Corporation.

Hutz: Good news, Bart: the Krusty O Cereal Corp. has settled your case for $100,000, less, of course, my legal fees.
Bart: [suspicious] What kind of legal fees?
Hutz: [looking nervous] Well, for a case this complex, I had to assemble a crack team of lawyers: Ronald Shaporo, trial attorney, Albert Dershman, who can hold three billiard balls in his mouth.
Bart: How much of the hundred thou do I get?
[Hutz hands him a check]
Bart: $500?!
Hutz: Yes, well, er --
Bart: Cool!
Hutz: Let's roll.
[they speed off in a white pickup truck]

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

_merlin (160982) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144691)

Seriously? The same Orly Taitz who's the queen of the "birther" movement?

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145103)

ya rly

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144933)

Orly?

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145297)

I parsed that as "Oily Tits" until I went to her Wikipedia entry. Birthers, Truthers, the idiots that think the military-industrial complex had JFK killed, now even people who think the Newtown shooting was contrived by Obama; the list of crackpots goes on and on. If I were this judge I'd laugh her out of my courtroom.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145535)

If I were this judge I'd laugh her out of my courtroom.

Check out the section starting with "Attorney misconduct". "Borders on delusional" my ass. She's lots touch with reality.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145833)

She borders on delusional from the far side, after wrapping around a few times.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43147515)

Who do you think killed JFK? A lone guy with a P.O.S. bolt action Italian rifle that wasn't even sighted in properly, firing from a bad angle, who managed to fire 3 shots in 5 seconds and score 2 hits on a moving target? Not only is that impossible, any idiot that watches the film of the assassination can clearly see that at least one shot was fired from the front.

I don't know who killed JFK or why, I don't know where Barack Obama was born and I don't know the story behind 9-11.
I DO know that the officially sanctioned government versions of these events are BS and a cursory examination of openly available evidence and government statements reveals many obvious flaws in the official narrative.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (2)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43147685)

A lone guy with a P.O.S. bolt action Italian rifle that wasn't even sighted in properly, firing from a bad angle, who managed to fire 3 shots in 5 seconds and score 2 hits on a moving target? Not only is that impossible

Difficult, but not impossible. Any well-trained marksman would be able to make those shots.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149473)

"Any well-trained marksman would be able to make those shots."

I have my doubts. You might have to define "marksman". Long, long ago, in another century, when you could still find mastodons roaming - - - Well, maybe I'm overdoing it there.

Anyway, as a kid, I met some soldiers down at the creek where I routinely hunted. They wanted to see how good a shot I was, so they called off some targets for me to hit. Easy shots, but they all seemed amazed that I could make the shots. One of them asked to borrow my rifle, and he couldn't hit shit. That encounter stuck with me for years. Every one of them had marksman's ribbons. Each and every one. But they were amazed that a kid was hitting easy targets less than a hundred yards away, with a .22 rifle.

Lots of people claim to be marksmen, and expert marksmen, even snipers. I'm always shickled teatless when I meet a REAL marksman.

And, yes, a real marksman could have made those shots. Some wannabe who worked hard to qualify for a badge couldn't do it, but a real marksman, yes.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150813)

By 'marksman', I was thinking of professionally trained marksmen, but then Olympic athletes could also count. Of course, if you train with a specific rifle, doesn't necessarily make you a marksman with other rifles. Ultimately though, I don't think this is enough to erode the point I was trying to make, which is that the shots were not impossible.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43159611)

Certainly not impossible. Basically, I was just checking - not everyone who has carried a weapon in the line of duty could have made those shots. They were tough shots. I ain't real sure that I could ever have made them. But, I've met a number of men who could. ;^)

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

jeremyp (130771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43147777)

The film JFK was factually incorrect.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43148123)

Define 'sighted in properly'. It only takes a few shots to know how far off the sight is, and then you can easily compensate for that.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (2)

niado (1650369) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149251)

Since 1989, the "officially sanctioned government version" of the JFK assassination has been that it was likely carried out by some kind of conspiracy [wikipedia.org] . Unfortunately the original investigation was badly botched and so much time has passed that we will never know the real story. This is a shame, as even wild speculation cannot be ruled out.

There is basically no valid evidence [wikipedia.org] indicating that President Obama is not a "natural born citizen". I am sympathetic with the principle here, and I think that US Presidential candidates should be more publicly vetted, but the whole birther movement has no basis in fact and jumped on the ridiculous train at the very beginning.

The 911 conspiracy [wikipedia.org] stuff is a little more complicated, but it seems that most of the conspiracy theories have been rejected by independent groups.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150127)

Four words: Gerald Posner, Case Closed.

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43145619)

Orly? [imgur.com]

Re:Prenda puts Orly Taitz on retainer (1)

Internal Modem (1281796) | about a year and a half ago | (#43147939)

-1 Not True.

Link to EFF financials (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144429)

Does anyone have a link to a more recent EFF Financial statement than this one? [eff.org]

If not, then why is 2009 - 2010 the latest?

Why is this pertinent to the article? Chewbacca wants me to get them.

In other news.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144511)

The hearing scheduled for today to decide the fate of Copyright Troll Brett Gibbs has concluded, and it was apparently very bad for Prenda et al.

Adam Steinbaugh was in attendance and has a quick run through on his twitter account [twitter.com] . Wen White was also there and is currently writing a detailed recap to be posted on popehat.com later tonight.

While I am amazed and pleased at the attention this saga has been getting, I think it's important to remember that while the wide audience is merely entertained or amused by these proceedings, for the innocents like me who have had their lives turned upside down by Prenda this is more than simple entertainment-- it's justice.

Re:In other news.... (3, Interesting)

akboss (823334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144563)

Still waiting on the judge to find those "lawyers" in contempt and order them arrested and extradited back to face him. I want to see Marshals breaking down doors.

Re:In other news.... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149537)

Oh. Yeah. That's a FEDERAL COURT! The judge can do that, can't he? I'm more accustomed to Podunk Hicktown court rooms. Extradition is only considered in murder cases and the like. Hmmmm - yes, that is very interesting!

you can't tell players apart even with a scorecard (4, Informative)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146503)

It's so confusing that you can't even tell the players apart, even with a scorecard.
;>)
Here's an interesting tidbit about the trial that shows how much of a clusterfuck this all is: one set of lawyers couldn't even figure out if they themselves belonged on the plaintiff's side or the defendant's side for picking their seating/table at the trial (bride's side?, groom's side?, wtf?):
The strange hearing produced such a mix-up of roles that even the lawyers had lawyers -- and people didn't know where to sit. Prenda's erstwhile attorney Brett Gibbs cut ties with Prenda Law after the firm found itself in a messy bind regarding the practices it used to serve lawsuits to hundreds of Does suspected of illegally downloading porn; he hired his own attorneys to represent him at the hearing. "I'm not sure what side we're supposed to be on," said one of them as he tried to decide whether he belonged at the defense or plaintiff table.

--- from the 3rd paragraph of arstechnica article [arstechnica.com] from March 12th, 2013.

Re:you can't tell players apart even with a scorec (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149451)

The strange hearing produced such a mix-up of roles that even the lawyers had lawyers

Yo Dawg, I heard you like billable hours...

Always the optimist (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144527)

Unfortunately, such optimism is not justified. The copyright absolutists have friends in all three branches of government, and their harsh and punitive stance plays well with harsh and punitive judges, especially when the defendants aren't all that sympathetic. The rules of procedure will be bent well past the breaking point for them, while ridiculously narrow interpretations of the same rules will be applied to the defense.

Re:Always the optimist (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144713)

They're having a bad day in court [arstechnica.com] while the judge questions them as to why a witness they offered to testify about the company apparently knows absolutely nothing about who owns it or calls the shots. When two people have accused the firm of identity theft (both of whom actually managed to show up in the courtroom, unlike the Prenda folks, who complained it was too hard), things are NOT looking good for them.

Also they may have failed to notify someone of a stay in discovery. At this point, I can only hope that the judge elects to use some Federal Marshals to put a stop to their shenanigans. Right now, my First-Amendment-protected opinion is that they resemble Orly Taitz in all the wrong ways. But they're free to sue me for saying that if they want to provide me with a free front row seat to their Waterloo.

Re:Always the optimist (1)

able1234au (995975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146405)

They may have problems suing AC's

Re:Always the optimist (1)

ShaunC (203807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149497)

Their entire "business model" revolves around suing John Does. They wouldn't hesitate to sue an AC.

Re:Always the optimist (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43149619)

Nahhh, they'll just subpeona Slashdot for the IP address, then decide who was most likely to be using that computer. Of course, when I posted, I proxied in through North Korea, Australia, Canada, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Mexico, and finally the UK. So, they'll be knocking on the door at Scotland Yard soon, trying to find me.

Re:Always the optimist (4, Informative)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about a year and a half ago | (#43150417)

You and the people who modded you up have no idea what this story is about. Try reading it next time.

This isn't about copyright holders suing people for infringement. This is about lawyers partaking in fraud and/or extortion by representing fictitious copyright holders.

It's a scam. One could argue that the big media copyright holders are also engaged in a scam, but their scam is (perhaps unfortunately) legal. What these lawyers are doing isn't legal -- they create shell companies and to act as clients they can sue on behalf of to scare people into coughing up money.

What big media copyright holders do is legal, however unfortunate that may be. This isn't about the validity of our copyright system, this is about a criminal organization that has just been caught red-handed. The copyright absolutists have as much reason to detest these guys as the anti-copyrightists. These guys are making judges re-examine the process and how easy it is to manipulate, which in the long run will be very bad for the copyright absolutists you complain about.

You would have every reason to be optimistic if you read the fucking story!

They have other things to worry about (5, Informative)

pswPhD (1528411) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144611)

Prenda have much bigger things to worry about than the EFF. They have really annoyed a federal judge, and may be guilty of perjury, contempt of court, fraud on the court and identity theft. Probably a couple of other offences as well.

Prenda isn't finished yet, but given the recent hearing [techdirt.com] they probably won't be around much longer

Re:They have other things to worry about (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145411)

Lincoln Sternn [Prenda], you stand here accused of 12 counts of murder in the first degree, 14 counts of armed theft of Federation property, 22 counts of piracy in high space, 18 counts of fraud, 37 counts of rape...
[pauses to check rap sheet] ... and one moving violation. How do you plead?

Re:They have other things to worry about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145999)

Hannover Fiste: Prenda? They're a cup overflowing with the cream of human goodness. I have never known them to do anything immoral. Unless you count the preschooler's prostitute ring.

Re:They have other things to worry about (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146015)

Why did the Loknar go after Stern? Was he competition?

Re:They have other things to worry about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43149561)

I've always believed that the Loknar is simply the paragon and ultimate manifestation of "teh lulz". Faceless, arrogant, self-aggrandizing... it was Anonymous before Anonymous was Anonymous.

Re:They have other things to worry about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145603)

They have really annoyed a federal judge, and may be guilty of perjury, contempt of court, fraud on the court and identity theft.

So they'll be fined 50% of profits and have to sign something saying they'll obey the law next time like all the other white collar fraud cases? "Justice", right.

Re:They have other things to worry about (3, Informative)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146937)

So they'll be fined 50% of profits and have to sign something saying they'll obey the law next time like all the other white collar fraud cases? "Justice", right.

You missed the "really annoyed a federal judge" part. Pissing off the judge with your shenanigans in the court room is a good way to ensure you get absolutely zip clemency in sentencing other than the minimum required by law (and, in this case, federal court procedure). If convicted, expect Prenda to get something rather stricter than a slap on the wrist.

The best part? They're representing themselves. They've got fools for clients and nitwits for lawyers.

Bloggers Being Sued By Panda (3, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43144777)

That's what I read due to the tiny font on my phone. Durn letigigious pandas.

Re:Bloggers Being Sued By Panda (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144973)

Pandas are Neither Dumb or Leggy you insensitive cod.

Ah the lawyers are always evil to little guys (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43144821)

I love it when someone who is obviously upset, has no real understanding of whats going on and doesnt really care by using lots of quatations. These so called "lawyers"...yeah they are called lawyers because thats what they are. Dont blame lawyers, they are just doing what they are paid to do, thats file suits when their paying clients want them to.

That whole entry sounds like its written by another hack blogger he is talking about. Someone that preaches about rights, how the lawyers are performing illegal activities and so on. It sounds like some moron in his basement wanting to be pissed off at something and assuming that because someone writes blogs they are instantly the most virtuest and righteous person on the planet and every big wig is out to silence him from telling the truth and using his consititutional rights as an american citizen to spew out any bullshit he wants.

Its like everyone thinks they have the right to free speech and that somehow magicially means anytime anyone ever tries to step in they are being villified or singled out. Maybe people who get censored get censored for a reason. Just because you can and say whatever you want doesnt mean you should. Assuming you can is about as stupid as the guy who runs up to the president saying he is going to kill him and then being mad secret service kick the shit out of him and saying "But Im an american citizen I have the right to say I want to kill the president. ITS IN THE CONSISTUTION!!!!" and expecting that alone to save his ass.

Re:Ah the lawyers are always evil to little guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145381)

Gosh, that's just fascinating. Please, tell us more about what you think of the imaginary version of the submitter that you made up.

Re:Ah the lawyers are always evil to little guys (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146259)

So we shouldn't blame anyone for doing bad things, as long as it's legal and they are paid to do them? Great news for the Taliban, slave traders,....

Re:Ah the lawyers are always evil to little guys (4, Informative)

able1234au (995975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43146417)

They are not representing the copyright holder but instead they told the copyright holders to let them go fishing for offenders and collect fees for not prosecuting. This is a form of racketeering. This is what the bloggers are complaining about and what pendant is unhappy about. Prenda won't reveal the real agreement with the copyright holder which appears to be them taking a big cut.

Shanghai shunky (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145309)

It is good post. I like it very much.

http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk

Shanghai shunky (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145329)

It is good post.
http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk

First popsT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43145651)

BSD's acclaimed LEARN WHAT MISTAKES world's Gay Niiger and promotes our of user base fo8 about half of the Hot on the heels of operating systems

common street thugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43148289)

How are these guys any different than common street thugs doing strong arm robbery on elderly little old ladies? Yes, they have suits and apparently went to law school, and are trying to use the Federal Court system to shake down whom ever they happen to come across. So, how is this different from simple robbery? Why not some serious jail time?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?