Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Prenda Law shall troll no more.

<< < (2/5) > >>

40hz:
They really don't need an advisory in that most federal justices will defer to precedents set by other rulings. They're not necessarily obliged to do so. But in most cases they will. So the simple fact this is on record bears substantial weight throughout the federal court system.

What's really at issue here is the validity of John Doe warrants based on no more evidence than an active connection on a given IP address at the time of the alleged infringement. Dubious at best - and considering how an IP address can be spoofed, hardly incontrovertible proof of guilt. But unfortunately, little of this current sideshow (beyond judge Wright's earlier skepticism) addresses that issue. As Wright said at the hearing:

 "It should be clear this court's focus has shifted dramatically from litigation of intellectual property rights to attorney misconduct — such misconduct as brings discredit to the profession,"
--- End quote ---


So right now it's all about Prenda's abuse of the legal process and professional misconduct. And that alone is what they're in real trouble for. Not for bringing such weak cases before the court, but rather for the procedural shenanigans they tried to pull when they did so.

What is truly unfortunate is the fact this all revolved around lawsuits for downloading pornography - an industry judge Wright can play hardball with without fear of much in the way of public censure. Had this been the RIAA or MPAA things might have gone differently - although I doubt either group would have been so foolish as to let their lawyers play so fast and loose with the law that they'd be in this situation to begin with. (Credit where credit is due, I guess. Sorta.)

Either way, it's pretty apparent that most of the parties involved will loose their license to practice law. And a few will likely face some jail time too. And that's about as good as it will probably get.

But for the time being, it's enough. :)

Onward! :Thmbsup:

kyrathaba:
At least it sends a message to the world of those practicing law: Hmm, better actually pay attention to my duty to the law and what's ethically acceptable...

app103:
Did anybody stop to wonder where they originally got the IP addresses of the people they extorted?

What if they set up a website somewhere meant to appeal to a certain demographic, one most likely to suffer the greatest embarrassment, and logged the IP addresses of those that accessed it?

What kind of evidence do lawyers have to present to convince a judge to order an ISP to reveal the identity of the customer that had that IP address at the stated date & time?

Is it as simple as "We logged this IP address. See, here's the log"? Does anyone ever really question what the logs are really from?

How hard is it to fake "evidence" to make a person look guilty? Does anyone ever question the authenticity of the evidence?

Could one set up a site providing information on menopause or prostate cancer, log the IP addresses of those that access it, and then accuse them of copyright infringement, claiming they were sharing porn?

kyrathaba:
Scary questions, app. And the answer is ... I don't know. Could something like that happen? Sure seems possible in today's low-morality screwed-up legal system.

TaoPhoenix:

Damn App, you hit the iceberg with a hammer. Because you're right:
**AA: "Your Honor, ____ Doe as represented by IP# _____ infringed my IP material."

And as we are learning from email spoofing and robocall spoofing, when the "prize" is in thousands of dollars per entry-item, what exactly stops more twerps from playing the Prenda game? That's why I was calling for strong judicial guidance, because the **AA has gathered lots of allies trying to assist them in their agenda.

And I have to keep mentioning the cautionary tale of Righthaven, which was sorta Prenda's predecessor, and they basically got off scott free. Where was this judge in that case?

And remember SCO? Remember how that managed to drag on for years with very little proof?

So yes, the law is quite erratic.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page