6 ms·

This is probably meta in the uninteresting sense but, thoughts: 1) many trolls who focus purely on shakedown settlement letters, Liebowitz runs straight to cou

by netcan 7y ago

This is probably meta in the uninteresting sense but, thoughts: 1) many trolls who focus purely on shakedown settlement letters, Liebowitz runs straight to court to leverage the power of an expensive court case to push for insane settlements. - - Worrying. Why isn't there a bugfix coming? If the court system is so obviously exploitable... I guess shutting down a troll business model is better than nothing, but.. This just basically shooos the problem away from courts and back into the expensive exchange of threatening letters... which is also and abuse of the legal system. 2) IP laws are important, and growing in importance as "intangibles" becomes a major class of assets, by way of corporate books. Just IP related lawyering (contracts, advice, courts, judges...) is a massive industry, nevermind the stuff it lawyers about. Precedent is not really supposed to be the tool for this job, is it? Laws need to be written to be enforceable logically. At the least, they need to avoid creating obvious messes like patent trolling. I'd argue the sheer level of lawyering (measured in €) a type of asset attracts can be a sign it's been poorly defined.

squiggleblaz 7y ago
Precedent is a way of writing laws. Basically legislation is usually not so detailed, nor even necessarily capable of being so detailed, to handle every singe case. Precedent makes judges decisions predictable, since judges are bound to continue doing what they've already done until the legislators (or a superior court) changes that. The alternative is the French system, where each case is taken separately and you can't really be certain how the decisions are going to be made (except that they informally apply a precedent like system). I don't really know if the terminology is right here - basically, the judge has said "there's already a fix in the system for this woe, maybe we should use it..." I'm not really sure what the alternative dispute resolution process your talking about is. Are you suggesting a mandatory licensing fee system like radio stations use?
- derekp7 7y ago
  If the court determines that someone is improperly using them for a shakedown, that person goes to jail. Best fix I can think of.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    You have to be formerly accused of that shakedown, but yeah, that can definitively happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
- netcan 7y ago
  A way. It's not an all-purpose tool though. The alternative isn't civil law. The alternative is legislation, cleaner legislation preferably... reform even. It doesn't need to be on a massive scale, but it needs to do at a legislative level what this judge did/tried. Find a way that this type of copyright enforcement isn't ordinarily settled in such a lawyerly way. His approach isn't bad, it's just outside of scope to do it properly via precedent.
  - squiggleblaz 7y ago
    There's legislation in the matter. The precedent is just that it can be used, also in this case. Or you're proposing trolls should keep trolling till the congress considers it important enough to write a law that says "the law we wrote applies in this case, also"? At what point does it stop? Must Congress foresee every action before it happens? The alternative isn't civil law and I didn't say it is. I said the alternative is not being able to predict the judge's decision expect for the fact that they're following precedent unofficially.
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    Do you think a legislative remedy is likely given the current state of our legislative branch? I for one am glad the judicial system has the ability to reinterpret old laws in new situations, because we would end up with anarchy and confusion if we had to wait for congress.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    His approach... The judge in this case is Denise Cote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Cote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Cote
ikeboy 7y ago
Why is suing over copyright infringement an "exploit" of the court system?
- netcan 7y ago
  To me, the simplest indicator is ration of lawyering/other stuff in a business model. For or the purposes of this article/case, I think we can just go by "this was trolling and trolling is bad" based on what the judge said & ruled. Not sure how interesting the "is trolling bad?" question is irl.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    The judge hasn't said the case is frivolous. He's just required to post a bond in case he loses. This guy is notorious for filing large numbers of cases. That doesn't mean they're meritless. He does this for many different clients, and those clients have their own businesses. It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.
    - netcan 7y ago
      * It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.* Effectively, he is. Whether it's buying, licensing or taking an option (what he actually is doing)... he's basically acquired the right to sue for money and keep the earnings. The troll business model is the same whether he's formally representing clients for a (presumably large) cut or buying up portfolios.
      - ikeboy 7y ago
        So your belief is the lawyers in a case need to have significant non-legal business in order to not be trolling?
        netcan 7y ago
        I mean what I said above. A business model whereby (1) one sits under a bridge made of copyrights/patents, or options to that effect and (2) uses the legal system (usually letters, but also litigation/etc.) to bully settlements out of passers-by. In this case, (1) get the right to sue for profit on photos. (2) Find an infringer or grey area (3) sue (4) Try to get a settlement smaller than likely damages.. because "it's cheaper and less scary than court." Did you read the article? The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle. This is literal trolling, bridge, big teeth and all. He doesn't care about the damages/rulings, all he cares about is causing enough legal costs to bully the defendant into a settlement.
pitaj 7y ago
> IP laws are important They're important in the fact that they do immense damage to our economy, with perverse incentives and rent seeking everywhere. There is little no evidence that IP improves innovation or even benefits creators as whole. There are instances like this all the time showing what a terrible system it is. Copyright and patents shouldn't exist at all, and especially shouldn't in their current capacity. http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
- mlyle 7y ago
  Copyright shouldn't exist at all? If you write a song or a book, or film a feature film, you should be able to sell one copy (and then cheap copycat commodity production can take over) and that's it?
  - pitaj 7y ago
    There are many ways to monetize without the government granting monopolies on certain information. Including but not limited to subscription services, exclusive showings, advertisements, serials, donations, and Patreon
    - mlyle 7y ago
      Donations and patreon, etc, sure, I can buy... but I don't think they'll pay for a feature film with a $150M budget. Basically all the others require some sort of publisher exclusivity or friction on republishing that just doesn't exist today. I also fear that ... trying to get exclusivity through restrictive contracts in the absence of copyright protection could be a cure worse than the disease.
      - pitaj 7y ago
        > but I don't think they'll pay for a feature film with a $150M budget. Films get a majority of revenue from the box office. They could sell high-quality masters to streaming services, etc etc > Basically all the others require some sort of publisher exclusivity or friction on republishing that just doesn't exist today. One "friction" is convenience. People will pay to get a lot of art in one place, to get it in guaranteed high quality, and to get it quickly. > trying to get exclusivity through restrictive contracts in the absence of copyright protection could be a cure worse than the disease. Except the difference is that contracts only apply to those who agree to them. Copyright applies to everyone.

by netcan 7y ago

squiggleblaz 7y ago

Precedent is a way of writing laws. Basically legislation is usually not so detailed, nor even necessarily capable of being so detailed, to handle every singe case. Precedent makes judges decisions predictable, since judges are bound to continue doing what they've already done until the legislators (or a superior court) changes that. The alternative is the French system, where each case is taken separately and you can't really be certain how the decisions are going to be made (except that they informally apply a precedent like system). I don't really know if the terminology is right here - basically, the judge has said "there's already a fix in the system for this woe, maybe we should use it..." I'm not really sure what the alternative dispute resolution process your talking about is. Are you suggesting a mandatory licensing fee system like radio stations use?

derekp7 7y ago
If the court determines that someone is improperly using them for a shakedown, that person goes to jail. Best fix I can think of.
- icebraining 7y ago
  You have to be formerly accused of that shakedown, but yeah, that can definitively happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law
netcan 7y ago
A way. It's not an all-purpose tool though. The alternative isn't civil law. The alternative is legislation, cleaner legislation preferably... reform even. It doesn't need to be on a massive scale, but it needs to do at a legislative level what this judge did/tried. Find a way that this type of copyright enforcement isn't ordinarily settled in such a lawyerly way. His approach isn't bad, it's just outside of scope to do it properly via precedent.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  There's legislation in the matter. The precedent is just that it can be used, also in this case. Or you're proposing trolls should keep trolling till the congress considers it important enough to write a law that says "the law we wrote applies in this case, also"? At what point does it stop? Must Congress foresee every action before it happens? The alternative isn't civil law and I didn't say it is. I said the alternative is not being able to predict the judge's decision expect for the fact that they're following precedent unofficially.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  Do you think a legislative remedy is likely given the current state of our legislative branch? I for one am glad the judicial system has the ability to reinterpret old laws in new situations, because we would end up with anarchy and confusion if we had to wait for congress.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  His approach... The judge in this case is Denise Cote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Cote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Cote

ikeboy 7y ago

Why is suing over copyright infringement an "exploit" of the court system?

netcan 7y ago
To me, the simplest indicator is ration of lawyering/other stuff in a business model. For or the purposes of this article/case, I think we can just go by "this was trolling and trolling is bad" based on what the judge said & ruled. Not sure how interesting the "is trolling bad?" question is irl.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  The judge hasn't said the case is frivolous. He's just required to post a bond in case he loses. This guy is notorious for filing large numbers of cases. That doesn't mean they're meritless. He does this for many different clients, and those clients have their own businesses. It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.
  - netcan 7y ago
    * It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.* Effectively, he is. Whether it's buying, licensing or taking an option (what he actually is doing)... he's basically acquired the right to sue for money and keep the earnings. The troll business model is the same whether he's formally representing clients for a (presumably large) cut or buying up portfolios.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      So your belief is the lawyers in a case need to have significant non-legal business in order to not be trolling?
      - netcan 7y ago
        I mean what I said above. A business model whereby (1) one sits under a bridge made of copyrights/patents, or options to that effect and (2) uses the legal system (usually letters, but also litigation/etc.) to bully settlements out of passers-by. In this case, (1) get the right to sue for profit on photos. (2) Find an infringer or grey area (3) sue (4) Try to get a settlement smaller than likely damages.. because "it's cheaper and less scary than court." Did you read the article? The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle. This is literal trolling, bridge, big teeth and all. He doesn't care about the damages/rulings, all he cares about is causing enough legal costs to bully the defendant into a settlement.

pitaj 7y ago

> IP laws are important They're important in the fact that they do immense damage to our economy, with perverse incentives and rent seeking everywhere. There is little no evidence that IP improves innovation or even benefits creators as whole. There are instances like this all the time showing what a terrible system it is. Copyright and patents shouldn't exist at all, and especially shouldn't in their current capacity. http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

mlyle 7y ago
Copyright shouldn't exist at all? If you write a song or a book, or film a feature film, you should be able to sell one copy (and then cheap copycat commodity production can take over) and that's it?
- pitaj 7y ago
  There are many ways to monetize without the government granting monopolies on certain information. Including but not limited to subscription services, exclusive showings, advertisements, serials, donations, and Patreon
  - mlyle 7y ago
    Donations and patreon, etc, sure, I can buy... but I don't think they'll pay for a feature film with a $150M budget. Basically all the others require some sort of publisher exclusivity or friction on republishing that just doesn't exist today. I also fear that ... trying to get exclusivity through restrictive contracts in the absence of copyright protection could be a cure worse than the disease.
    - pitaj 7y ago
      > but I don't think they'll pay for a feature film with a $150M budget. Films get a majority of revenue from the box office. They could sell high-quality masters to streaming services, etc etc > Basically all the others require some sort of publisher exclusivity or friction on republishing that just doesn't exist today. One "friction" is convenience. People will pay to get a lot of art in one place, to get it in guaranteed high quality, and to get it quickly. > trying to get exclusivity through restrictive contracts in the absence of copyright protection could be a cure worse than the disease. Except the difference is that contracts only apply to those who agree to them. Copyright applies to everyone.