6 ms·

Convicted Copyright Troll Lawyer Reboots Pirate Honeypot Scheme from Prison

102 points by cf100clunk 6y ago

beervirus 6y ago
Holy shit. I remember reading about the Prenda Law saga on Popehat[0] awhile back, but I had no idea that these guys had actually been convicted. 14 years in prison for one and 5 years for another! [0] https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/
- cf100clunk 6y ago
  OP here. When I first saw that headline on Torrentfreak, and before even clicking on that link, I immediately thought "Prenda!" so I'm glad you linked to Ken White's excellent running commentary at Popehat on the long, sorry saga. Prenda Law was also covered well by Mike Masnick at Techdirt over the years: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150606/07053031246/team-prenda-gets-hit-hard-with-contempt-sanctions-lying-to-court.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150606/07053031246/team-... and also on the dearly departed Groklaw. A search here at HN yields a good amount of Prenda Law submissions from over the years.
jacquesm 6y ago
Interesting that this is even possible from prison.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  According to the article, he used a representative to make the video available. I don't really see a problem with it being possible to own copyrights and file legal actions from prison; if it weren't possible, that would be a problem.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Prison should prevent a criminal from continuing to victimize the general public. When that fails, restrictions on the prisoner should be increased until it does. In this man's case, he should probably be forbidden from ever owning the copyright to anything again. Anything he utters with his own mouth should go straight into the public domain. That would put an end to this horse shit from him.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      It sounds like we need to point out to you yet again that Paul Hansmeier is not in jail for victimizing the public. He's in jail for lying to a judge. The legal system approves of his behavior toward the public. Given that he has never victimized the public, worry about whether he "continues to victimize the public" is obviously misplaced.
  - tremon 6y ago
    I don't really see a problem with it being possible to own copyrights and file legal actions from prison I see a huge problem with it, if you were sent to prison for abusing copyright law for your personal gain.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      He wasn't. You can be treated as a nuisance by the court, if you demonstrate a tendency to file meritless suits, but Hansmeier didn't do that either. He was sent to prison for lying to the court; the merits of his copyright suit don't enter into it. And again, even if you're formally a nuisance, you can't be barred from the courts. That would be a travesty of justice. You just get your suits viewed more prejudicially.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    Yet somebody convicted on hacking related charges, or sex offenses involving the Internet, can have their access to Internet, computers and gaming consoles revoked even when on probation [0]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/computer-internet-restrictions-probation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/computer-internet-rest...
    - kd0amg 6y ago
      When you take away someone's right to pursue legal remedy for violations of their rights, they effectively have no rights left.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        His rights regarding copyright should be taken from him. This is no different from a convicted murderer no longer having the right to own a gun. Allowing this man to continue to sue people is a travesty of justice.
        colejohnson66 6y ago
        The constitution gives us the right to the courts, and he should be allowed to keep that right. When he’s served his debt to society, his rights should be restored. That’s the point of the justice system. His reputation is already ruined, we don’t need to be vengeful with our punishments.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        I don't give a damn about his reputation. The point of the legal system is to protect the innocent, not ruin the reputations of the guilty. He continues to use the legal system to victimize people, and this should not be allowed. Strip him of his right to sue anybody over copyright. Leave intact his right to sue the government to restore his other rights. To this man, courts are a weapon used to extort people. Allowing a criminal like him to keep his weapon is moronic.
  - vkou 6y ago
    When owning copyrights and filing legal actions from prison was what got you into prison, it starts looking less like exercising normal commercial rights, and more like 'running a criminal enterprise from prison'. It's much like a mob boss, who keeps running his empire from prison. This is generally frowned upon by our correctional system, and can be resolved by monitoring mail, revoking visitation privileges, and punitive stints in solitary.
- lwigo 6y ago
  As well as the fraudulent PPP claims from prison.
CreepGin 6y ago
I'm a little confused. I understand you can sue people for redistributing your work/content. But how can you put up your content for free and then sue people for only downloading it? Was the guy with the Venezuela IP also redistributing it?
- wmf 6y ago
  First you have to be an absolute garbage person. Then in your lawsuits you simply forget to mention that you're the one distributing it.
  - zrm 6y ago
    Notably that the perpetrators are currently in prison for related crimes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sp332 6y ago
  Uploading would have been a crime. Downloading is a civil case. Personally, my defense would be that my computer only sent an industry-standard request to the server, and it's the server's fault for sending me a copy of the data.
emilecantin 6y ago
What seems weird to me is that in this case, the copyright owner himself (or someone acting on his behalf) uploads the video to a torrent site. How is that not "granting permission" to whoever subsequently download the video? Seems like an easy defense would be having the site add a small section about that in their TOS.
- vmception 6y ago
  Downloading isn't copyright infringement, uploading is, because you are sharing something without the authorization of the copyright holder. Torrent sites frequently track uploads and kick users off that don't upload, so it would be tricky for their Terms of Service to make an exception that works for their network and also tries to ensnare these honeypots. And regarding downloading or acquiring or even purchasing: it has never been up to the consumer to know who has the authorization (license) to distribute a work. We just assume Walmart/Target/Netflix/Amazon etc has the rights to sell us whatever we consume. It isn't our problem.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Torrents seed automatically. If I purposefully make my own film available as a torrent (I could be an indie filmmaker with limited funds for bandwidth), shouldn't seeding be understood as implicitly allowed?
    - vmception 6y ago
      We don’t currently have a regulatory regime that matches this very sensible idea. We have a regime that is ripe for abuse by these honeypots.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    > Downloading isn't copyright infringement, uploading is, because you are sharing something without the authorization of the copyright holder. That much is true, but when it's the rights holder that's uploading the content, then it's not copyright infringement because they chose to upload it to be shared, while actually having the proper rights to do so. With DDL hosters there's quite a few that put in the ToS how by uploading a file that publicly accessible for download, you confirm that you have the right to do so, as these services usually do have a ToS as they are mostly run by legit companies. While with a decentralized p2p network, as bittorrent is, there's really no way to enforce a system wide ToS. > Torrent sites frequently track uploads and kick users off that don't upload Not "sites" do that, but communities centered around trackers do that to ensure that there's actually enough upload bandwidth and not just a bunch of leechers that only download but never contribute with their upload bandwidth.
AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
I don't know if "remorse" factored into his original sentencing, but if it did, I imagine that could now be called into question, given his attempt to repeat the same offense while in jail...

102 points by cf100clunk 6y ago

Holy shit. I remember reading about the Prenda Law saga on Popehat[0] awhile back, but I had no idea that these guys had actually been convicted. 14 years in prison for one and 5 years for another! [0] https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/

cf100clunk 6y ago
OP here. When I first saw that headline on Torrentfreak, and before even clicking on that link, I immediately thought "Prenda!" so I'm glad you linked to Ken White's excellent running commentary at Popehat on the long, sorry saga. Prenda Law was also covered well by Mike Masnick at Techdirt over the years: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150606/07053031246/team-prenda-gets-hit-hard-with-contempt-sanctions-lying-to-court.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150606/07053031246/team-... and also on the dearly departed Groklaw. A search here at HN yields a good amount of Prenda Law submissions from over the years.

jacquesm 6y ago

Interesting that this is even possible from prison.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
According to the article, he used a representative to make the video available. I don't really see a problem with it being possible to own copyrights and file legal actions from prison; if it weren't possible, that would be a problem.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Prison should prevent a criminal from continuing to victimize the general public. When that fails, restrictions on the prisoner should be increased until it does. In this man's case, he should probably be forbidden from ever owning the copyright to anything again. Anything he utters with his own mouth should go straight into the public domain. That would put an end to this horse shit from him.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    It sounds like we need to point out to you yet again that Paul Hansmeier is not in jail for victimizing the public. He's in jail for lying to a judge. The legal system approves of his behavior toward the public. Given that he has never victimized the public, worry about whether he "continues to victimize the public" is obviously misplaced.
- tremon 6y ago
  I don't really see a problem with it being possible to own copyrights and file legal actions from prison I see a huge problem with it, if you were sent to prison for abusing copyright law for your personal gain.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    He wasn't. You can be treated as a nuisance by the court, if you demonstrate a tendency to file meritless suits, but Hansmeier didn't do that either. He was sent to prison for lying to the court; the merits of his copyright suit don't enter into it. And again, even if you're formally a nuisance, you can't be barred from the courts. That would be a travesty of justice. You just get your suits viewed more prejudicially.
- freeflight 6y ago
  Yet somebody convicted on hacking related charges, or sex offenses involving the Internet, can have their access to Internet, computers and gaming consoles revoked even when on probation [0]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/computer-internet-restrictions-probation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/computer-internet-rest...
  - kd0amg 6y ago
    When you take away someone's right to pursue legal remedy for violations of their rights, they effectively have no rights left.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      His rights regarding copyright should be taken from him. This is no different from a convicted murderer no longer having the right to own a gun. Allowing this man to continue to sue people is a travesty of justice.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        The constitution gives us the right to the courts, and he should be allowed to keep that right. When he’s served his debt to society, his rights should be restored. That’s the point of the justice system. His reputation is already ruined, we don’t need to be vengeful with our punishments.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        I don't give a damn about his reputation. The point of the legal system is to protect the innocent, not ruin the reputations of the guilty. He continues to use the legal system to victimize people, and this should not be allowed. Strip him of his right to sue anybody over copyright. Leave intact his right to sue the government to restore his other rights. To this man, courts are a weapon used to extort people. Allowing a criminal like him to keep his weapon is moronic.
- vkou 6y ago
  When owning copyrights and filing legal actions from prison was what got you into prison, it starts looking less like exercising normal commercial rights, and more like 'running a criminal enterprise from prison'. It's much like a mob boss, who keeps running his empire from prison. This is generally frowned upon by our correctional system, and can be resolved by monitoring mail, revoking visitation privileges, and punitive stints in solitary.
lwigo 6y ago
As well as the fraudulent PPP claims from prison.

CreepGin 6y ago

I'm a little confused. I understand you can sue people for redistributing your work/content. But how can you put up your content for free and then sue people for only downloading it? Was the guy with the Venezuela IP also redistributing it?

wmf 6y ago
First you have to be an absolute garbage person. Then in your lawsuits you simply forget to mention that you're the one distributing it.
- zrm 6y ago
  Notably that the perpetrators are currently in prison for related crimes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sp332 6y ago
Uploading would have been a crime. Downloading is a civil case. Personally, my defense would be that my computer only sent an industry-standard request to the server, and it's the server's fault for sending me a copy of the data.

emilecantin 6y ago

What seems weird to me is that in this case, the copyright owner himself (or someone acting on his behalf) uploads the video to a torrent site. How is that not "granting permission" to whoever subsequently download the video? Seems like an easy defense would be having the site add a small section about that in their TOS.

vmception 6y ago
Downloading isn't copyright infringement, uploading is, because you are sharing something without the authorization of the copyright holder. Torrent sites frequently track uploads and kick users off that don't upload, so it would be tricky for their Terms of Service to make an exception that works for their network and also tries to ensnare these honeypots. And regarding downloading or acquiring or even purchasing: it has never been up to the consumer to know who has the authorization (license) to distribute a work. We just assume Walmart/Target/Netflix/Amazon etc has the rights to sell us whatever we consume. It isn't our problem.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Torrents seed automatically. If I purposefully make my own film available as a torrent (I could be an indie filmmaker with limited funds for bandwidth), shouldn't seeding be understood as implicitly allowed?
  - vmception 6y ago
    We don’t currently have a regulatory regime that matches this very sensible idea. We have a regime that is ripe for abuse by these honeypots.
- freeflight 6y ago
  > Downloading isn't copyright infringement, uploading is, because you are sharing something without the authorization of the copyright holder. That much is true, but when it's the rights holder that's uploading the content, then it's not copyright infringement because they chose to upload it to be shared, while actually having the proper rights to do so. With DDL hosters there's quite a few that put in the ToS how by uploading a file that publicly accessible for download, you confirm that you have the right to do so, as these services usually do have a ToS as they are mostly run by legit companies. While with a decentralized p2p network, as bittorrent is, there's really no way to enforce a system wide ToS. > Torrent sites frequently track uploads and kick users off that don't upload Not "sites" do that, but communities centered around trackers do that to ensure that there's actually enough upload bandwidth and not just a bunch of leechers that only download but never contribute with their upload bandwidth.

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago

I don't know if "remorse" factored into his original sentencing, but if it did, I imagine that could now be called into question, given his attempt to repeat the same offense while in jail...