" only gives credence complaints under its Canadian equivalent if they pass the giggle test".
I giggled, it failedâŚ
Excellent article Cory.
The Fight Copyright trollies article also notes that on 9/20/2011, Mike Meier was, âsanctioned in the amount of $37,415.00 under 28 U.S.C. § 1927â. To let readers what that code is without a search:
28 U.S. Code § 1927 - Counselâs liability for excessive costs
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneysâ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.
Apparently, at least one court is already not amused by Mr. Meier.
Streisand, we summon thee!
Christ, what an asshole. (amidoingitright?)
He does serve as a great example for those âlocalâ counsels who are picking up a paycheck to rubber stamp their name on filings coming from mysterious firms with German masters.
Is destroying your future worth a couple bucks today?
Because you will never clean the taint of copyright trolling from your history, it will always come up.
You will not take a shower and be clean.
The actions you took have costs, and that cost is a reputation that will proceed you online.
You will not be able to wipe it away, and attempts to will make it much worse.
This troll was flipped by John Steele, allegedly, from helping defend people to collecting a paycheck extorting cash.
I would suggest to any young lawyer looking to make money, Google Steele, Google Prenda, and make the smart decision.
Unless of course you think you are the anointed one who can bring salvation to the venerable art of extortion, in which case learn the nyms of all of those like myself who will do everything possible to shatter your scheme. We will haunt your dreams, taunt your filings, and revel in your failures⌠and that is just the warm up.
Use this trolls failure as the example it needs to be.
When he still with the EFF, he faced the greatest copyright troll in the world who goaded him, âYou want this donât you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your litigation. Use it. I am unrepresented. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.â
Only, rather than yell out, âNo!â he obviously joined the dark side.
Daaaaaaamn the devil has a mighty fine checkbook.
[grabbing my lawn chair]
The spiritual part of me wants to look away and ignore this; the meatsuit part of me wants to watch the well-deserved justice play out.
Anybody know what the story with this guy is?
It canât have ever been news that selling out pays better than working for the EFF(and the younger a lawyer is, the closer and larger his loans likely are), so âselloutâ needs an accompanying explanation; but the list of alternatives is fairly short and fairly dubious. Personality-altering brain tumor? Relative he actually likes being sent back one digit at a time?
âDick heads
Dick heads
Roly-poly dick heads.
Dick heads
Dick heads
Eat them up
YummmmmmâŚâ
Courts have found that parties who cynically use the DMCA to remove non-infringing material (including material that has a strong fair use defense) are liable for damages
The problem is that, so far as I know, no court has actually awarded any damages, nor has any appellate court created actual binding precedent (trial court verdicts arenât actually binding on any other litigation, though they certainly may be persuasive) on this matter. OPG v. Diebold was settled before any damages for Dieboldâs knowing misrepresentation of infringement were actually ordered, and thatâs pretty much the best we have. Note that in Lenz v. Universal, which is much more recent, we donât even have as clear a message as in Diebold, as that simply resulted in denial of summary judgment for the DMCA claimant on the issue of whether they needed to check for Fair Use before sending (automated) DMCA complaints.
Under the current facts (where there is, or should be, actual knowledge that the Fair Use infringement defense applies), I would imagine this case will have the same result as Diebold, but since we donât know how much of the Diebold settlement went to legal fees and how much went as actual damages, or how much a court might actually award, the threat of damages for false DMCA claims isnât all that strong.
Your spurious DMCA notices are sworn âunder penalty of perjuryâ and are likely to come to the notice of your Bar Association
I believe the the âpenalty of perjuryâ clause has been interpreted as applying mainly to âthe complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right,â and not âallegedly infringedâ: youâre only swearing that you represent the copyright holder.
Given that heâs obviously an incompetent lawyer, itâs probably good that heâs switched sides.
No idea what his story is, though it is possible that the sanctions he was collecting made him need more cash. It appears he has a history of doing not good things trying to win. Over on FightCopyrightTrolls.com SJD pulled a doozy of a benchslap he got.
No, Gibbs has the brain tumor so that isnât a viable answer.
Pretenda cleared like 4.4 million through a credit card processor in a year (maybe a portion of a year, Iâm old I forget stuff) being greedy might be all the motivation needed. Iâm not fully recalling when on the timeline he flipped, so it could have been during the S|H heydays⌠back when they had ârealâ clients before they became their own best client.
I was with you, until the last two linesâŚ
To be clear, he never worked for EFF; he was just listed in their directory of lawyers who would stand up to copyright trolls.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
