Minneapolis attorney Paul Hansmeier, who is most known to this blog for being associated with the Prenda Law 'trolling' saga, is facing suspension or disbarment. Minnesota's Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has now filed a petition with the state Supreme Court seeking disbarment or "otherwise appropriate discipline," citing Hansmeier's "unprofessional conduct." In 2013, Hansmeier, along with Chicago attorneys John Steele and Paul Duffy, filed multiple 'John Doe' copyright infringement claims, and faced scathing criticism from U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II, other federal judges and the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Reports say Hansmeier remains an active civil litigation attorney. His solo practice -- a Minneapolis firm called Class Justice PLLC -- consists wholly of suing businesses that do not comply with disability access laws. Hansmeier's attorney, Eric Cooperstein, told reporters that they look forward to presenting their side of the case.
Rocky P. Ouprasith, who operated the website RockDizMusic.com website between May 2011 to October 2014 has been sentenced to three years in prison. Ouprasithhad admitted obtaining copies of copyrighted songs and albums from online sources and encouraging others to upload music to the website. Court documents say the market value of Ouprasith's illegally obtained material was more than $6 million. Ouprasith was sentenced to serve 36 months in prison in the US. Chief U.S. District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the Eastern District of Virginia also sentenced Ouprasith to serve two years of supervised release and was ordered to forfeit $50,851.05 and pay $48,288.62 in restitution. Brad Buckles, EVP of Anti-Piracy at RIAA, said: “We congratulate the Department of Justice and Homeland Security Investigations and thank them for their diligence and hard work to bring to justice those who cause millions of dollars in damage to music creators" adding “This sentence should send a message that operating a flagrantly illegal business that steals from others by engaging in criminal activity online has real consequences.” Indeed.
'YouTube sensation' CassetteBoy have been talking about copyright implications of the recent changes in United Kingdom coyright law and the new exception for parody at an event at Bournemouth University. The pair, whose 2014 'mash up' of David Cameron's speeches featured in their 'Conference Rap' has been seen by more than 6 milllion people, said: "We were infringing copyright for 20 years before the law changed, and never dreamt that our work would ever be legalised. The change in the law has had a huge impact on the work we've been able to do, and we're very happy to be able to talk about it and share our experiences." The event was organised by the Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy Management. Co-director for the Centre and associate professor in law, Dr Dinusha Mendis, told the Bournemouth Daily Echo : “The reforms to copyright law which came about last year were certainly seen as a welcome change and much needed in a digital world dominated by user-generated content and collaborative creators.
The World Intellectual Property Organization Deputy Director General responsible for copyright, Anne Leer, has decided to resign her post, citing personal reasons.
YouTube has set up a $1 million fund to support video creators who have been targeted in Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns. The company’s copyright legal director Fred von Lohmann confirmed the new funding in a blog post saying that that whilst YouTube will only provide its legal support “to a handful of videos,” who would be arguing 'fair use' for the posting, the company will cover the cost of any copyright lawsuits brought against its creators and adding “We’re doing this because we recognize that creators can be intimidated by the DMCA’s counter notification process, and the potential for litigation that comes with it,” Lohmann himself is a former Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staffer who have previously argued that YouTube is not doing enough to protect the so-called “fair use” provision.
And TorrentFreak tells us that YouTube parent company Google is facing "a never-ending flood" of DMCA takedown requests from copyright holders, breaking records. The company currently processes a record breaking 1,500 links to "pirate" pages from its search results every minute, which is a 100% increase compared to last year.
A reportedly very very angry US District Judge, Otis D. Wright II, has finally had his day in court with the now much maligned 'Prenda' copyright "trolls" - with one blogger applauding Judge Wright as “the
judge who figured out that Prenda was running something that looked a blackmail
racket that involved systematic fraud against courts around the country”. We first covered this torrid tale back on March 10th this year.
The four lawyers and one para-legal, grouped together under the 'Prenda' banner, and a number of claimant companies they allegedly control, include John Steele of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and Prenda Law, Inc., Paul Hansmeier of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire
Holdings LLC, Paul Duffy of Prenda Law, Inc., Angela Van Den Hemel of Prenda Law, Inc., Mark Lutz of Prenda Law, Inc., AF Holdings LLC and/or
Ingenuity 13 LLC, and Peter Hansemeier, of 6881 Forensics, LLC, and all were ordered to court for a March 29th hearing by Judge Wright to explain their own and their firm's legal practices. In a 12 minute hearing, the various lawyers all took the 'fifth amendment', refusing to speak: Steele's lawyer confirmed his client would exercise his right to remain silent.
Attorneys for Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, and Angela Van Den Hemel confirmed
their clients, too, would invoke their right to protect themselves against self incrimination.
Prenda came to prominence as a "porn troll",
filing lawsuits against internet subscribers whom it alleged had downloaded
copyrighted X-rated movies and then demanding a sum of money to settle the matter with one blogger describing Prenda as "the sleazy "law firm"/copyright trolls who use the courts to get the names and addresses of people whom they allege have downloaded pornographic videos with embarrassing names, and whom they then threaten with public humiliation and a lawsuit unless the victims pay a quick cash settlement."
Adding for good measure
"One of the great mysteries about Prenda is who the firm actually is -- which individuals are behind it? In past, Prenda's representatives have claimed to be working for "Alan Cooper" -- a former caretaker for one of the Prenda reps who claims they have stolen his identity." Judge Wright had also voiced his belief that the
"clients" Prenda claimed to represent were actually shell companies
created by Prenda itself, meaning the firm was really suing people for its own
enrichment.
Judge Wright certainly wasn't impressed by the row of silent lawyers in front of him saying in the brief 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".
Judge Wright now has a variety of avenues he can pursue, ranging from referring the issue to relevant attorney's state bar associations for misconduct, seeking United
States District Court and Circuit Court bars, referring the matter to the United
States Attorney's Office if fraud is suspected, particularly if he believes Prenda
Law attorneys misappropriated Alan Cooper's identity and / or created
entities like AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 to conceal their own financial
interests in the cases they brought, and / or lied to and concealed facts from
both defendants and federal courts. As a district court judge, Judge Wright has numerous tools
with which he can address the alleged misconduct before him, including Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal statute, Title
28, United States Code, Section 1927: 28 U.S.C. section 1927, along with his inherent authority and local rules, although each tool has its own limits. As a Federal
judge, Judge Wright also has the power to hold the Prenda lawyers in contempt of court; sanctions for contempt include fines and/or
imprisonment. Anything more from any of our US readers would be much appreciated as its not my forte.
Lots more for troll fans on Boing Bping here http://boingboing.net/2013/04/02/notorious-porno-copyright-trol.html and The Register here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/03/prenda_pleads_the_fifth/
And more on troll's here http://slworona.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/judge-tells-copyright-trolls-they-came-to-the-wrong-court-for-help-with-their-shakedown-racket/ and on the ACS:Law "train crash" over here in the UK here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/acslaw-seeks-to-end-pursuit-of-alleged.html
