Prenda 'Copyright Troll' Lawyer Sentenced To Five Years In Prison (torrentfreak.com) 91
John Steele, one of the attorneys behind the 'copyright troll' law firm Prenda, has been sentenced to five years in prison. The attorney was one of the masterminds behind the fraudulent scheme that extracted settlements from alleged pirates. Because of Steele's cooperative stance, his sentence is significantly lower than that of co-conspirator Paul Hansmeier. TorrentFreak reports: During a hearing this morning, U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen convicted Steele to a five-year prison sentence. In addition, the disbarred attorney must pay his victims little over $1.5 million in restitution. Today's sentencing ironically comes 11 years after Steele was first admitted to the bar. The lower sentence, compared to Hansmeier, comes as no surprise. It was specifically recommended by the prosecution, which stressed that Steele didn't shy away from the ugly truth of his crimes and was very cooperative following the indictment.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Steele deserved a significant prison term. However, his cooperation and genuine remorse should be taken into account. Based on the sentencing guidelines Steele faced a potential prison sentence of more than 12 years, but Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Langner recommended five years in prison instead. Judge Ericksen went along with this recommendation. The Judge noted that courts "are not a tool in the box for anybody's hustle," adding that the five-year sentence was "imminently fair," as the Star Tribune report. "I condemn the actions that you took in committing this crime. I congratulate you, however, on the actions you took" in responding to the charges, Judge Ericksen said.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Steele deserved a significant prison term. However, his cooperation and genuine remorse should be taken into account. Based on the sentencing guidelines Steele faced a potential prison sentence of more than 12 years, but Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Langner recommended five years in prison instead. Judge Ericksen went along with this recommendation. The Judge noted that courts "are not a tool in the box for anybody's hustle," adding that the five-year sentence was "imminently fair," as the Star Tribune report. "I condemn the actions that you took in committing this crime. I congratulate you, however, on the actions you took" in responding to the charges, Judge Ericksen said.
Re: John Steele is not the only troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Come back when Disney itself puts its movies on the Pirate Bay and charges you for downloading them.
Journalism/English Fail (Score:2, Interesting)
convicted Steele to a five-year prison sentence
Did a fucking 6th grader write that?
Holy Fuck.
People are SENTENCED to a five year prison TERM after having been CONVICTED.
Re: (Score:3)
Your statement is very correct:
We are not questioning if copyright law is right or wrong,
We ( the people ) want the law obeyed fairly.
They the lawyers abused the law to their own means,
and had to come to the courts to respond. They lost and
we (the people) have prevailed.
this is how I am perceiving it, if you wish to correct me, I am always willing to listen.
Re: (Score:1)
You are being stupid here Prenda Law _deliberately_ made their copyrighted porn movies available for download on pirating sites, which means downloading them was the actual intent of the copyright owner.
Come back when Disney itself puts its movies on the Pirate Bay and charges you for downloading them.
Don't forget that these two people did far more crimes than related to just copyright law.
People who didn't settle, they blackmailed to their family and jobs.
People who did settle, some settlement "payments" were recruiting those downloaders to go out and tell their friends to download the same material.
They would also file john doe suits in court to uncover the downloaders identities, then instead of taking them to court, would open lines of credit in their names.
If someone violates your copyright, that do
There aren't that many trolls, a few very busy one (Score:2)
You might be surprised how few trolls there actually are. Very busy trolls. If you put five our of business you've largely solved the problem.
I don't have numbers on copyright, but I did look at numbers on patent. Of course *some* patent disputes have merit. Over 50% of all patent suits were filed by just five trolls. So that's maybe 80%-90% of all the trolling is those five. Make their business model no longer work and it's pretty much solved.
Did you read the Star Trek Judges' ruling? (Score:1)
https://abovethelaw.com/2013/0... [abovethelaw.com]
This guy was awesome; I'd love to see what he thinks now.
I hope Mr. Steele is getting rammed with his cellmates Steel; and I hope it gets filmed and makes it out as a gay porno released for free on YT.
I hope he likes BBC! :)
No such thing as non-criminal copyright though. (Score:1)
Copyright by definition is a bought law to give distributors the privilege, of taking the result of the work of artists, erect an (actually imagnary) monopoly to create artificial scarcity, so they can extort people into paying them money for all eternity, without them themselves ever having to work.
Both monopolies and artificial scarcity are ... normally ... major crimes.
As is taking money without working for it. Which is usually called theft, robbery, racketerring, or, in its mildest form, usury.
And all,
Re:No such thing as non-criminal copyright though. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right up to a point. The problem is with transferable copyright. If an artist or writer creates something, I have no problem with them having copyright until they die. I could even live with that copyright being passed on for a limited period of, say, 16 years to help provide for children after the creator's death. I don't see any moral issues with any of that.
What I do object to is copyright being sold off to people who had nothing to do with the creative process. The idea that vision can be transferred doesn't make a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:3)
I wold like to see all IP be made a personal right of the creator of work, as inalienable as free speech. All of our problems with IP come from treating it as real estate. If you invent something and patent it, every exploiter of that patent would have to maintain a contractual relationship with you as creator. No making to assign away your rights and then kicking you to the curb.
Which creator? (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the current problems with copyright is that the creator of the 'world' often has derivative copyright ownership over all the underlings working on it, even though all those underlings add their own character, flair, flavor, etc to the works.
Think about Star Wars, George Lucas' involvement in it, then Ralph Quarrie, Lucas' wife, the hundreds upon hundreds of LucasArts/Games employees, all the authors involved in the extended universe, the 3rd party game companies creating licensed works.
Our copyright
Re: (Score:3)
Certainly there would have to be a provision for collaborative work. Shared equity in IP could be established by a sworn list of name and percentage equities filed with the IP itself. A patent might be shared equally by all six developers of FartStudio For iPhone, or it may be agreed that the lead singer of Anatomic Cucumber gets 30% of the copyright, the other three get 20% each, while the drummer’s daughter gets 10%, because she thought up the title.
Work for hire (Score:2)
One of the current problems with copyright is that the creator of the 'world' often has derivative copyright ownership over all the underlings working on it, even though all those underlings add their own character, flair, flavor, etc to the works.
Those are work for hire [wikipedia.org]. They have copyright ownership because they are works created by employees as part of their job or under contracts specifying that they were work for hire. The law on this is quite clear and well established.
Our copyright situation is even messier because people like to gloss over the collaborative effort put into almost every creative work. If it takes a community to raise a child, what does it take to raise a story or media franchise?
It takes a company. Was that really a question?
Re: (Score:3)
You're right up to a point. The problem is with transferable copyright. If an artist or writer creates something, I have no problem with them having copyright until they die. I could even live with that copyright being passed on for a limited period of, say, 16 years to help provide for children after the creator's death. I don't see any moral issues with any of that.
What I do object to is copyright being sold off to people who had nothing to do with the creative process. The idea that vision can be transferred doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm fine with transferable copyright. Owning a copyright turns that copyright into an asset, and people should have a right to sell/transfer/barter away that asset if they so choose. However, in doing so, that copyright should have an automatic expiration date of, say, 25 years. This limit should be automatically imposed on all transferred copyrights, including inheritance to children/spouses. That limit should also go off of the initial transfer only, as in additional transfers past the original transf
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with transferable copyright. Owning a copyright turns that copyright into an asset, and people should have a right to sell/transfer/barter away that asset if they so choose. However, in doing so, that copyright should have an automatic expiration date of, say, 25 years. This limit should be automatically imposed on all transferred copyrights, including inheritance to children/spouses.
Copyright was originally created for one reason and one reason only -- to encourage people to create works. In order to make a living, you have to keep creating new works as the copyrights on the old ones expire, and so society benefits from new works being created.
Treating copyright as property or an asset, completely undermines this.
A good example of this is the lawsuit filed by the family of Marvin Gaye a couple of years ago, claiming that the song "Blurred Lines" infringed the copyright of the Marivn Gaye song "Got to Give It Up"
-- Marvin Gaye died 30+ years ago. Because he is dead, he suffered no harm from the alleged "infringement" and he won't be creating any new works, so copyright isn't relevant to him. Copyright should not apply when you are dead. A copyright of life plus xx years is beyond absurd.
-- Marvin Gaye's family didn't write that song. So now you have created the absurd situation where someone can claim "infringement" of something that they didn't create. Copyright is not supposed to be a welfare system for anyone and everyone remotely related to the copyright holder. When you die, the copyright should die with you.
My policy would have rendered the Blurred Lines suit moot: as Gaye would have died 30 years prior, his descendants would have no longer enjoyed copyright to the song and anyone would have been free to use/sample it.
Copyright should absolutely have the ability to extend past death of the creator, it just needs limits. Say a solo artist creates a hit song, then immediately dies in a car wreck. His family should have no recourse or access to any of the royalties due to him as the copyright holder? Anyone is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as a note USA pharmaceuticals can set their own prices to market. Have a known "demand" for the drugs they make.
side note: Brazil has more than once threatened a Pharmaceutical industry to lower it's local prices or they would make it themselves. they have won negotiated settlements.
music, film and medical are ventures in the opportunity of profit. All three have a highest failure rate that I know of. medical products that are no good, still have a research value. With film and music lot's of money can be t
Trust fund copyrights holders (Score:2)
Copyright should absolutely have the ability to extend past death of the creator, it just needs limits. Say a solo artist creates a hit song, then immediately dies in a car wreck. His family should have no recourse or access to any of the royalties due to him as the copyright holder? Anyone is now free to distribute that song and keep all profits?
Did his family create the work in question? If I die tomorrow my daughter doesn't get to keep collecting my salary for the next 70 years. I think arguments that families of the authors of creative works should be entitled to benefit is a pretty shaky argument. It's not in the interest of society to set up a trust fund for people who happened to have talented parents/spouses.
Personally I think copyright should have a MUCH shorter term than it does and the death of the author should not be relevant to the
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright should absolutely have the ability to extend past death of the creator, it just needs limits. Say a solo artist creates a hit song, then immediately dies in a car wreck. His family should have no recourse or access to any of the royalties due to him as the copyright holder? Anyone is now free to distribute that song and keep all profits?
Did his family create the work in question? If I die tomorrow my daughter doesn't get to keep collecting my salary for the next 70 years.
No, but depending on your will, she might get your house. Do you have an investment account? I guess she doesn't get any of those returns now since she didn't invest any of that money ("did the work"). Possession of a copyright is a property or asset, just as real estate or an investment account are. Because the family did not create the original work they aren't entitled to perpetual profits form that work, but they are still entitled to some benefit if the original copyright holder wishes them to (and
Why not intellectual property tax? (Score:2)
Possession of a copyright is a property or asset, just as real estate or an investment account are.
Real estate ownership is subject to a recurring tax. Why isn't copyright ownership?
Re: (Score:2)
Salaries are paid for ongoing work. If you stop working, for any reason, the salary stops.
Licensing rights are paid for work that is already complete. If you build a house, your daughter certainly could inherit it; it's already done, it's yours. If you sell the house right before dying, she gets the money. If you sell the house on an installment plan whereby the buyer pays over the next 20 years, she gets to collec
Re: (Score:3)
disclosure: one of my hobbies is creating indicators. The silly idea of knowing the future is amazing, and I laugh at myself all the time trying.
Asset's ( not depending on the type ), need to be transferable to establish a market price.
the law set(s) a limit on the life of the asset already, and reducing the asset's life will just
make it harder for the market to determine value, therefor artist should ( in theory ) paid
less. Time has a value.
I would like to use an example :
Gold ( the metal ) and Current pop
Re: (Score:3)
disclosure: one of my hobbies is creating indicators. The silly idea of knowing the future is amazing, and I laugh at myself all the time trying.....I've been able to use Billboard 200 for albums to determine how long an album will be making
money
Using the Billboard 200 I've been able to figure out which concerts seem to be the best to go to IE: stable sales
for 9 weeks and consistent rise for over 6 months, indicates that it should be a fun concert for me. I don't go
to many so I want to make sure I'm watching something that is really good. ( KID ROCK concerts are amazing )
No offense, but you have some strange hobbies. That being said, I would totally subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only offense when malice is being attached to it. With that said, Nope I don't have a newsletter,
but if you have something that seem to cycle it might be interesting. I'm always willing to look and
gather data. Be surprised on what you can find out
for example : I created an indicator when I was young back in the early 80's, I would measure
how many columns of help wanted ads were in the NY-Times every sunday paper employment
section. This has an interesting correlation ( correlation and causation ) of
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with transferable copyright. Owning a copyright turns that copyright into an asset, and people should have a right to sell/transfer/barter away that asset if they so choose. However, in doing so, that copyright should have an automatic expiration date of, say, 25 years. This limit should be automatically imposed on all transferred copyrights
Have my virtual insightful mod. That's a very smart way to solve the problems, while retaining appropriate rights for, authors of works that are still commercially viable after decades.
I'd add that copyright, if transferred, should revert to the author after 25 years if still living (and if authorship is clear - not generally the case with movies).
Re: (Score:2)
Owning a copyright turns that copyright into an asset, and people should have a right to sell/transfer/barter away that asset if they so choose.
Copyright assets should be taxed like other forms of property, and for the same reasons. If you're not making good use of the copyright, enough to pay the tax assessment at least, then the work should revert to the public domain after two years of nonpayment. Once public domain, the copyright is lost forever. No more bullshit about magically restoring copyright because Disney demands it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where you live, but the vast majority of assets (in the USA, and I think it most countries?) aren't taxed at all. If I buy an expensive piece of artwork - or even a fancy car but don't care to drive it, just display it as though it was artwork - I needn't ever pay an additional cent in taxes beyond any that occurred as part of the transaction.
Real estate ("property") is the major exception, and I'm not sure what "same reasons" you're talking about. Copyrights (and other IP) neither have inherent sc
Scarcity of melodic hooks (Score:2)
Copyrights (and other IP) neither have inherent scarcity the way real estate does
There exist only a finite number of melodic hooks of a given length in the Western musical scale. If notes can be (to an approximation) one of the seven scale degrees and either short or long, that's 14 possibilities. To calculate the number of distinct melodic hooks of a given length, you take the number of distinct notes and raise it to the power of the length minus 1. Let's say 8 notes are enough to establish "substantial similarity," per Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. This means you have only 1
Re: (Score:2)
I'm personally in favor of going back to the original 14 years plus a one-time renewal of 14 years, but a fixed 25 year span would be good also. Just as long as copyright doesn't last essentially indefinitely. I published a book in 2016. Copyright currently lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator. If I died in 45 years (at age 88) and willed the copyright to my youngest son (born in 2007), the copyright would expire in the year 2134 when my youngest son was 127.
If my son had a child when he was
Re: (Score:2)
What I do object to is copyright being sold off to people who had nothing to do with the creative process. The idea that vision can be transferred doesn't make a lot of sense.
Nope. What doesn't make sense is not being able to use that "vision" as an asset when an artist doesn't want to turn himself into a marketing droid.
(or isn't capable of doing so, or needs a bunch of expensive materials to realize the vision in the first place, or any number of other things...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If the copyright ended with the death of a creator, many creators would suddenly have tragic "accidents" to get rid of this so restrictive copyright...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could NOT live with a transferable copyright of even 16 seconds. (well I can as I am actually alive). Copyright is intended to protect the creator. Once he is dead, he does not need any protection anymore.
Do you not have children, or do you just not like them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Im not THAT opposed to selling off copyrights. As a musician thats long held onto the fantasy of making a career thats better than "Get $50 and 2 free beers at a bar gig" It'd be nice to at the end of that career, sell off the right to set up the family.
But in reality the industry is structured that if your music is bankable, you sell it odd at the start of your career for penuts then get fucked in the ring by the people you sold it too while struggling to make ends meet.
A friend of mine had 3 #1 australi
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies for the typos. Beer + iphone typing.
Re:No such thing as non-criminal copyright though. (Score:4)
Copyrights should be like trademarks. As long as someone is defending them they should be valid. Once that defense stops they slip in to public domain. That person can be a trust, a cooperation, individual or a family. At some point a copyright will not be worth defending an will slip into the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with them having copyright until they die. I could even live with that copyright being passed on for a limited period of, say, 16 years to help provide for children after the creator's death.
But remember the purpose of copyright - to promote progress of arts. How does copyright lasting that long promote arts? How many people think "I really want to write a song, but I'm worried that 50 years after I die, my great grand children won't be able to cash in on it anymore"
You say 16 years after they die, I'd say 16 years after it's written depending on the medium. If an artist wants to keep making money, they need to keep producing art - that would progress the arts.
I imagine its easy to be remorseful... (Score:4, Insightful)
... once you've been caughtt. Someone truly remorseful would have handed themselves in beforehand.
Re:I imagine its easy to be remorseful... (Score:4, Funny)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
... once you've been caughtt. Someone truly remorseful would have handed themselves in beforehand.
And someone truly remorseful as described by you would have gotten a lot less than 5 years of prison. Paul Hansmeier, on the other side, apparently showed no remorse even after he got caught, and as a result got 14 years.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The whole thing's distinctly second-rate.
[the jugdge] convicted Steele to a five-year prison sentence => No, he SENTENCED him.
the five-year sentence was "imminently fair" => It was EMINENTLY fair.
the disbarred attorney must pay his victims little over $1.5 million => *A* little over $1.5 million.
The ironing is amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like rain on your wedding day!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ironically". I do not think it means what the editors think it means.
Why do dumb people say "that's not irony" when they try to seem smart?
Irony 2. n. incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.
He passed the bar hoping to use to law to his advantage and prosperity. Ironically, it was the law that laid him low.
It's like rain on your wedding day.
Re: (Score:2)
Off-topic, but: "Expected" != "Desired". Anybody who has good reason to expect it won't rain on their wedding day either didn't plan the big day more than a week in advance and was prepared to postpone it until the day before, or lives in somewhere with weather patterns far more regular than anywhere Alanis Morissette ever did.
Similarly, passing the bar isn't an expectation of never being thrown in jail (or at least, it damn well shouldn't be). By that standard, it would be ironic if I were ever jailed, as
laws (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Five years, hunh? (Score:2)
Differ with judge on the legal hustle (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "The Judge noted that courts "are not a tool in the box for anybody's hustle"" - but that's not true. Lots of people make a living via the legal system. Large swaths of the plaintiff bar are looking for that big case that's going to yield the big payout. Just sayin'. The courts most assuredly are a tool in the hustle toolbox. These clowns got hung by their balls because they crossed the wrong people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
These clowns got hung by their balls
Now there is a ideal.
Genuine remorse, indeed. (Score:2)
"Feel Good" story of the day (Score:2)
This is great, the "Feel Good" story of the day.
I've been waiting for this prick to go to prison and I'm very happy to see it finally happen.
I thought he'd probably get a suspended sentence or some other bullshit adjudication. It's nice to see a little justice in the world.
True justice would be... (Score:1)
... if Steele and Hansmeier got into the tattoo business and got sued for copyright infringement.
Are prison gang tattoos eligible for copyrights?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An we send another one to prison to take up space on the public doll. Our prisons are already too full of non violent offenders? Take the money back and repay his victims; apply appropriate fines. Then take his ass out back, strap him to a pole, and give him 10 lashes with a raw hide whip.
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch. I actually had that spelled right and went back and "corrected" it. Never should have switched to decaff. Shit tastes like pond water with out the kick.
An yes some dolls are fucking creepy.
Re: (Score:3)
So then the math just becomes calculating the odds of getting caught, and some momentary pain of being whipped.
I think you missed the part where we took all the money back and then fined them. I probably should have said "fined the fuck out of them" but that should have went with out saying.
Spoken like someone that has never been tied to a pole and had a whip taken to them. Well, I've never been tied to a pole and had a whip taken to me, not for non-entertainment anyway.
Taking a bullwhip to someone for say 10 lashes is one of the worse pains you can inflict on someone. It leaves scares that will hurt for
Re: (Score:2)
It leaves scares that will hurt for the rest of their lives.
Yeah, the decaff is definitely kicking your ass today. On the bright side, it is a Monday. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
And then post the video on pornhub for free for BDSM lovers to fap to.
The cynic in me took note (Score:2)
I'm confused. (Score:2)
Today's sentencing ironically comes 11 years after Steele was first admitted to the bar.
And, how is this ironic?
Need more of these (Score:2)
Wow, wish there were more than judges that felt that way. Would be nice to have more that are ready and willing to rule against the scum intent on doing exactly that.
\o\ (Score:1)
Judge moonlights on comedy circuit?
So the courts aren't willing to arbitrate in any dispute for a fee?