
Prenda Law “copyright trolls” Steele and Hansmeier arrested - pktgen
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/breaking-prenda-law-copyright-trolls-steele-and-hansmeier-arrested/
======
simcop2387
Related popehat article about the arrests. He's been following the whole case
for years. [https://popehat.com/2016/12/16/the-prenda-saga-goes-
criminal...](https://popehat.com/2016/12/16/the-prenda-saga-goes-criminal-
steele-and-hansmeier-indicted-on-federal-charges/)

~~~
Zhenya
" Not only are Steele and Hansmeier wanton crooks, they're spiteful, entitled,
arrogant douches. That led to their downfall. "

Ouch.

------
ChuckMcM
Popehat comment: _" Based on my observations throughout this case, it couldn't
happen to more deserving criminals."_

Which I totally agree with. When this situation started unrolling it really
offended my sense of justice. Here were criminals using the judicial system as
the tool for their crimes. It really showed how the US judicial systems costs
and processes have created a mechanism for abuse. I wish sometimes there were
some criminal law around abuse of a public institution which would capture
this sort of thing more quickly and effectively.

~~~
wmf
Has anyone started talking about what a sane process for handling online
copyright infringement _would_ look like, or are we just going to continue
this trolls vs. pirates thing forever?

~~~
rhizome
_Has anyone started talking about what a sane process for handling online
copyright infringement would look like_

Yes: reduce the term of copyright and expand fair use.

However, while Prenda used copyright infringement as a cudgel in these cases,
there was no infringement in any of the suits that they brought.

~~~
pessimizer
At the very least, reduce the bizarre, surrealistic damage amounts.

------
wyldfire
Gems from the judicial order to pay damages [1]:

>“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

> —Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982).

...

> they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a
> single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum ... just
> below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals, resistance is
> futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with
> illegally downloading porn. So now, copyright laws originally designed to
> compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-
> media era to plunder the citizenry.

[1] [https://popehat.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/PendaSanction...](https://popehat.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/PendaSanctionsOrder.pdf)

~~~
zdean
Copyright law was originally created as a mechanism of censoring speech and
(later) for the benefit of guilds...and eventually became a tool of
corporations (see Mickey Mouse). It has never really been a matter of
benefiting/compensating original artists or authors...that's just been the
justification.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law)

------
faster
Popehat has had the best commentary on the Prenda debacle. They don't have
this part yet, but stay tuned, they will and it will be hilarious. Well, as
hilarious as a law blog can be.

[https://popehat.com/?s=prenda](https://popehat.com/?s=prenda)

~~~
LeifCarrotson
[https://popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/](https://popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/)

------
joering2
By reading the PDF I was able to find said piratebay videos (no I didn't
download). It looks like all been uploaded by user sharkmp4

[https://thepiratebay.org/user/sharkmp4/](https://thepiratebay.org/user/sharkmp4/)

Update: Camcast confirms account is owned by Steele.

[https://torrentfreak.com/images/copyright-troll-
honesypot.pn...](https://torrentfreak.com/images/copyright-troll-
honesypot.png)

~~~
paapicholoo
Time to get A VPN, i had been using PureVPN since 2 years and now its time to
renew it

~~~
rubberstamp
or use a sock5 anonymous proxy for torrent client. Many free anonymous sock5
proxies are available.

------
cmdrfred
My friend got hit by these guys a few years back. Paid out a few grand I
think.

~~~
cr0sh
Was there more to it, than what it says in the article?

I mean, if these guys wrote me a letter saying "pay up, or we'll let everyone
know you like pr0n!" \- I would write back "Eh - they already know that."

...so there has to have been more to it?

I mean - provided one was honest to those in their lives about their pr0n...

~~~
cmdrfred
He lives with his dad and it's his dad's name on the internet connection. The
lawsuit named his father so he just paid out to avoid any problems for him. It
was several thousand if I recall to make it go away and he hired a lawyer to
navigate the process for him.

~~~
jaclaz
As a side note the scheme - broadly speaking - isn't really "original", anyone
read Roald Dahl's "The Bookseller"?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bookseller_(short_story)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bookseller_\(short_story\))

------
user837387
>>[1]John Steele gleefully threatened opponents and Paul Hansmeier famously
sneered at the defamation defendants "welcome to the big leagues." It was
those actions that drew much more attention to their cases. Character is
destiny. Not only are Steele and Hansmeier wanton crooks, they're spiteful,
entitled, arrogant douches. That led to their downfall.<<

But the part that I really find interesting is this:

>>Character is destiny. ....they're spiteful, entitled, arrogant douches. That
led to their downfall

I say bullshit. Just look at Trump. The guy has fucked over so many people and
sexually assaulted many woman by his own words and we still elected him.

It let to their downfall because they were not powerful enough.

[1][https://popehat.com/2016/12/16/the-prenda-saga-goes-
criminal...](https://popehat.com/2016/12/16/the-prenda-saga-goes-criminal-
steele-and-hansmeier-indicted-on-federal-charges/)

~~~
nathanasmith
I don't think I can take these impromptu rants for the next eight years.

You've inspired me to write a Greasemonkey script to filter out any comment
with the word "Trump" in it. Thanks.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
_Eight_ years? We're _assuming_ the incumbent will be re-elected in four
years?

At that point we might as well just assume they abolish the two-term limit and
crown him king.

~~~
cookiecaper
Incumbents almost always win their elections. Who knows where we'll be in 4
years, but in general, an assumption that a new President-elect will serve two
terms is reasonably safe.

~~~
caf
In the last 50 years, seven incumbents have sought re-election and five were
successful - 71%. That's a good hit rate, but hardly "safe".

~~~
cookiecaper
You have to consider the circumstances around the incumbents that failed to be
re-elected. Ford lost the election because of his association with Watergate
and particularly his decision to pardon Nixon. Carter lost primarily due to
the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. George H.W. Bush lost because Perot came
in and split the conservative vote.

Stretching back further in the 20th century, Hoover lost due to the depression
and LBJ declined to run for a second term because the Vietnam War was so
unpopular they knew he wouldn't have a chance.

None of those are conventional political circumstances. So while you're right
that it's about 3/4 incumbent races won, it seems that if there isn't a
massive ongoing crisis, scandal, or political anomaly, the incumbent's chances
are very good.

~~~
caf
_George H.W. Bush lost because Perot came in and split the conservative vote._

That's been debunked: [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-
myth/](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/)

...and really, in general this is just so much post-facto justification.
Whatever the election result, Reasons will always be found in hindsight. If
Clinton had lost in '96, you'd be able to say it was due to the Whitewater
affair. If GWB had lost in '04, you'd be able to blame the unpopular wars in
the middle east (or more specifically, Abu Graib). If Obama had lost in '12,
it would be easy to pin it on Obamacare.

~~~
CamperBob2
That page doesn't debunk anything, it's just a thinly-disguised advertisement
for a film.

~~~
caf
The entire 10 minute film is viewable directly from that page, that's what I
was linking to.

------
joering2
Great case to play devil's advocate no?

If they were creating "art" in form of porn they had copyright to said work.
No law broken here.

No law broken if you upload your own work to the cloud. You have right to do
it.

Finally, no law broken if you try to pursue those who illegally download your
copyrighted work.

I guess if you combine all of those together then you doing something wrong.
But isn't it ironic that the GOV is allowed to run illegal sting operations
even if they lose big time like in Fast and Furious and that's fine, but if
few lawyers figure out the way to make extra money, then we need to indict
them.

If anything -- were they actually a fish who happen to clean the ocean? I mean
it comes to be as simple as this: do not download illegal porn. Period. I can
bet after being charged by those lawyers many settled and never downloaded
porn again.

There - finished playing devils advocate.

~~~
uxp
I really hate throwing out analogies, but the closest I could think of is the
"unlocked front door". If FTV, the producer of the video, shared themselves or
allowed someone to share in their behalf a video that they produced in order
to bait people to download that, then I would agree that they did nothing
illegal. Leaving my door unlocked is not illegal.

But they went further, by allowing people to download the video they then
exploited the legal system by not charging the people who walked through that
front door looking for things to take with robbery, but merely blackmailed
those people into paying them money to remain silent, or else they would
"publicly" press charges. That is what they are being accused and apparently
charged for.

Sure, don't download illegally shared porn, music, movies or tv shows. But if
you do download that content illegally, you also have a right not not be
blackmailed for the action. Two wrongs do not make a right.

~~~
joering2
Generally I agree with you but what's the definition of "blackmail" in terms
of court of law?

Basically everyone that settled a case in or out of the court was blackmailed?
Doubt that.

I think if someone is breaking the law and you tell them stop or I sue you,
then its even offensive to call it a blackmail.

Again, I don't look at this case from right-or-wrong point of view, as it
seems it is a scam what they did. I'm rather interested whether the lady of
justice will be blindfolded and find no crime was committed, or judge will
hate them because its related to pornography and blackmailing.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Generally I agree with you but what's the definition of "blackmail" in terms
> of court of law

The grandparent post used "blackmail" informally; they aren't charged with
that, so it's definition in a court of law is tangential. They are charged
with perjury, subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit both perjury and
subornation of perjury, and also charged with mail fraud, wire fraud, and
money laundering.

None of which would be an issue with fact-based copyright claims against
people the person suing (and offering to settle) believed reasonably were (or
even might be) guilty.

