CEG-TEK
Another Massachusetts Judge issues a strong anti-extortion Memorandum and Order
These days another scammer, Daniel Ruggiero, who represents John Steele’s Prenda Law, files dozens of frivolous cases against individuals on the East Coast, including Massachusetts². I think that MA is his biggest mistake.
This week District Judge William Young added an especially excellent page to the Troll Exterminator’s Guide. This is one of the rulings that will be quoted widely, not less than the famous rulings by judges Brown, McMahon, Write, Baer, as well as other classical examples of responsible case law building.
The Court acknowledges without reservation Third Degree’s right to assert copyright protection of the Film and to sue individuals who infringe on its intellectual property. But after a careful weighing of the balance of potential injustices in this case and like cases, the Court determines that any efficiency gains and cost benefits to Third Degree from joining the Doe defendants in a single action are substantially outweighed by the fairness concerns and inefficiencies at trial, the potential prejudice from what seems to be a developing pattern of extortionate settlement demands, and the evasion of thousands of dollars of filing fees.
As a result of rulings like this being quoted extensively, corrupt pro-troll DC judges will be in a greater and greater isolation, and a judge who deals with trolls for the first time won’t think twice before doing the right thing.
Enjoy the entire Memorandum and Order:
Thanks to Nicholas Guerrera and Jason Sweet for keeping me updated and bringing good news.
Update
10/16/2012
Today Judge Young severed Does from three of Marvin Cable’s cases, leaving a single Doe per each case:
- 1:12-cv-10535-WGY Third Degree Films v. Does 1-80 filed 03/23/12
- 1:12-cv-10762-WGY Third Degree Films v. Does 1-47 filed 04/28/12
- 1:12-cv-10763-WGY Third Degree Films v. Does 1-39 filed 04/28/12
¹ Thanks to MA Doe defendants. Unlike in other states (except maybe for Florida), per capita rate of talented IP attorneys in Massachusetts is astounding. I plan to redesign my Resources page and list defense attorneys on the state pages: visit the Massachusetts page in a while to see the list.
² I plan to write about Ruggiero’s sanctionable activities soon.
It seems as if MA is following the MD troll arc with Judges being initially generous to trolls and then in a nanosecond ending the extortion racket. Great news!
Subscribe
As J. Rushie noticed, unlike in his previous opinion pieces, Young did not bring the question of the copyrightability of porn this time. Both sides of the debate may speculate about the reason why Young dropped this toxic topic, but I really don’t care. In my opinion, judges question the applicability of copyright protection to porn simply as a reaction to the ongoing abuse. If copyright law would not be abused by pornographers so brazenly, no one would really care. Marc Randazza with his briefs completely misses the point here and blows the issue way out of proportion. In reality it is as simple as “don’t be an asshole to me and I won’t report that two thousand dollars you failed to declare to IRS.”
That, and not to mention that it still is federally illegal along with violating laws in every state. back in the day courts didn’t enforce those laws because it wasn’t hurting any body, now it’s being used as a weapon raising the questions and laws that could shut the entire industry. amazing how greed blinds fools.