|
Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-Piracy Law Group, was a Chicago-based law firm that ostensibly operated by undertaking litigation against copyright infringement, but was later characterized by the United States District Court for Central California in a May 2013 ruling as a "porno-trolling collective" whose business model "relies on deception",〔 and which resembled most closely a conspiracy〔 and racketeering enterprise,〔 referring in the judgment to RICO, the United States Federal anti-racketeering law.〔〔(Judge Orders Prenda Law Group Beamed Out Into Space ), ''Lowering the bar'', blog of Kevin Underhill (partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon), 2013-05-07: "The word "enterprise" has a triple meaning here, actually. First, the standard meaning of a "business enterprise," which this kind of was. Second, the legal meaning of a RICO "enterprise," RICO being the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, often used against organized crime and which the judge mentioned in his order. Third, the ''(from Star Trek )'' U.S.S. Enterprise."〕 The firm ostensibly dissolved itself in July 2013 shortly after the adverse ruling〔(Another Judge Refers 'Porn Troll' Prenda Law To Prosecutors ) Law 360, 2013-11-12.〕 (although onlookers describe Alpha Law Firm LLC as its apparent replacement〔), while in 2014, ABA Journal-Law News described the "Prenda Law saga" as entering "legal folklore".〔(How two California solos helped take down 'porn troll' Prenda Law ) 2014-01-14 ABA Journal Law News〕 In the 2013 civil ruling, Prenda Law, and three named principals, John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy, were found to have undertaken vexatious litigation,〔 identity theft,〔 misrepresentation and calculated deception (including "fraudulent signature"),〔 professional misconduct and to have shown moral turpitude.〔 The principals were also deemed to have founded and been the ''de facto'' owners and officers of the shell company plaintiff and their alleged "client", created in order to "give an appearance of legitimacy".〔 As a result, the firm and its principals were fined; the matter was also referred to the United States Attorney for Central California (for criminal indictment consideration) and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division (for tax fraud consideration).〔 A fourth attorney, Brett Gibbs, was also sanctioned, fined and referred to a disciplinary committee by the court for false statements〔 and his part in the subsequent cover-up,〔 though described as their employee.〔 (Gibbs' monetary sanctions were later vacated after turning whistleblower〔(Oops: Brett Gibbs Releases Spreadsheet Showing 70% Of Prenda Proceeds Went To Steele & Hansmeier ), Mike Masnick, TechDirt, 2013-10-17: "...Exhibit E shows that Prenda received income from 'Pirates' of $1,931,977.09 in 2012, and made 'Payments to Old Owners' of $1,343,806.78 or 69.6% of its total receipts. Considering other payments to or for Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy, the total distributed to them likely exceeded 80% of receipts, even though these distributions left Prenda with a 2012 loss of $487,791.20..."〕 as part of his appeal). Subsequently other Federal courts in different states also ruled in a similar manner against the firm and/or others linked to it,〔(Prenda saga continues as appeals over sanctions move forward ) - Madison St Clair Record/legal Journal, 2014-02-14〕 including fraud upon the court ruled in a Minnesota court review of 5 closed cases〔 and "relentless willingness to lie" in an Illinois court,〔(Lightspeed Media v. Anthony Smith, order 2013-11-27, p.10 ): "The Court also finds that Duffy, Hansmeier, and Steele exhibited a 'serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice' () These men have shown a relentless willingness to lie to the Court on paper and in person, despite being on notice that they were facing sanctions in this Court, being sanctioned by other courts, districts, and being referred to state and federal bars, one state Attorney General, the United States Attorney in at least two and the Internal Revenue Service."〕 criminal prosecutor referrals also occurred or were suggested in other jurisdictions.〔〔 The firm's ''modus operandi'' as described in the ruling and media coverage, was to threaten individual members of the public with litigation (hence public exposure) over allegations that they breached copyright during pornographic downloads (based on a "statistical guess" according to the court).〔〔 The firm would then offer to settle the case (silently) for a little below the cost of an active legal defense,〔 in what was described by the court as an "extortion payment".〔(Tales of the Trolls: A Four-Part Series on Internet, Patent, and Copyright Trolling – Part 4: Copyright Trolls ) - Keller Law Firm, Firm official blog, series on legal aspects of trolling (undated): "Prenda would send letters threatening suit to individuals who illegally downloaded porn, a threat magnified through the potential for 'negative publicity' (e.g. now everyone knows you as the person being sued for downloading porn). Through this practice, which one federal judge called an 'extortion payment', the firm extracted penalties and settlements of as much as $15 million over an undisclosed period of time. Having employed a number of questionable (and possibly illegal) business and legal practices along the way, Prenda now faces investigations by the IRS and U.S. Attorney's Office..."〕 Cases with robust defendants and non-profitable cases were dropped.〔 At times the firm acted for client corporations whose filed papers contained discredited signatures and identities found false by the courts – commenters characterized the firm's plaintiffs as often (though not always) being shell companies operated for the firm and/or attorneys' own benefit〔〔(Copyright troll Prenda refuses to explain legal strategy ) - The Register 2013-04-03: "In an earlier hearing, Judge Wright had 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... Prenda has even been accused of stealing the identity of a Minnesota man, Alan Cooper, to use as a fictitious officer who had legal signing authority for various of Prenda's shell companies."〕〔(Letter and documents by Gotfread, Alan Cooper's attorney, notifying judiciary of the misuse of his clients name by Prenda and affiliates ) - 2012-11-29〕 a Federal District court described Prenda's principal attorneys in 2013 as "engaging () cloak of shell companies and fraud",〔 and comments of "shocking" and apparent "shell game activity" by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judges at the inability or refusal to describe relationships between the law firms, "clients" and principals,〔http://madisonrecord.com/issues/332-class-action/263809-seventh-circuit-hears-arguments-in-prenda-attorneys-appeal-over-261k-sanction-order-judge-says-lightspeed-record-is-troublesome〕 An expert witness 〔(Porno copyright trolls Prenda: expert says they pirated their own movies to get victims to download ) - BoingBoing 2013-06-03: "()ne of their victims has had an expert witness file an affidavit in First Time Videos vs. Paul Oppold, a case in Florida. The expert fields an astonishing accusation: Prenda Law's principle, John Steele, is the person who uploaded the infringing pornography in the first place, listing it on BitTorrent index sites with information inviting people to download it -- people whom he then sent legal threats to for downloading those selfsame movies." (see also: (Document stated to be the affidavit's full text ))〕 affidavit stated that IP addresses linked to Prenda's Minnesota and Florida offices and John Steele, had themselves been identified in 2013 as the initial "seeders" (sharers) of some pornographic media, tagged for "fast" sharing on file-sharing networks, which would be followed up by threat of legal action,〔〔(Copyright troll Prenda Law accused of seeding own torrents ) - The Register, 2013-06-06.〕〔(Prenda seeded its own porn files via BitTorrent, new affidavit argues ) - Ars Technica, 2013-06-04〕 with Prenda as the pornography producer or copyright purchaser, file sharer (offeror), plaintiff, and plaintiff's attorney; the suspect IP, linked to pirate media distribution, was confirmed as Steele and Hansmeier's by Comcast.〔(Copyright Troll Ran Pirate Bay Honeypot, Comcast Confirms ) - Torrentfreak 2013-08-15〕 In some cases hacking was alleged, or claims that the defendant was one of hundreds or thousands of "co-conspirators" for whom non-party subpoenas and discovery were sought;〔http://www.scribd.com/doc/98939494/Lightspeed-2-Motion-for-Supervisory-Order〕 in one case the defendant testified he was in effect offered an ultimatum to act as a "sham"〔 defendant and collusively〔 agree to be sued.〔〔 Commentators writing for ''Salon'', ''Law360'',〔 ''JETLaw'' journal,〔(The Worst Troll in the Copyright Kingdom: Pornography, Attorney Sanctions, and Prenda Law ), JETLaw, Parker Hancock, 2013-03-21〕 ''Forbes'',〔( The Simple Way To Beat Copyright Trolls Like Prenda ), Forbes, 2013-05-08〕 ''The Consumerist'',〔( Porn Troll Lawyers Hit With Legal Fees For Bullying Defendant ), The COnsumerist, 2013-10-31〕 and ''The Register''〔 described the business as a copyright troll or as "notorious" for trolling, while tech website ''Ars Technica'' described the judge as coming at the firm and its principals "like a tornado". ==History== Prenda first came to prominence through the practice of identifying the IP addresses of Internet subscribers who, it claims, downloaded copyrighted pornographic videos or "hacked" into pornography-related clients. The firm would file copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court, in which it requested "up front" early discovery via "over-broad"〔(''AF Holdings v. Patel'', case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO ) - order dated 2013-12-18〕 subpoenas against the respective Internet service providers (ISPs),〔〔〔 upon sometimes-deceptive grounds and at times with falsified signatures on key documents〔〔 These discoveries were used to obtain names and addresses of hundreds or even thousands of subscribers said to be infringers or "co-conspirators" in some cases.〔〔〔 The subscribers concerned - who might have had no responsibility for any alleged download due to Prenda's lack of care over innocent targets〔〔 - were then written to, and accused of copyright infringement or computer misuse, and threatened with over $150,000 in statutory penalties or told of the possibility of higher damages if the matter was decided in court,〔 and that refusal to pay would cause the recipient's name, together with the names of alleged pornographic videos, to be entered on public court documents, publicly exposing the subscribers' supposed pornographic interest and trial for alleged downloading. That is, the recipient would be stigmatized and identified to the public (e.g., to friends, employers, spouse, children, coworkers, etc.) as someone who had illegally downloaded specific pornography titles on the internet, and been sued in court for doing so.〔 At times, what were sometimes seen as veiled threats were also made, that household members, neighbors, and visitors to the household would be formally asked if they had been responsible for the download of the pornographic material on the defendant's network, as part of their investigation, if they continued not to pay.〔(letter ) stated to be from "LW Systems v. Christopher Hubbard"〕〔http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2013/05/notorious-porn-copyright-patent-trolls-down-but-not-out.html : "... the newly renamed "Anti-Piracy Law Group" sent out similar letters, signed by a Prenda principal (Paul Duffy), which included the following veiled threat..."〕 The letters then offered to make the case go away "silently" for a fee—$4,000 was the price of silence offered to some. The amount demanded was usually slightly less than a typical attorney would charge to defend the case on its merits (as alluded to in the ruling on ''Ingenuity 13'' (''below'')), so under the "American rule" for legal costs even the completely innocent would have a strong incentive to pay what Los Angeles-based U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II called an "extortion payment".〔 Alan Cooper claimed in his 2013 testimony, that an attorney ruled to be one of Prenda's principals had stated to him that "his goal was $10,000 a day, to have a mailing of these letters. ... ()hat he would just send out a letter stating that if they didn't send a check for a certain amount, that he would make it public to these people's family and friends what they were looking at".〔(''Ingenuity 13 v Does'' Transcript 11 March 2013 ), case CV 12-8333 ODW.〕 It was later testified and ruled in various courts that many (although not all) of the firm's purported "clients" or "plaintiffs" only appeared to exist as shell companies or "fronts" for the principals themselves, and that in effect the principals had been litigating on their own behalf.〔 Signatures and representatives purported to be of clients, were ruled to be falsified, with at least one identity "stolen" and one purported "representative" excluded from court. In a 2013 Minnesota review of five closed cases, none of the documents used to show standing were ruled to be credible.〔 At times the law firm itself was also alleged to have been behind sharing of previously-undistributed pornography on well-known video "piracy" websites – an apparent effort to induce litigable downloading. The rewards reaped by what Wright called the "porno-trolling collective" ran into the millions. Steele told ''Forbes'' magazine that his firm had filed over 350 lawsuits against more than 20,000 people, resulting in "a little less than $15 million" in settlements. Brett Gibbs testified in 2013 that based on documents shown to him, the firm's revenue from settlements was around $1.93m in 2012, of which around 80% was ultimately distributed to the principals or their joint companies, rather than purported clients.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Prenda Law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|