Law Firm Used “Gay Marriage” Defence in Copyright LawsuitAdded: Saturday, June 1st, 2013
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, www.extrattorrent.com, 2013
People who want to know the standard of legal arguments among the companies involved in so-called “commercial invoicing” just need to take a look at the Prenda case in Georgia. This copyright troll faced some problems when its antics were ruled illegal by Californian judge Otis Wright. The latter also demanded that a copy of his decision be submitted in every other subsequent case involving the company.
However, Prenda attorneys working in the Northern District of Georgia failed to do so, and the defendant with his lawyer had to submit the Californian court’s ruling themselves to the court in the end. When asked to explain their behavior and counter the previous ruling, the law firm’s local counsel in Georgia tried to counter it with one of the most ridiculous filings ever seen by legal experts.
Prenda Law argued that the court shouldn’t allow Californian judge’s order to be entered into the docket because… California recognizes gay marriage while Georgia doesn’t! Got it?
The company’s reasoning is the following: the previous ruling was made by a Californian judge and everyone realizes they are all suspect because they allow gay marriage. However, now the case is heard in Georgia, where men are men and women are women. So, they draw a conclusion that Prenda Law has the right to screw over anyone it claims illegally downloaded copyrighted content using whatever dodgy tactics it wants. In addition, the firm’s lawyers pointed out that California has different immigration rules.
It seems that Prenda is hoping in its appeal to knee jerk right wing reactionary politics that the judge now will froth at the mouth and even ignore the fact that the previous ruling isn’t precedential. That’s a clear misconduct case against the law firm including potential racketeering and tax evasion claims.
June 1st,2013Posted by:
Saturday, June 1st, 2013
|posted by (2013-06-01 14:24:05)|
|Ha Ha Ha. Thank You. This made me laugh.|
|posted by (2013-06-02 11:54:43)|
|Lol thank you for the news - ILARIOUS ! (But wait - if Prenda Law is representing mostly porn companies, most of which are based in California, can I not use the same pissing-in-my-pants ridiculous argument to not pay their films ? I mean yes I downloaded some porn from their companies without paying for them - but those companies are based in California, and they have gay marriage, so I shouldn't be expected to respect California law, or those companies IP claims, right ? It's the dumbest thing I ever heard or said, but if they're using this argument, why not play their game ? Makes them look even stupider, no ?)|
|This seems to be an outright lie. I'm all for freedom in this, but the following statement and the premise of this article is BS: "The company’s reasoning is...previous ruling...made by a Californian judge and everyone realizes they are all suspect because they allow gay marriage."|
That is not their reasoning. Their reasoning is JURISDICTION. California cannot make another state honor a gay marriage from Cali, just as Georgian judges can't enforce Georgian law in Cali. Their reasoning is that if a Cali judge can say this suit is BS, then a corrupt judge from Georgia can do the exact opposite and his ruling applies only to Georgia as it's not(currently) a FEDERAL case.
|posted by (2013-06-03 16:16:12)|
|YoMammaSoFat you are correct - after reading a little about it, the article is very misleading - the Prenda Law case seems stupid but for other reasons. Their claim that the court decision in California is not a precedential ruling in this Georgia case is 100% correct - however nobody is claiming that - Prenda's fault seems to be that the California judge ordered Prenda to inform the Georgia courts (and others) of its ruling. Because this ruling is about federal law, not about any specific state, it seems logically there is no real good reason for this argument about "California law & Georgia law are different, so we don't have to follow the California ruling about telling you about our other court cases". Fact seems to be : they didn't follow the California ruling to inform the Georgia courts about its decision (which, being about a federal law, seems to be logical and legitimate), they got caught, and now they're trying to justify that they didn't have to do it.|
The examples they chose to emphasise that you don't have to apply California law in Georgia are indeed in my eyes a little politically motivated (gay marriage & immigration), probably to try to provoke a reaction in Georgia - a bias against the California judge and / or decision). But I guess to be fair I can imagine that those subjects may come pretty quickly to mind to show there are huge differences in those two states laws.
|posted by (2013-06-03 16:38:39)|
|P.S : after reading the actual document, (which I recommend, at least pages 3 and 4) I can DEFINITELY say that Prenda's lawyers are trying to get the Georgia judge to go against the California ruling at least partly because they have gay marriage, less strict immigration laws, and some tougher gun laws - and to scare Georgia judges into thinking that if they follow their California colleagues, they risk having their state follow suit on those subjects. So even if the article is extrapolating A LOT, there IS something to the claim that Prenda is trying to invalidate the previous California ruling arguments by saying that California has gay marriage, and that while their ruling might have been " rendered in the best interest of the residents of California" it certainly won't be "in the best interest of the residents and practitioners of Georgia" - because those interests are so different, c.f : those crazy Californians have gay marriage, so we should be careful about their federal judge's decisions.|
I'm exaggerating but not by that much. People should read the document (easily found on the internet), the phrasing, and see the 3 only examples chosen (gay marriage, immigration and gun laws) and make up their own minds.
|posted by (2013-06-03 18:40:15)|
|So matt could we use any of this in our defense if Pre(te)nda Law came knocking?|
|posted by (2013-06-03 18:55:09)|
|Lol why not ? After reading a few of their legal filings (I never thought legal documents could be funny but those guys are hilarious), I guess you could counter-sue them that you had the right to download their porn movies because God, who is a blue rabbit wearing a red tie, told you in person that you could, and you would still have only the second dumbest legal argument in the courtroom...|
(Or you could also tell them that Alan Cooper told you himself at the time that you could do it, you just don't remember whose Alan Cooper it was .... and also anonymous attacked PayPal, and France just passed gay marriage, so I rest my case your honor.)
Most Popular Stories