correct on all but the size, its just under 1800sq ft, here is a link to zazzle for their specific condo in the puece.

It was indeed a great summery. I've clipped that section of video out, and will be playing it at all my future talks on this topic.

The cases you're talking about (the non-porn ones) happened many years ago. I mean Tennenbaum was 10 years ago, Thomas was about the same. However, the main difference is that instead of just straight suing, and then offering a settlement and suing, here they'll sue (john doe for ex parte discovery) then offer a settlement, but then NOT sue again. They go out of their way to not conclude the litigation.

The Patel case in Georgia shows that perfectly. They Doe-sued in DC (in the court of former RIAA lawyer Beryll Howell) to get the info, then sent a demand to Patel here in GA. When he didn't pay up (or reply), they filed a case in Georgia. Then when he didn't respond, they filed for a default judgement which they got. However, within a week of filing for and getting the default judgement, Patel hired a lawyer, who then filed asking for consideration to litigate with a reason for the non-response. Since it was timely and courts prefer litigation over a default, it looked like the court would re-open the case. So Prenda dismissed the case before the judge could set aside the default.

If there's one thing that get's a judge's attention, it's a case where the plaintiff's are so eager, they push for a default judgement, but when they had it and might lose it, they'll actually dismiss the case rather than risk losing. It means they knew they had absolutely no case, and judges (especially Senior (and former Chief) Judge O'Kelley don't like that at all. (He also doesn't like the internet, but that's another story, and probably related to the fact he was appointed to this court by Nixon in 1970)

but that's why it's extortion. There's no good-faith effort to litigate to right a wrong. it's litigation purely for the purpose of identification, and to collect money from those who are apt to pay up, or who ignore it and hope it'll go away (and so get defaults). Demanding money with threats is extortion, because threats are all they have - they have no facts.

The judge can write the text of the order any way he wants. As long as the legal points are in accord with case law, and all the correct legal references are there, it doesn't matter what manner he uses to deliver the OPINION of the court.

Also, if they were going to go for 'nutso judge', they would have to claim that in the appeal, they didn't (and in fact not a single mention was made of the references (which means I won the twitter pool). Finally, any 'nutso judge' claim would also have to look at the hearing transcripts, which do NOT have such references.

Finally, TV lies. Law and order is nothing like being in an actual court hearing (I've sat at the defense table for one of the other Prenda cases referenced in the hearing - Patel in Georgia). Just as CSI/NCIS is complete crap when it comes to forensics (although it seems the FBI is too) and tech in general (you don't want to know about an episode I was asked to consult on 10+years ago - it was so bad I turned it down because it would have killed my integrity and soul).

Judges have wide lattitude in the text of their orders. As long as they cover the points of law backing their orders (otherwise it'd be appealed successfully) there's no other requirement on content. Being a judge is kinda boring, so sometimes they let off some steam by trying to distinguish the order in some way. Most don't make news, but this being a set of cases watched internationally, did.

Other examples include a judge ordering a game of rock-scissors-paper on both counsels to decide where a deposition hearing would take place, it did its job of chastising the lawyers. And as someone who reads WAY too many legal briefs, the star trek order here was a refreshing break, as well as limited to the plain-language sections, leaving the legalese alone, for you, the purist.

I typo'd, I have posted a correction, and fixed it. I also clipped the video and included it on the piece so you can see for yourself exactly what he said. Not my intent to deceive anyone.

nope, My bad on a typo (I'm gonna blame a mixture of allergy and Bronchitis medication) but it should have been Ingenious.

The district judge's order in this case was littered with star trek references.

Here's one three-line example:

"Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO. The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage."

That's 5 references in 2 sentences.

the 2012 one was crowdsourced previously, not 2010

Great, just one problem That's NOT what Net Neutrality is about. You do realise we have had net neutrality in function if not name for many years, ended about 7 years ago, right? That without it, the market *can't* sort it out, and local governments can't do anything about it. If you don't understand the issue, then it's understandable why you don't seem to support it. You seem to think it's something very different than what it is. And they WANT the title2 provisions, for funding, just not on providing the services they've been paid for.

Nope, bang on wrong. He's the head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit - a unit of the CoL police, funded with a few million from the movie industry, to 'work on copyright issues nationally', and the CoL cops got it because theyre 'the lead cops for fraud nationwide'. Just to clear up, its not quite like the US,where the forces are limited to geographical restrictions, certain squads and units are 'national' in usage.

Not really telling us anything we didn't already know though, is it? They've been saying this for months. (although I'll admit not in the NYT or PBS - it's something I follow since it was my research for TorrentFreak that started all this when we proved Comcast were screwing with Bittorrent traffic back in the summer of 07)

indeed it is http://ktetch.co.uk/2014/09/co... . I wrote that by approaching the matter the same way I did the claim of Comcast screwing with Bittorrent in 07. I found they were doing it in 07 (which led to TorrentFreak, who I work for, publishing about it, then the AP and EFF checking my results, and then the FCC starting the whole Net Neutrality thing). Not the case here, and there's no substantiation, and a lot of internal contradiction in the telling, as well as spouting absolute crap (the 6-strikes thing)