2nd Circuit Upholds Non-Monetary Sanctions Against Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz:
Here's a quick update on infamous copyright troll Richard Liebowitz. As you may recall, after tons of stories about Liebowitz's horrendously bad activities in and out of court, federal district court Judge Jesse Furman finally threw the book at Liebowitz in an incredible ruling that literally catalogued dozens upon dozens of examples of Liebowitz lying to his and other courts. Furman issued both monetary and non-monetary sanctions. Among the non-monetary sanctions was a requirement that Liebowitz file a copy of this particular benchslap in basically every court where he is representing a client.
Liebowitz whined about how unfair it all was, and appealed the ruling. On Friday, the 2nd Circuit Court of appeals upheld the non-monetary sanctions, saying it will release its opinion on the monetary sanctions shortly. The ruling is pretty short (unlike Furman's explanation of all of Liebowitz's wrongdoing), but the general conclusion is: all the evidence says that Furman was exactly right, so his sanctions order was fine.
There's also a fun footnote dismissing one of Liebowitz's classically silly arguments:
Appellants’ argument that the sanction would impose a substantial burden because deposit files are expensive to obtain is unpersuasive. As the district court noted, Liebowitz often settles cases “‘in the low thousands or tens of thousands of dollars’ . . . a far cry from the $200 to $1,200 cost of obtaining a deposit copy.”
Liebowitz made some other arguments as well, but the Court notes: "We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @06:01AM (5 children)
The link dest doesn't show on the story, but it sounds like a biased editorial.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 29 2021, @06:55AM (1 child)
Janrinok rolls that way. I suggest Aa Canticle for Leibowitz [archive.org], in 15 parts. Makes you think, maybe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @11:34AM
Flowers for Aristarchus [raio.org] PDF
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 29 2021, @07:35AM (1 child)
All the links are working in Europe.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @07:45AM
That is exactly what the Nazis used to say!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 29 2021, @03:47PM
It is news, of another of many battles in the Copyright War. At least this war is being fought in a civilized manner, in court, and not on the battlefield. Though I note some AC further down snarkily suggested that honest folk who agree that copyright is currently far too extreme, would like to see the death penalty for the copyright troll. Ah, no. In case anyone missed the snark, it is the copyright extremists who might wish for the death penalty. See the Star Trek episode I, Mudd.
Perhaps you feel the entire war is bull, and should have long since been decided? Perhaps so, but it is a complex and tricky issue. I was confident that reform would prevail, but in more recent years, I've been having doubts. Steam, especially, has been successful at offering a fair bit of compensation in the form of more organized competition, in exchange for game players acceptance of their DRM. The War on Drugs is another such, and it seems we've finally turned a corner on that one and acknowledged that much of the opprobrium against drugs is manufactured lying propaganda. It did not come without a lot of pain and suffering, imprisoning for years people whose only "crime" was possession. I find copyright trolls to be on balance useful idiots, demonstrating through their actions just how broken copyright is, and how cruel enforcement can be. Though it could still be argued that the trolls are not representative, and so do not hurt the cause of the copyright extremists.
That anyone at all was ever imprisoned over copyright violations is a stain upon the "justice" and legal system. This Leibowitz character lied and perjured himself, but is he going to prison for that? No! Yet those whose only "crime" was to run a bittorrent site and turn a blind eye to piracy however blatant and rampant, have been imprisoned.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Tuesday June 29 2021, @10:08AM (11 children)
Copyright abuse happens far more frequently than we might immediately think. There are numerous examples of Youtube removing videos following erroneous DMCA claims against video that feature original music by the submitter. Similarly, we have often reported on here of copyright trolls making threats regarding the use of specific software, or demanding financial recompense from those using that software even though the trolls have not established a credible claim to the software copyright. Courts in the past have appeared to be reluctant to impose severe sanctions on those making false claims, although there are some exceptions.
This is a case where the courts recognised that the copyright claim was invalid, and that the claimant repeatedly lied in an attempt to convince the courts otherwise. Perhaps there is beginning to be some recognition that false claims are serious and that courts should look more closely at specific cases. In particular, there appears in the past to have been little that could be done against false DMCA claims even though there is a formal procedure to be followed in such cases. Maybe, just maybe, the courts will recognise that such events are not trivial and when DMCA claims are made they should be supported with evidence rather than taken at face value. Repeat offenders should be treated appropriately.
Just my €0.02.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 29 2021, @11:49AM (9 children)
It is my impression that the DMCA is abused more often on places like Youtube, than it is properly used. One of the more infamous cases https://consumerist.com/2015/07/06/8-years-later-universal-music-still-defending-takedown-of-dancing-baby-youtube-video/ [consumerist.com]
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday June 29 2021, @01:31PM (5 children)
There's a problem with biased selection of evidence. We don't hear about many of the cases where the DMCA was properly applied.
That said, I consider the DMCA a horrible law. Copyright should be for no more than 25 years including all renewals. And "fair use" should be defined in a way that allows one to know whether any particular use qualifies.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday June 29 2021, @02:09PM (3 children)
The people who can properly apply the DMCA have a mouthpiece. They could certainly point out a list of legitimate uses if there were any.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 29 2021, @04:53PM (2 children)
C'mon! I mean screw those guys, I agree with that.
But pretending no legitimately copyrighted material has even been taken down on YouTube via DMCA? That's just a ridiculous strain on credibility right there. We all know you can still find whole TV episodes and stuff on there even with the DMCA....
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 29 2021, @05:01PM (1 child)
I agree. There is a well oiled machine for taking stuff down from YouTube. Yet unlicensed copyrighted material still gets uploaded.
If the DMCA were being used so successfully, I think the DMCA's supporters would be proud of it.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 29 2021, @05:26PM
I'm sure that at Imaginary Property Con 2021 there are supporters doing exactly that.
We just don't hear about it because we don't like Imaginary Property Con 2021.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday June 29 2021, @02:40PM
That is piss poor consolation to those wrongly accused.
Agreed
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @02:45PM (2 children)
She had cut the video to 29 seconds (Wikipedia's standard fair use length) and had the EFF on speed dial when the video was taken down? Doesn't sound like a standard American zombie's act, sounds like a targeted lawsuit test.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 29 2021, @03:20PM
Even if your assessment were accurate and fair - which it is not - the "music" was nothing more than background noise in the video. I couldn't have identified the music, let alone enjoyed it. The focus of the video was a child exercising and exploring his world. If the lady had uploaded 15 minutes of video, with 5 complete songs playing in the background, I would still insist that it was fair use, since it was all but inaudible.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @04:43PM
29-30 seconds isn't a real fair use rule, just something people made up. Courts decide these matters on a case by case basis.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 29 2021, @11:49PM
As an example of attempted copyright abuse: I made an original recording, put it up on Youtube, and immediately got hit with a copyright challenge. It turned out that because what I had done was a parodic take on a popular song, and because the copyright-scanning companies get paid per violation found, they slapped a challenge on it. Youtube, to its credit, rejected the challenge after I pointed out what it was.
If you want a wilder tale of attempted copyright abuse, Lindsay Ellis [youtube.com] has you covered: She got a DMCA takedown notice because someone was mad about her previous video about that someone's previous abuse of DMCA takedowns to end the careers of competing authors in their genre.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29 2021, @12:42PM
I told you bleeding-heart Democrats it was justified in certain cases.