Copyright trolls Prenda Law, Paul Duffy, and John Steele commence three lawsuits v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and our community

Posted: March 4, 2013 by SJD in Coopergate, Prenda
Tags: Alan Cooper, Anti-Piracy Law Group, bittorrent, copyright, copyright troll, lawsuit abuse, paul duffy, Paul Godfread, Paul Hansmeier, prenda law

85

In an unexpected and rather desperate move, in the midst of growing public’s and judges’ impatience regarding Prenda’s conduct, this “law firm” has commenced three libel lawsuits designed to chill free speech by burying its critics in massive legal fees. Initially those lawsuits have been filed in state courts so loved by Prenda (St. Clair County IL, Cook County IL, and Miami-Dade FL), but were promptly removed to the federal level by the defense lawyers. So, now we have:

• Paul Duffy v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and Does 1-10, ILND 13-cv-01569 — Jason Sweet and Erin Russell represent Paul and Alan.
• Prenda Law v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and Does 1-10, ILSD 13-cv-00207 — Jason Sweet and Erin Russell represent Paul and Alan.
• John Steele v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and Does 1-10, FLSD 13-cv-20741 — Brad Patrick represents Paul and Alan.

Here is one of the complaints (the other two can be found in Jordan Rushie’s blog post):

View this document on Scribd

Alan Cooper and his attorney Paul Godfread are the main targets, obviously because they brought some uncomfortable questions to the daylight. Stifling the criticism of Prenda’s actions is the second, but not a secondary goal.

Who are the Does 1-10? If you read through largely identical complaints, you’ll see the answer: us. Us: me, DieTrollDie, dozens of community members who spend our personal time and resources to keep public aware of the predatory practice known as “copyright trolling” — abusive lawsuits with a declared goal to stop online piracy, but in reality designed to coerce quick settlements from alleged file-sharers, guilty or not. This is achieved by leveraging the social stigma attached to pornography and by insane, disproportionate statutory fines meant to be applied to large, commercial-scale infringement. We have been diligently reporting on lawsuit abuses, and it is not a surprise that those who benefit from such abuses are eager to shut us down.
I will avoid commenting on these three cases for the time being; will restrict myself to only reporting facts. Anyone with half brain can see all the flaws and the real goals of these cases anyway (as well as the answer to the question: “Why are there three nearly identical lawsuits, not one?”). Feel free to discuss these lawsuits, but be aware that if discovery is granted, your identity will most likely be revealed to the plaintiffs (I cannot do anything about it), so don’t say what you would not say openly.
As for me, I stand by everything I wrote. Maybe the words I have chosen were overly emotional, but everything I said has been based on provable facts and good faith. In addition, I never tried to smuggle my opinions as facts.
This country is still a world leader in free speech, and I hope that the outcome of these lawsuits will only strengthen my and many others’ pride.