26 thoughts on “Possible copyright suit? (To Be Continued…)”

1. Let’s do a quick analysis here.

   1. goodprevails at gmail
   2. Marietta, GA IP address
   3. Mac User
   4. Ms. Ellis having a public online album named “OS X Photos”
   5. A cryptic legal threat message that doesn’t identify a photo or the true identity of the person sending the email.

   Yup, it does appear to be Ms. Ellis or certainly one of her flunkies that works/extorts for her.

   Perhaps, she didn’t get your DMCA counter-response letter written by Attorney Oscar Michelen months ago?

   Make sure you forward this post and the email to Oscar. I am quite sure he will be interested in this.

2. I’m tempted to test whether the email bounces… but nah.
   I’m sure she got my DMCA counter response. In principle she could sue. I’m 99.9999999999% sure she would lose. I’m 99.9999999998% sure this would be at some preliminary stage as I wouldn’t even need to advance to explaining any sort of theory under fair use.

   There are at least two strong legal hurdles she would need to overcome to even get a judge to hear this case. One is showing she is the copyright owner which she may or may not be. The other is explaining her theory of how this is either “copying” or “displaying” under our copyright laws. But if she managed to convince a judge that she could proceed, there is a dang good ‘fair use’ case which I would be happy to present in court.

   I wonder which judge’s ruling I would “work” best. Posner in Flava Works? Or Easterbrook in Kienitz v. Sconnie nation? And that’s just the 7th circuit. If I want to go all “9th circuit” on them, I get Amazon v. Perfect 10.

3. I have read all the emails between Linda and April and the style and tone is very similar. I would not be surprised if this were Linda herself and if not her someone VERY close to her.

   It is a shame that she does not realize that this is her legacy, not the inspirational poem she wrote. Maybe she does and just doesn’t care, sad either way.

4. The thing that strikes me as odd about the message is that it’s so pointless. Why write it at all? I could sort of see it if the email specified an amount to remit immediately, to avoid further ‘trouble’ or something.
   I guess just, what, gloating? Or, is it like trash talk for Linda to get her courage up before filing something? Or is it something totally different?

5. I was taught a long time ago to never engage in legal bluster. This email is at the very least a lot of bluster.
   The cause and obsession to the cause that this odd threat letter seems to examplify is pathetic and pathological.
   I admire you, Lucia, for having hte stamina and chutzpah to work towards gridning this down to the fine powder it should become.
   By the way the two linked photos(?) you have posted only show code on the computer I am on right now.

6. hunter,
   Given a large number of things that have happened since September, I suspect I know what is going on in the head of the person who sent this. And yes. It is likely “bluster”.

   The photos were on copyrighttrolls blog. I’ll have to see what’s up with that!

7. the image is still there..

   http://copyright-trolls.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ellis_troll.jpg

8. lucia, someone should direct Linda Ellis to NewsBlur. I’m sure it’s copied the poem/image a few times.

9. Public figures can still win libel suits
   Showing libel is more difficult for a public figure, but still possible.

   David Barton wins million-dollar defamation suit

   Christian historian warns more may follow ‘to protect reputation and livelihood
   . . . as a public figure, he needed to do more than show that truth was on his side. He also had to demonstrate economic harm to prevail in court. And that, he said, meant hiring an economist for $100,000 to document financial damage. . . .
   When the real financial impact of his over-the-top critics became clear, “We said, OK, it’s time to put our foot down. This is something that does have economic consequences, not to mention character, reputation. And so that’s where we decided to make the move and go after the lawsuit.”

   While being able to show economic harm made it possible to go to court with a defamation claim, Barton said his real motive for bringing suit was to clear his name.

10. The email addy is valid:

    MX record about gmail.com exists.
    Connection succeeded to alt2.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com SMTP.
    220 mx.google.com ESMTP o8si6100036vdw.21 – gsmtp

    > HELO verify-email.org
    250 mx.google.com at your service

    > MAIL FROM:
    =250 2.1.0 OK o8si6100036vdw.21 – gsmtp

    > RCPT TO:
    =250 2.1.5 OK o8si6100036vdw.21 – gsmtp

11. Looks like I went in the spam hole

12. Lucia, one of the things these legal threat types never reckon with is countersuits. There are usually three avenues. Most obvious is ‘defamation’ or equivalent (damaging your good name by alleging something you did not do). Applies to you, and Steyn re Mann in spades. Less obvious is ‘interference with advantageous relationships’ (an old tort concerning accusations of ‘he cheated me’ in order to drive ‘his’ customers away (usually to some other supposedly more honest medieval shopkeeper). Does not apply to you, maybe to Steyn with stretch. Three, malicious prosecution. Means what it says. Using the courts to ‘payback’ perceived nonlegal injuries. Applies to Steyn, probabaly not you.

    Your parody use apparently sits squarely inside the US fair use doctrine, applicable here. Sleep well, and Happy Holidays.
    pS, As offered before, you need some A team legal support in the Chicago area, ask and you shall receive. It is the Chicago way.

13. Should have added, Hunter, you are right. NEVER engage in legal bluster; chumming shark infested waters. Unless, of course, you happen to be an attorney looking to catch legal sharks…
    Linda looks very out of her depth.

14. Re: Rud+Istvan (Comment #133602)
    “Most obvious is ‘defamation’ or equivalent (damaging your good name by alleging something you did not do). Applies to you, and Steyn re Mann in spades.”

    How does that work? Mann says Steyn called him a fraud, Steyn agrees that he did call him a fraud. There isn’t a dispute about what Steyn did, the dispute is whether Steyn’s actions are legally libel. What would Steyn’s complaint be? That Mann defamed Steyn by saying that Steyn attacked Mann’s reputation? Steyn did attack his reputation – but Steyn believes he was justified in doing so. The countersuit for defamation would make no sense.

    “Using the courts to ‘payback’ perceived nonlegal injuries. Applies to Steyn, probabaly not you.”

    Interesting. What “nonlegal injuries” do you think Steyn inflicted on Mann?

15. Nyq Only (Comment #133620)

    Mann has conceded that he is a public figure. He has accused Stein, a journalist, of defamation. By default he is accusing Stein of saying things he knows to be untrue. That defames Stein’s reputation as a journalist if true.

16. Rud+Istvan (Comment #133602)
    December 22nd, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    Lucia, one of the things these legal threat types never reckon with is countersuits.

    If she sues, I will certainly counter sue. One point in the countersuit will be abuse of DMCA. A district court in the 9th district ruled that copyright owners must consider fair use before filing a DMCA.

    Sadly, monetary damages for the injured party are financial damages. That means it’s not worth pursuing the “false DMCA” complaint unless she sues, but I certainly will file it if she does sue.

    And yes, I’ll contact you if she does sue. I suspect she’s just blowing wind right now though. She’s blown wind in the past and likely will again.

    FWIW: We are all waiting to hear from the Georgia Supreme Court on the “Chan v. Ellis” case. Oscar Michelin recently filed another bit of paper after court ruling saying service providers (which Chan as forum operator is) really can’t be held liable for statements by 3rd parties. That was a point made in court during the appeal (much of the ‘evidence’ of Chan’s ‘stalking’ were comments posted by people who were not Chan.)

    So, my theory is Linda Ellis’s mind may have been moved to contemplating this case by a combined series of events, she got upset and sent me that email. Of course, I don’t know she sent it– but IP, tone, subject— seems likely her.

17. Brandon,
    I just went to newsblur. Looks like some things are reorganized a bit. Funny thing: I loaded the ‘feed’ for “boing-boing”. In one case “original” shows an ad from federated media. “Text” and “Story” show nothing blank. Feed shows a blank, and then the feed for a story.

    I suspect I am not the only entity that doesn’t appreciate the various “services” Newblur provides to its customers.

18. Re: John Vetterling (Comment #133633) “Mann has conceded that he is a public figure. He has accused Stein, a journalist, of defamation. By default he is accusing Stein of saying things he knows to be untrue. That defames Stein’s reputation as a journalist if true.”

    And Steyn conceded that it isn’t literally true that Mann has committed fraud – his defense is that he is making a rhetorical comment about a public figure. So 1. Steyn is also a public figure and 2. Mann’s claim that Steyn said something that isn’t true is correct and 3. Steyn’s argument is that it is actually OK in these circumstances for him to say something that isn’t literally true (i.e. it is OK for journalists to say some untrue things hence it is defamation of a journalist to say that they said some untrue things). So Mann can’t have defamed Steyn – he can only have defamed Steyn if Steyn’s legal defense doesn’t hold water and in that case Mann wouldn’t have defamed Steyn either (because then Steyn really would have defamed Mann). A counter suit requires Steyn to have his cake and eat it too.

19. Nyq+Only (Comment #133649)

    You asked what Stein’s complaint could be and I answered. If you think the counter suit has no basis in fact and law you should write an amicus brief for Mann.

20. “If you think the counter suit has no basis in fact and law you should write an amicus brief for Mann.”

    Somehow I think Mann will be able to cope without amicus briefs from random internet people in this particular case 🙂

21. NyQ
    Steyn is counter suing as Mann’s illegal suit has the effect of stopping him following his occupation of commenting on current affairs in a legal and productive way. This is due to the harassment that said suit has on the organisations that publish his views and due to the financial and legal binds that the illegal suit has on his life and conduct and finances.
    Any illegal action that seeks to damage Steyn’s reputation, livelihood and finances and causes him material distress is capable of being pursued through the courts for damages.
    As Mann has no factual basis to sue Steyn his actions in doing so can only be viewed as attempting to use the justice system to beat down an innocent party. The said justice system usually takes a dim view of such attempts and weighs punishments greatly, in time.

22. angech (Comment #133672) “Steyn is counter suing as Mann’s illegal suit has the effect of stopping him following his occupation of commenting on current affairs in a legal and productive way. This is due to the harassment that said suit has on the organisations that publish his views and due to the financial and legal binds that the illegal suit has on his life and conduct and finances.”

    That makes more sense than John or Rud’s points. Are these not the arguments that have been covered in the anti-SLAPP arguments? That Steyn already lost a judgement on those doesn’t bode well for a successful counter suit.

23. Hey guys. I meant to post a comment about this earlier since this is an Open Thread, but I forgot. Some of you may remember me posting about my thoughts as I read through Michael Mann’s book in a post on this site some time back. I was highly critical of it, and I’ve always thought somebody should write a semi-formal response to it which not only points out the many errors in it, but creates an alternative narrative for people who want to hear more than Mann’s twisted view of reality.

    Nobody ever did. I wrote a fair amount of about Michael Mann in various locations, but I could never bring myself to try to tackle such a huge problem as summing up the entire hockey stick debate. That is, until recently. I decided since it seems like nobody else is going to try making an easily accessible resource for people who are new to the topic, I would.

    Earlier this week I announced I’ve uploaded the first of two parts of my overview of the hockey stick debate. You can find it here:

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RE7K3W2

    I’m not sure just how long it’d take the average person to read (it’s only a bit over 10k words), but the the goal was to provide a introduction to the hockey stick debate that anyone could read in a fairly short time and understand what the arguments are all about. The feedback I’ve gotten thus far seems to indicate I succeeded.

    I don’t intend to spam every blog I can find about this, but since the project originated here, I figured people might be interested in it.

    (As for the price, it’s only $0.99. If you’d prefer a free copy, feel free to contact me and I’ll send you one. It just won’t be in eBook form.)

24. Quick warning about my last comment. I just looked at my local copy of the eBook because someone pointed out a formatting error, and when I did, I found the Table of Contents had gotten screwed up. I commented on some details on my site, but since I don’t know when it happened, the version that’s currently live may not have a functioning Table of Contents. I’ve uploaded a new version which should fix the problem, but it may take a little while to go live (I think the last update took 4-6 hours).

25. Very much off topic, I posted something on ATTP recently concerning Bjorn Lomborg. I tried to get some info for it from lomborg.com, and from http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com. Both sites gave me This webpage is not available. It’s been that way several days now. Anyone know if there’s been a DOS attack on lomborg, if he has suddenly retired, or if Copenhagen has fallen to the Soviets?

26. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/ load perfectly well for me.

Comments are closed.