Alleged Copyright Troll Sues Critics

By Jay Wolman

In a page out of Rakofsky vs. The Internet, it appears that one of the law firms and attorney groups frequently criticized as representing copyright trolls, Paul Duffy, John Steele, and Prenda Law, has gone on the offense against its critics.

More details here:


and here:

copies of the complaints are linked by Jordan Rushie (1st Link). I have not read the entirety of the complaints, but I believe I saw quite a few protected statements that cannot form the basis of liability. Unclear what motivated the suits, but I have a feeling the Plaintiffs will come to regret them.

Editor’s note, the views in this post are those of Mr. Wolman. No other Satyriconistas have taken a public position on this dispute.

5 Responses to Alleged Copyright Troll Sues Critics

  1. MKC says:

    I read the first complaint. I see a few statements that might be colorable–“crooks” and “seasoned fraudsters” stand out as plausible candidates, for instance. But I think including so many of the comments in the complaint, ironically, makes the defendant’s case easy–bad advocacy, in my view. At worst, I see some hyperbole; for the most part, I see opinion. On the whole, the complaint looks to me like an abuse of the judicial proces. Bad idea.

    Or maybe they see this as an opportunity to get some unconventional advertising in? Not sure.

    (This is an aside, but given the underlying subject I feel I need to say that I loathe Internet piracy.)

  2. Jay, it is good to see you writing about the lawsuits (on whatever line you have chosen). Maybe agree to be a switch hitter and straddle the line defending some and going after others.

    @MKC, I’ve been waiting for a post from you all day on the topic. The silence is deafening. Then again, not answering is also answering. Then again (avoiding “on the one hand; on the other hand” double-speak), the lawsuit speaks for itself, and doesn’t require more commentary or drama. IMO it has gotten enough.

  3. Seth says:

    Until now, I never realized that generic, bland troll screen names suddenly become hilarious when placed in the context of a legal document:

    “One Defendant, who sinks so low as to identify himself only as “John Balls” in threatening, harassing, and defamatory email…”

    God, please let his name ACTUALLY be “John Balls.”

%d bloggers like this: