'Copyright troll' is a pejorative term for a party that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, generally without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, instead it makes money from the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works.
Judge Wright's order required these people and entities to appear for the following purposes:
_______
Thus, the Court amends its February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 48) to include sanctions against the persons and entities in subparagraphs am below:
a) John Steele, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Prenda Law, Inc., and/or Livewire Holdings LLC;
b) Paul Hansmeier, of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and/or Livewire Holdings LLC;
c) Paul Duffy, of Prenda Law, Inc.;
d) Angela Van Den Hemel, of Prenda Law, Inc.;
e) Mark Lutz, of Prenda Law, Inc., AF Holdings LLC and/or Ingenuity 13 LLC;
f) Alan Cooper, of AF Holdings LLC;
g) Peter Hansemeier, of 6881 Forensics, LLC;
h) Prenda Law, Inc.;
i) Livewire Holdings LLC;
j) Steele Hansmeier PLLC;
k) AF Holdings LLC;
l) Ingenuity 13 LLC; and
m) 6881 Forensics, LLC.
These persons and entities are ORDERED to appear on March 29, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., [note that date was later changed to April 2] TO SHOW CAUSE for the following:
1) Why they should not be sanctioned for their participation, direction, and execution of the acts described in the Courts February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause;
2) Why they should not be sanctioned for failing to notify the Court of all parties that have a financial interest in the outcome of litigation;
3) Why they should not be sanctioned for defrauding the Court by misrepresenting the nature and relationship of the individuals and entities in subparagraphs am above;
4) Why John Steele and Paul Hansmeier should not be sanctioned for failing to make a pro hac vice appearance before the Court, given their involvement as senior attorneys in the cases; and
5) Why the individuals in subparagraphs ag above should not be sanctioned for contravening the Courts March 5, 2013 Order (ECF No. 66) and failing to appear on March 11, 2013.
_______
Judge Wright's order refers back to his February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause. That order described the conduct that concerned him and included this ominous warning:
_______
Based on the evidence presented at the March 11, 2013 hearing, the Court will consider whether sanctions are appropriate, and if so, determine the proper punishment. This may include a monetary fine, incarceration, or other sanctions sufficient to deter future misconduct. Failure by Mr. Gibbs to appear will result in the automatic imposition of sanctions along with the immediate issuance of a bench warrant for contempt.
OK I give up, is this a good thing or not?
The usual outcome of someone refusing to answer in a Civil case is that the proposed answer is anything the person asking the question says it is.
SOooo... his answers won't incriminate him, but the 5th Amendment is being invoked to keep his answers from incriminating him?
That's an admission of guilt there in actuality.