BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls

Ernesto
November 26, 2011
116
extortion
Print

DC attorney Mike Meier was initially well-known as a defense attorney for BitTorrent users, but in recent months he’s made an interesting career move. Perhaps recognizing that more money could be made with a slight shift in focus, Meier has joined the “other” side, suing hundreds of BitTorrent users on behalf of copyright holders.

When the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits were starting to crop up in the United States last year, attorney Mike Meier was quick to promote himself as a defense lawyer.

The DC attorney was proudly listed on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s list of lawyers who can help out people targeted in infringement cases, and in the press he scoffed at copyright holders and their “extortion” practices.

Not anymore though.

Those who take a look at Meier’s website today will see that he’s shifted the focus of his business 180 degrees. As first spotted by Sophisticated Jane Doe, the attorney is now teaming up with several copyright trolls to shake down BitTorrent users.

The redesign of his website is quite revealing.

Meier’s website before the transformation

Meier’s website after the transformation

Thus far Meier has sued more than 1,000 BitTorrent users, which he proudly boasts on his site. But at the speed he’s filing suits it wouldn’t be a surprise if his list of targets doubles before the end of the year.

In all honesty, as an attorney Meier is just doing his job. There are no regulations that prohibit him from making the move. But, from someone who previously said that copyright trolls are “basically extorting money”, it is unexpected to say the least.

“In my opinion, they are bill collectors for the movie industry,” he said in an interview with PilotOnline.com. “They’re basically extorting money.”

In another interview, before the career switch, Meier also had his doubts about the evidence collecting practices in these mass-BitTorrent lawsuits.

“There are multiple reasons why the law firms may have tracked down the wrong person. For example, someone may have downloaded a movie through a Wi-Fi network used by many people, or a minor child may have used the parents’ computer. Finally, there is the human or computer error factor, maybe the user was actually out-of-town when the alleged download occurred,” he said.

We assume that his take on the situation has changed somewhat, now that he’s getting a piece of every settlement that’s “extorted” from falsely accused people. But everything has its price, doesn’t it?

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Anonymous

Okay, we have a reason to destroy that asshole. By the way, what happens to the people that already had them as an attorney?
- INQminds
  
  He can’t represent a plaintiff in a case against clients he formally represented. Nor is it likely any member of his firm could represent the plaintiff in that case, because he probably isn’t big enough to have isolation protocols in place. It would probably be the easiest “win” you could get, because the company owning the copyright probably isn’t going to be interested in hiring a second law firm that has to operate independently in order to pursue you.
Strider

Another perfect example of greed over your own standards.

Welcome to the millions of hypocrites.
- Ven
  
  I would think it’s a more of a statement about a lawyer in-the-know realizing that the court systems don’t recognize/support the common defenses that file-sharers bring.
  
  More importantly, it’s not damaging to his standards because he will tell you to trust the judicial system when it makes the call. He gets paid to perform a legal service, and right or wrong is the decision of the judge, not him. It’s not his job to decide what is right or wrong. It was free publicity to say what he did in those interviews, and it was a financially sound move to start defending copyright holders.
  - http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
    
    That’s a valid thought, with one correction:
    
    He gets paid to perform a legal service, and legal or illegal is the decision of the judge, not him.
    
    …because it’s everyone’s individual responsibility to decide what’s right and what’s wrong. Delegating moral choices to someone else is very tempting, and historically many dreadful deeds were committed under the cover of such excuses.
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      True….. the Nazi’s killing of the Jews, the war crimes in Bosnia, etc. were all done on the ‘orders’ of someone else.
    - Ven
      
      Thank you for the correction S.J. Doe.
      
      Goodwin’s on C.K. I believe.
    - Jonas Boliard
      
      Usually Hitler/Nazi’s are employed as a means to criticize, but that wasn’t the case with this particular usage. CK was merely trying to give an example using historical fact to bolster the comment he was replying to. There are plenty of other examples from throughout history that could have been given, all showing that dreadful deeds do indeed happen with “just following orders” often used as the excuse. Right and wrong are often confused with legal and illegal, so I think S.J. Doe did a good job making his point. It is something people often need to be reminded of even if they don’t like to be. Yes, the Nazi comparison does tend to get overused which is (usually) the primary reason for mentioning Godwin’s Law, but I don’t think that diminishes the point made in this case. While the last thing we want is for the horrific events of WWII to become trivialized due to overuse, we also shouldn’t be afraid to use it where truly appropriate.
      
      “Sure I pulled the trigger / brandished the sword / launched the arrow / threw the spear / wielded the club / swung the rock that killed him, but it’s not my fault because I was told to do it.”
    - Jonas Boliard
      
      Usually Hitler/Nazi’s are employed as a means to criticize, but that wasn’t the case with this particular usage. CK was merely trying to give an example using historical fact to bolster the comment he was replying to. There are plenty of other examples from throughout history that could have been given, all showing that dreadful deeds do indeed happen with “just following orders” often used as the excuse. Right and wrong are often confused with legal and illegal, so I think S.J. Doe did a good job making his point. It is something people often need to be reminded of even if they don’t like to be. Yes, the Nazi comparison does tend to get overused which is (usually) the primary reason for mentioning Godwin’s Law, but I don’t think that diminishes the point made in this case. While the last thing we want is for the horrific events of WWII to become trivialized due to overuse, we also shouldn’t be afraid to use it where truly appropriate.
      
      “Sure I pulled the trigger / brandished the sword / launched the arrow / threw the spear / wielded the club / swung the rock that killed him, but it’s not my fault because I was told to do it.”
  - http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
    
    That’s a valid thought, with one correction:
    
    He gets paid to perform a legal service, and legal or illegal is the decision of the judge, not him.
    
    …because it’s everyone’s individual responsibility to decide what’s right and what’s wrong. Delegating moral choices to someone else is very tempting, and historically many dreadful deeds were committed under the cover of such excuses.
  - FuzzyDuck
    
    “It’s not his job to decide what is right or wrong.”
    
    Nice reasoning. Something like: “He just turned on the gas as he was told, it’s not his job to decide if that’s right or wrong….”
    - Ven
      
      He serves a function in a system. He gets paid to serve that function. His morals have nothing to do with it unless he wants them to.
      
      But I am guessing it was marketing and not his morals he was talking about in those interviews.
    - Ven
      
      He serves a function in a system. He gets paid to serve that function. His morals have nothing to do with it unless he wants them to.
      
      But I am guessing it was marketing and not his morals he was talking about in those interviews.
- Guest
  
  So what did we learn today?
  
  American lawyers are cunts and will do anything for money.
  
  Nope, we knew that already.
  - Anonymous
    
    This career change sure seems foolish in my view when this speculative invoicing scheme is on the way out in the USA and it is only a matter of time before it is outlawed and those involved get their due punishments.
    
    The other already clear observation is that being pro-copyright sure makes you more money than being anti-copyright. Playing bitch to the monopoly though still makes you a cunt and attacking the public has never been tasteful.
  - Scary Devil Monastery
    
    I take exception on two notes here.
    
    1) The moral fiber of lawyers is not unduly influenced by their citizenship.
    
    2) Apologize to every cunt worldwide for making that comparison!
    - Floppy Copy
      
      I was thinking the same thing! Calling a lawyer a cunt is degrading to cunts everywhere lol. In fact, I think from now on I’m going to use lawyer as a swear word.
      
      You stupid son of a lawyer. You’re just another lawyering troll. Stop being such a retarded laywerhole already! ;-)
- http://tinyurl.com/iphone-android-apps Faye Livingston
  
  I totally agree with you, greed is a strong force and it seems it’s a look out for your self world out there.
Anonymous

ah! the lure of money! hopefully, he will go the same way as many others that have tried the same ‘extortion practices’. if he sees the error of his ways and tries to go back to defending those accused of ‘file sharing’ and gets no clients, he will realise what a bad career move it was. changing horses in mid-stream was always a bad idea!
Lulz@dumbass lawyer

It would seem this guy is not familiar with the Streisand Effect.

N.
- Lrn2
  
  he’s not trying to squelch anything, he just redesigned his site after his business shifted focus. the streisand effect has nothing to do with this.
http://tinyurl.com/ANoiXioNA-personal-info ANoiXioNA

Sell out …

But…. who expected a Lawyer to have principles anyway…
- Anon
  
  “who expected a Lawyer to have principles anyway…”
  
  right. Pirating is sooo principled.
  As long as you can get it for free.
  - Fredrika
    
    > “Pirating is sooo principled.”
    
    Yes isn’t it? It follows two principles, first the desire to spend as little as possible, which follows the principle of capitalism, and secondly choosing the cheapest price available, which follows the principle of free market rules, even when that means manufacturing the item yourself with your own physical property.
    
    > “As long as you can get it for free.”
    
    What’s wrong with wanting something as cheap as possible, even if that means manufacturing the item yourself with your own physical property? That’s called capitalism. Do you have something against capitalism? Are you advocating communism?
    - Jonas Boliard
      
      Anon is beginning to sound like a petulant, spoiled child who is mad because he’s not getting his way, not unlike how a lot of entertainment execs seem to think these days. Probably unsurprising since having a lot of money tends to have that effect on people. Some of the file sharer supporters used to sound that way too, but lately there have been a lot of level headed individuals posting logical, well thought out arguments. It’s made reading the comments section here at TF much more enjoyable as of late. ;-)
  - Trix
    
    If I buy a game at $60 and then I download 9 other games for free, that’s not piracy, I’m only buying 10 games at $6 each.
    Which is more than fair considering games come in endless supply (costs 0 to make copies).
    - Jack In The Box
      
      Unless it’s something truly exceptional, I refuse to pay more than $20 for any video game, especially those from publishers who’ve been shown to have an anti-consumer stance (Electronic Arts for example). I’ll either buy my games used or wait until it’s in the bargain bin, something that usually doesn’t take too long with most titles. A whole bunch showed up in there the other day and I purchased ten of them. I’m looking forward to the months following Christmas because that’s when a lot of good games show up used.
    - http://www.facebook.com/egnyquist Erik G. Nyquist
      
      Few, if any, video games out there are worth $60, really. If consumers had a means of playing games before buying them, then they would have the tools to determine which games out there are worthy of their money.
      
      Once upon a time, such a system existed and it WORKED. Shareware, my friends, it helped a lot of companies sell their games. Doom is a fine example.
      
      In this economy, people are choosy what they do with their money, and thus are probably just not going to buy games, if it is a choice between that and paying $60 for one that they might not like. Given this, it is no wonder that some people choose to download them illegally.
      
      It is interesting to note that the people who spend the most money on games also tend to be the people who pirate them; the same is true of the music industry. More and more studies are pointing to this interesting fact.
      
      Similarly, when legal means of downloading content are available, consumers flock to them en masse- outweighing what is pirated by a wide margin; for example, look at Hulu.com, and Netflix.
      
      The biggest problem with the copyright industry is that they are too heavily invested in business models and legal precedents that are rapidly becoming antiquated; they want things to stay the same because their business model that works depends heavily on the current status quo. They’ve spent more money than they could possibly have “lost” from piracy on legal cases and the purchasing of politicians (by which I mean massive campaign contributions and even more massive giving of soft money).
      
      This is unfortunate, because in attempting to protect their privileges they become the enemy of the arts, and indeed the enemy of their very own customers.
http://twitter.com/SmoothMarx SmoothMarx

Either he’s been bought by the copyright industry, or he’s secretly going undercover to expose their nefarious ways of information collection! That would really be a zinger!
- Noone
  
  Personally I think it might be vice versa i.e. he was undercover when defending to learn what he could about the defense side so he could switch & be more effective as a persecutor, oops sorry spelling slipped prosecutor.
  - http://www.facebook.com/egnyquist Erik G. Nyquist
    
    A clever theory, but lawyers are not investigative journalists or private detectives… and this one probably isn’t clever enough to be either, at any rate.
    
    In reality, he probably realised that there’s no money in defending these cases because they almost never go to court- people settle quickly because they want to avoid paying lawyers like him $600 an hour. On the other hand, working for a billion-dollar industry, they can afford to have a few lawyers working for them, who bill in an hour what the people they’re suing earn in a fortnight.
ZiggySig

I wonder, if the statements, that he used earlier, could be used against his new cases?
- http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
  
  I think it makes a lot of sense to add this information to any motion filed in this troll’s lawsuit.
  - http://www.facebook.com/egnyquist Erik G. Nyquist
    
    There is weak legal potential for a conflict of interest argument; but flip-flops of 180 degrees aren’t uncommon in the legal profession.
    
    Officially, lawyers don’t take sides, they don’t decide what is legal or illegal; their job is to protect the best interests of their client, in whatever capacity that may be. Except when it comes to, you know, the bill.
- Ven
  
  No they couldn’t. He could claim circumstances are different in the cases he takes, or even claim that he never said it. In either case it has no bearing on whether or not the defendant of that specific case infringed or not, or if they can prove it.
  
  Judges hate logical fallacies.
  - http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
    
    ZiggySig asked if this information could be used against Mr. Meier, not what he would say in his defense.
    
    Because it does not matter, this information is just another drop in the cup of judge’s patience. As is, it is not powerful enough to impact the fate of these extortion lawsuits, but there is still a possibility this will be the last drop.
    - Nit
      
      it could be assumed that when someone says “used against” in this context, that there is an implied [effectively] between the “used” and “against”. ergo, pointing out that it would not be effective due to simple logical countermeasures is an appropriate response.
      
      just like his high school grades could be used against him, but would have no bearing, and therefore would not be EFFECTIVELY used against him.
      
      careful where you nit-pick, the interbutts is always going to have a nittier picker.
    - Fuckgoogle
      
      BRING it up anyways…shows the judge the character of the lawyer
    - http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
      
      @Nit Nitty-pickers have black-and-white vision in most cases. In this particular case “effectively” is not 0 or 1, but something in between, agreeably closer to 0. Nonetheless, a penny saves the dollar, and even the smallest argument has its value. That was my point.
      
      Many motions I read go farther than pointing out jurisdiction and joinder issues, but explain the wrongs of the troll “business model”. The word “extortion” is used here and there, and specifying that this word was actually used by the plaintiff’s counsel in describing his current activity could help effectively. IMHO.
    - http://www.facebook.com/egnyquist Erik G. Nyquist
      
      One does wonder why a business would hire a lawyer to represent them who is on record publicly stating that said business engages in extortion.
  - Guest
    
    You’re partially correct. However, if the lawyer may be seen as having taken contradictory positions on i.e the quality of evidence collection or the weight given to a particular piece of evidence i.e an IP address = an infringer, the court might well find fault with the lawyer for not disclosing the contradiction.
    
    If the lawyer in case 1 argues that an IP address doesn’t equal an infringer, and in case 2 argues the opposite, the lawyer should at least disclose to the court that he previously represented the opposite position.
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

Thanks for spreading the word, Ernesto. And thanks to my anonymous correspondent who found the saved image of the Meier’s website prior to the transformation.
Pelouze

Probably a good move, too many losses on a lawyers record doesn’t look good. Now he’ll get verdicts in his favor.
- http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
  
  What losses? What verdicts? What are you talking about?
  - Pelouze
    
    Google is your friend.
    - http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
      
      I know, he is my good friend. And he told me that he loves to be everyone’s friend, but some people prefer to mine the information from their… and he feels sad about it.
    - http://www.facebook.com/egnyquist Erik G. Nyquist
      
      Losses and verdicts? There aren’t any… he probably didn’t get many clients representing lawsuit victims, being that most of them are not in a position to actually PAY legal counsel, and the cost of paying a lawyer would FAR exceed the cost of just paying the copyright industry and getting it over with.
      
      What I’m saying is, these cases almost never go to court… there are only a handful of cases where they have.
      
      It’s not about winning or losing for this lawyer, it is without a doubt just about earning money. ;)
- Jmorse43508
  
  It’s obvious from your comment, troll, that you don’t know squat about the legal system. Otherwise you wouldn’t have used the words “losses” and “verdicts” so casually and made to look like an idiot in doing so.
  - Ven
    
    Verbiage aside, his point remains that the difference between good and bad lawyers is their ability to get the court to rule in their favor.
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      Not always. Sometimes the laws are so stacked against the lawyers for the defense or prosecution, that it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get a verdict for you or against someone else.
    - Ven
      
      @Christopher Kidwell
      
      That may be true on a case-by-case basis, but over a long career defense or prosecution lawyers are rated by how much success they have at getting the ruling they are asking for.
  - Pelouze
    
    I know enough about the legal system to understand a persons motives for changing who he represents. What difference does it make if I use the word “loss” – its still incredibly easy to understand the sentiment.
- Fredrika
  
  > “Probably a good move, too many losses on a lawyers record doesn’t look good. Now he’ll get verdicts in his favor.”
  
  You seem confused, or ignorant, as usual.
  
  Over the last ten years and after several hundreds of thousands of extortion letters sent out by the copyright holders, only a handful have made it to court, where an actual sentencing can be handed out.
  
  Every time a defendant challenges these extortion letters, instead of just paying the black mailer, they are immediately dropped by the plaintiff, because the black mailing copyright holders don’t want this extortion scheme to actually end up in court, where they risk loosing, even if they win.
  
  So a lawyer who defends people accused of filesharing can actually expect to have every single case against his clients to be dropped. That would constitute a 100% win ratio and zero losses, quite the opposite of what you tried to claim in your as usual confused or ignorant comment.
  
  But fact’s never were your strong side, now was it?
  - Pelouze
    
    “Every time a defendant challenges these extortion letters, instead of just paying the black mailer, they are immediately dropped by the plaintiff, because the black mailing copyright holders don’t want this extortion scheme to actually end up in court, where they risk loosing, even if they win.”
    
    Feel free to post proof – your guesswork does not = facts.
    - Fredrika
      
      What was it you so arrogantly said? “Google is your friend”? Does that not apply to you as well?
      
      But since hypocrisy is your game, have you ever heard of Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum? Of course you have, and you know why? Because those two are the only two cases that has actually gone to court since the copyright industry began sending out extortion letters to identified Internet customers.
      
      All others have immediately been dropped, when the defendants refuse to pay the proposed settlements, instead of caving in to the extortion letters.
      
      This is common knowledge, and someone who so often post arrogant over-confident comments on these topics as you, should have known this.
      
      Do you realize now how ignorant your initial comment about “losses” and “verdicts in his favour” looks? Is it seriously to much to ask that you stop posting clueless ignorant nonsense in comments on topics which you do not know the first thing about.
      
      As you have proven over and over again, you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on neither the copyright monopoly, how the judicial system works, capitalism, free market rules, or any relevant facts regarding filesharing.
      
      But then again, facts were never your strong side, now was it?
    - Pelouze
      
      “All others have immediately been dropped, when the defendants refuse to pay the proposed settlements, instead of caving in to the extortion letters.”
      
      Dropped or settled ;)
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Dropped or settled”
      
      Yes, as i stated in my initial post? So why did you ask then?
      
      But only a true fascist would call it “settled”, to describe when an ordinary person with no economical means to stand up in civil court(which is supposed to be a court for equals) against an extortionist who has unlimited economical funds, chooses to give in to an extortion letter, with threats of ruined lives, regardless of actual guilt.
      
      But basically all of your arguments are built on seemingly fascist reasoning, so that’s nothing new.
      
      Your initial comment still stands as completely clueless and ignorant of the actual facts.
    - Pelouze
      
      So you can see why Meier made a career move… or no?
      
      Naturally, you like to jump into threads and derail things, taking every opportunity to throw insults…..but, whatever.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “So you can see why Meier made a career move… or no?”
      
      Yes, it’s obvious. Since he had a 100% success rate defending his clients, and since more and defendants chose to stand up against the extortion letters sent out by the fascist extortion industry, they started to loose more and more money because of him, so they offered him a large amount of money to stop protecting their extortion targets, and instead work for them. What did you think?
      
      You can ask any lawyer, and they will all tell you the same thing, that there’s no greater feeling for a lawyer than when you successfully stand up for normal people against unequally balanced big corporations, and that the only reason you will stop doing that is because you become so good at it so the big law firms working for the big companies have no other choice than to hire you as well, to get rid of the competition, offering you so much money that you simply can’t refuse.
      
      > “..you like to jump into threads and derail things..”
      
      Are you speaking of yourself? You’re the one who jumps into every thread, spreading seemingly fascist propaganda or clearly incorrect and illogical claims, as if they were facts, which the rest of us happily refute, proving how just about everything you said, was as always, wrong.
      
      Would you like me to make a list with links to all incorrect claims you have put forward over that last couple of months, to illustrate the very clear pattern that emerges in your post, as continuous nonsense from someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the topics he comments on?
      
      > “..taking every opportunity to throw insults..”
      
      If you throw around seemingly fascist propaganda and a massive amount of incorrect claims and illogical arguments, and you then feel insulted when people informs you of what you just wrote, that it as always was incorrect, and actually does consists of seemingly fascist reasoning, might i suggest that you for once look at yourself, and start to think about what it is that you actually write?
      
      Because you do advocate harder legislation cracking down on ordinary people’s non-profit use of their own physical property, to protect the profit of big companies and their legislative monopoly, so that they don’t have to operate on the free market, and that does constitute text book fascist reasoning.
      
      Keep doing it, and we’ll keep calling you on it, every time.
    - Pelouze
      
      “Yes, it’s obvious. Since he had a 100% success rate defending his clients, and since more and defendants chose to stand up against the extortion letters sent out by the fascist extortion industry, they started to loose more and more money because of him, so they offered him a large amount of money to stop protecting their extortion targets, and instead work for them. What did you think?”
      
      If a lawyer “really” believed in protecting those that are accused of copyright infringement, would they throw away their belief system for money?
      
      As for the rest of wall of text, I stopped reading after the above section. It was probably more pro-piracy BS or insults.
Phil Landry

I’m sure if this guy was doing criminal defence, he would not have changed side!
To none

More power to him; he was fighting the wrong fight to begin with. Everybody downloads copyrighted material illegally; defending them in court is a lost cause. The real fight is to change the laws themselves.
http://www.facebook.com/RyanKonky Ryan Konky

No, probably paid off to not defend.

That or his precious won/lost case record is more important to him than defending the rights of normal, everyday people.
- http://pip25.livejournal.com/ pip25
  
  Well, if the count of cases won is important, then he’s screwed. These trolls do not tend to win those cases which are actually brought before the court.
  - INQmind
    
    Yes they do. There are just so few that make it to court, because they either settle, realize they lack evidence, or they discover the defendants are judgment proof.
  - Prick
    
    Freeloaders vs trolls. So far the trolls have won more cases than the freeloaders lol.
AxE

Good for him you can’t really blame the guy for taking the easy way out and making more money in the process. A lot of big talkers on here I bet 99% of the big talkers here would do the same thing.
- http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
  
  Since everyone make their estimates based on their surroundings, I sincerely pity you… and I’m thankful to the Chance that most of my friends would never sell their dignity. Wait… chance or choice?
Pingback: BitTorrent defense attorney changes mind and becomes copyright troll
BIG WILLY

I think it’s a dumb move to be honest, because now anyone who he decides to sue can now use his own words against him. Everything he has said in the past to prove how bad these lawsuits are, he now has to prove otherwise.
Pingback: BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | Top News Story
MSF

Sorry to be “that guy”, but both captions are the same (cut & paste) – “Meier’s website before the transformation”
Pingback: Abogado defensor de usuarios de BitTorrent se une a los Trolls de copyright | Tecnocápsulas
http://twitter.com/AlyssaBlindy Alyssa Blindy

There are many possibilities of why this guy defected, and I don’t know which one is his motive. Only time will tell.
- Prick
  
  Time will tell that the bloke is smart. He’s making money while he still can instead of wasting time defending freeloaders who doesn’t have any money to spare anyway.
Afj176

His website should be an anonymous target: operation bendict arnold
- Ogra
  
  I disagree. Although his shift in position is… disappointing to say the least, he hasn’t really abused the law yet (at least, not from what limited research I’ve done.) Even among the loose standards of the copyright trolls, he doesn’t seem that bad.
  
  It’ll make us look bad if we attack a man not for actually abusing anyone, but just for shifting his views and his business. It’s not as if we were attacking the head of the MAFIAA or someone like that; this is just a disappointing case. It won’t win us any friends to attack him.
  - Anonymous
    
    http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/amended_rules/index.cfm
    - Resia
      
      Yes, rules exist. Care to elaborate?
Anonymous

Welcome to the American legal system of adversarial litigation. What saves you there is not justice (the gal is made of stone, plus she’s blind); what goes on the scales is your money, your brains, and your luck (in that order).

The system that preceded it was also adversarial; and, what saved you there was also not justice, but your money, your brains and your luck (perhaps not precisely in that order).

It was called war.

People lost patience with that system because when you lost there you were absolutely screwed.

What’s wrong with our legal system is bad laws and the legislative processes that produce them. Is Mr. Meir an outstandingly good lawer? Probably not. Are we to feel at greater risk because Mr Meir will be the opposition? Don’t think so.

What does matter is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been interpreted to include “rights” for corporation that should apply only to human beings. Why should the Bill of Rights be read to protect as a Constitutional Right” of free speech the current previlidge of corporation to contribute money as they see fit to legislative office seekers? Why should it not be anything but a criminal act for any representative of any American corporation to show up at the office of my Senator or my Congressman and offer him/her infinite money to prefer their interests over mine?

That is where our problems start. That is where our problems end.
- Ogra
  
  Seconded. The poor actions of the lawyers are a symptom of a greater problem with the fundamental interpretation of the law. Giving corporations human rights was a tremendous misstep. In fact, most laws respecting corporations are problematic and only serve to create an unbalanced system.
  
  However, there is one thing I’m not so sure about; I’m not sure lobbying is altogether a bad thing. Now wait, hear me out. The basic premise is that a company or entity with information about something (say, what areas have a lot of coal, and should therefore be opened up for mining) contacts a congressman to share their information. Obviously, this meeting can be done at the expense of the company, which may mean treating the congressman to a nice meal. This is a legitimate purpose; the question therefore becomes “Where does it become bribery?” Is it when money passes hands? If so, then even American lobbying is usually fine, as giving money can be (and definitely used to be), strictly forbidden beyond limited campaign contributions. Is it gifts? If so, what gifts? Needs more thought.
  - Anonymous
    
    By way of constructive suggestion: I make the distinction between corporations having standing (not the current standard of “all the rights of a natural person”) for the purpose of protecting and promoting their interests before administrative agencies and judiciaries on the basis of EXISTING law (which I support) and corporations having formal personhood and standing “with all the rights of a natural person” to be present in our legislatures for the purpose of making NEW LAW (which I consider a historical abomination).
    
    First point: This distinction is especially important with respect to your point about bribes. Why? Because no judicial or administrative jurisdiction tolerates the proffering of money as a rightful precondition of prefferred outcomes. In fact, administrative and judicial jurisdictions in our democracies are probably the last formally ringfenced institutions as to money (not our churches, not our media, not our great universities; and, certainly, not our rating agencies and legislatures, can be thought of this way). Constraining corporations to administrative agencies and the courts is, therefore, the most direct way to afford them acess to legal protection of their interests under law within an institutional environment wherein they would have every right to promote themselves with legal process and legal argument, but, would have no presumptive right to promote themselves with money. In fact, such promotion would be criminal and punishable by revocation of the corporate charter.
    
    Second point: Corporations have had the opportunity to spend the last one hundred years within the American and European legislatures making their political and financial power heard in the making of new law under the presumption that their interests and human interests and their needs and human needs were somehow equatable. We can not be surprised that they have used their powerful presence within our legislatures to write the laws they need and to perpetuate the powers they’ve wanted. Only lately, has their success within the legislatures and their catastophic failures (for humans) outside of the legislatures, begun to shake us out of our slumber. Banishing them from the legislatures and denying them the power to make new law is perhaps our last chance to restore a human balance to our laws.
Guest

A gun is:

1) a lot shipper than an attorney,
2) can not be corrupted,
3) can be used multiple time to solves multiple case or corporate parasitism.

Never hire an attorney!
- Ogra
  
  And with vigilantism comes the death of Justice. Hope you don’t accidentally shoot anyone innocent. But then again, I’m sure that could never happen. After all, Joe Everyman and his gun are perfectly capable of always knowing who is evil and who is good.
  
  Violence is a solution for the state so far into corruption that it is unsustainable at the level of necessities, and I don’t think we’ve reached there yet. Violence will only destabilize the hard-won gains the Pirate movement has made.
  - Guest
    
    The law id dead and we have to do what we have to do. Once enough parasites are dead, others parasites hiding in fear and once we take back control of our government we will be able to return our guns to the racks and reestablish the US constitution that these parasites who do not deserve to live have trampled.
    - Ogra
      
      Who is “we”? Is that supposed to include anyone who isn’t in a corporation? An even better question? Who are “they”? Is it the corporate bosses? Is it the workers? If you kill the people in one corporation, what’s to stop them from simply repopulating from people seeking jobs?
      
      I hate to break this to you, but if a violent revolution is started now, most people won’t join the aggressors, they’ll join the corporations. This country isn’t in nearly a bad enough situation to warrant a violent reprisal. I know the corruption here is bad, but if you want to see what actually incites a willingness for violence
      
      The will of the populace does not yet demand violent retribution. Most people don’t see corporate control as an issue worth violence. Many aren’t even convinced that corporate control exists, and that it is a bad thing if it is. They aren’t just going to take your side if the bullets start flying. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that they’ll do just the opposite; you’ll look like the clear aggressor.
      
      Ask yourself this; do you want their blood, or do you want them to lose their power? Because if you choose the former, then you will fail the latter because the people who succeed them will have the impetus to call for even harsher restrictions, and the populace won’t object because they will have seen “the violence of pirates first-hand”. If you really want their power to be diminished, a lighter hand is needed. You need to win the minds of the populace first, and despite what it may seem like, not even the majority of the populace favors violence.
      
      I know violence seems like the only solution, but a peaceful solution has a greater chance of success because it doesn’t alienate the populace. Any group striving for large change has NEEDED public approval; even the corporations got their power through the consent of the population, even if that consent was given under false premises. Assassins and terrorists don’t get support. I know that probably doesn’t fulfill your sense of “justice”, but you have to choose; do you want retribution, or do you want change?
  - Guest
    
    And what is good about Justice, considering how it’s effect don’t always (if ever) differ from vengeance
- Hey-you
  
  Sounds like a good solution, except you can’t possibly kill off all these parasites. there are too many others just below the surface who would rise up to replace the “floating scum” at the top. No matter how rotten the system gets, anarchy is even worse.
Anonymous

I wonder how carefully this guy tread around the Washington D.C. Bar Rules of Conduct.

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/amended_rules/rule_one/rule01_10.cfm

Rule 1.10—Imputed Disqualification: General Rule

(b) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a person in a matter which is the same as, or substantially related to, a matter with respect to which the lawyer had previously represented a client whose interests are materially adverse to that person and about whom the lawyer has in fact acquired information protected by Rule 1.6 that is material to the matter. The firm is not disqualified if the lawyer participated in a previous representation or acquired information under the circumstances covered by Rule 1.6(h) or Rule 1.18.
- Anonymous
  
  Rule 1.7—Conflict of Interest: General Rule
  (a) A lawyer shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter.
  (b) Except as permitted by paragraph (c) below, a lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if:
  (1) That matter involves a specific party or parties and a position to be taken by that client in that matter is adverse to a position taken or to be taken by another client in the same matter even though that client is unrepresented or represented by a different lawyer;
  (2) Such representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected by representation of another client;
  (3) Representation of another client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by such representation;
  (4) The lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or interests in a third party or the lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests.
  (c) A lawyer may represent a client with respect to a matter in the circumstances described in paragraph (b) above if
  (1) Each potentially affected client provides informed consent to such representation after full disclosure of the existence and nature of the possible conflict and the possible adverse consequences of such representation; and
  (2) The lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.
  (d) If a conflict not reasonably foreseeable at the outset of representation arises under paragraph (b)(1) after the representation commences, and is not waived under paragraph (c), a lawyer need not withdraw from any representation unless the conflict also arises under paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4).
http://profiles.google.com/orfetheo Orfeas Theofanis

Ernesto, you put “Meier’s website before the transformation” before both pictures, you need to correct that.
- http://tinyurl.com/iphone-android-apps Faye Livingston
  
  Yes I noticed that too.
- http://tinyurl.com/iphone-android-apps Faye Livingston
  
  Yes I noticed that too.
http://profiles.google.com/orfetheo Orfeas Theofanis

From their site’s Q&A:
Q: I received a notification from my Internet Service Provider that this Law Firm is seeking my identity. What does that mean?
A: It means that this Law Firm filed a lawsuit against copyright infringers that were identified by tracking software through their IP addresses. It appears that your IP address is among the ones identified as having engaged in illegal file sharing. The Internet Service Provider has received a subpoena (a court order to disclose certain information) to disclose your identity.[...]

How did they get the court to sign 1000 court orders so fast? Sounds fishy…
me

Chalk up another one…

… who succumbed to the Dark Side of the Force.

The war against the evil Copyright-Empire goes on.
http://tinyurl.com/iphone-android-apps Faye Livingston

He is just doing his job, but money talks and he must have got a lot.
- Ven
  
  I would imagine that the money was many magnitudes greater than what he made defending file-sharers. Between dropped cases and settled cases, he would be lucky to get fees much less turn his work into something real profitable.
  
  I can’t imagine defending folks would pay the bills.
- Ven
  
  I would imagine that the money was many magnitudes greater than what he made defending file-sharers. Between dropped cases and settled cases, he would be lucky to get fees much less turn his work into something real profitable.
  
  I can’t imagine defending folks would pay the bills.
Anonymous

Gotta just love those bottom feeding, blood sucking attorneys lol.
- Anon
  
  Or maybe he just thought about this and realized that protecting digital thieves wasn’t the right thing to do anymore, and to help restore price where value lies is the right thing to do for the creators and their related industries. Piracy was satisfying to those who want something for nothing, or on their own terms rather than the terms of the rights holders, but it was never truly right.
- Anon
  
  Or maybe he just thought about this and realized that protecting digital thieves wasn’t the right thing to do anymore, and to help restore price where value lies is the right thing to do for the creators and their related industries. Piracy was satisfying to those who want something for nothing, or on their own terms rather than the terms of the rights holders, but it was never truly right.
  - Jimmy
    
    Oh spare me your self-righteous drivel. You don’t think those falsely accused of copyright infringement should get adequate legal representation? Or are you one of those guys who thinks anyone accused of it is automatically liable and should just pay up?
  - Fredrika
    
    > “Or maybe he just thought about this and realized that protecting digital thieves wasn’t the right thing to do anymore..”
    
    Obviously it’s always the right thing to defend people against extortion schemes by plaintiffs attempting black mail for profit? Unless you’re a fascist?
    
    > “..and to help restore price where value lies is the right thing to do for the creators and their related industries.”
    
    Obviously it’s always the wrong thing to try to generate profit for an industry from an extortion scheme, instead of actually selling products on a free market. Although fascist would argue differently.
    
    > “Piracy was satisfying to those who want something for nothing..”
    
    The capitalist’s? You seriously have something against capitalism?
    
    > “..or on their own terms rather than the terms of the rights holders, but it was never truly right.”
    
    Whether or not piracy is right depends on if you stand behind capitalism and free market rules, and are against intrusions into peoples physical property, that they own. If you do, piracy is obviously right.
    
    But if you are against capitalism, and against the free market, and in favour of intrusions into peoples own physical property through legislative monopoly’s, to generate profit for companies, than piracy is wrong. But such opinions would also make you somewhat a combination of a communist and a fascist.
    
    Which we have found out on many occasions, that that’s exactly what you advocate.
    - Prick
      
      Fredrika you trolling again darl?
  - Guest
    
    As usual, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding.
    Being accused of copyright infringement is not the same as being guilty.
    
    Defending people accused of copyright infringement in the legal system has no bearing on whether infringing copyright is right or wrong.
    
    Your claim therefore makes no sense.
Pingback: BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls | TorrentForce Blog
Guest

888-407-6770

The Copyright Law Group, PLLC
4000 Legato Road, Suite 1100
Fairfax, VA 22033
Phone: (888) 407-6770, Fax: (703) 546-4990
Email: contact (at) copyrightdefenselawyer.com
Pingback: Oi | BradLeclerc.com
pcmaster.od.ua

good article
http://artem-karimov-93.ya.ru/ Artem Karimov

All lawyers are hypocrites. Nothing to see here, move along…
Selkenshin

Well, I maybe hate him now, but anyway. If I’m going to be bashed and hated I would prefer to be over a Ferrari.

I hate the fact but I (and don’t lie to me, anyone of us) would do the same.

Anyway, any judge he wins it’s only a little skirmish compared to the legions of Pirates screwing around the companies and their pity efforts to restrict copying.
Pingback: IP Attorney Changes Sides | Indienation.fm
Robert Z. Cashman

I could say with confidence that I correspond with (and in many cases speak to) many of the bittorrent attorneys — we all know each other, we e-mail each other back and forth as things happen in these cases, and discuss what is going on in each of these cases. Mike Meier?!? Are you kidding me?? I have never even seen ONE POSTING from this guy, which means that as far as I am concerned, he was NEVER a bittorrent defense attorney. Maybe he tried and failed miserably… Maybe he got himself listed on the EFF list… but I have NEVER seen ANY activity from this guy.
- http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe
  
  That’s does not excuse his current occupation, so I don’t regret bringing this story to the light of day, but it’s a relief to hear that I was wrong in one of my fears – that he was entrusted with some defense lore and may be using it against us. Thanks for this information, Rob.
Pingback: El defensor de BitTorrent que se pasó a la competencia
Pingback: El defensor de BitTorrent que se pasó a la competencia | ideasweb.info | Noticias, Software y novedades. Las mejores aplicaciones web, con los trucos más útiles y toda la información en nuestro blog.

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls

Meier’s website before the transformation

Meier’s website after the transformation

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

The Pirate Bay Moves to .SX as Prosecutor Files Motion to Seize Domains

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Search TorrentFreak

Meier’s website before the transformation

Meier’s website after the transformation

Related Posts

NewsBits

MostDiscussed

CopyQuote

PopularArticles