Interview with attorney John Steele, pirate slayer
 

CHICAGO?John Steele is a Chicago-based attorney whose main practice focuses on the conventional areas of family law, divorce and consumer bankruptcy. But like a caped-crusader, he has also extended his legal aspirations into the relatively new and aggressive arena of copyright infringement lawsuits targeting anonymous infringers who obtain their content from Torrent sites. While certainly not the only attorney to stake a claim in this area, his Media Copyright Group has seen a lot of action lately on behalf of clients that might not necessarily utilize the services of his ?daytime? firm: adult production studios.


Steele is already well into three lawsuits on behalf of three different adult studios, and told AVN that several more are being prepared. The litigious floodgates are wide open, he said; his legal guns are locked and loaded, and as the following interview makes clear, the crosshairs are now centered squarely on the illegal downloader.


http://business.avn.com/articles/Med...er-414224.html

cool read, thx.

i was surprised to read he is not a cr attorney. it's a complex area of law, hopefully he won't go after someone who has deep pockets and hires a cr attorney in response.

my ex is a cr litigator at f&r, they are fucking sharks.

He's a very smart man. Stopping piracy = the new perpetual motion machine.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:2 cents:

someone please throw Gideon in front of him.

wow a divorce lawyer doing your copyright infringement work.

now i understand why keep getting proven wrong so often.

is this robbie's lawyer too, it would explain why every time we argue the courts keep ruling the way i said they would , rather than the way he says they would.

You are hallucinating again gideongallery. You have never told me that a court would rule in any direction. You only talk about court cases from the 1970's involving beta vs. vcr

You are without a doubt the dumbest fuck I've ever talked to.

And I PRAY you download a Lightspeed vid. PLEASE do it gideongallery so we can all see just how much "protection" you have hiding in Canada in your mommies basement. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Let's see...last time you argued law with Michael Fattorosi. Now you are going to argue it with John Steele. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You are so delusional.

And by the way...I'm using the same guys as Larry Flynt. Maybe you can explain the law to them too.

Gideongallery...a man who has NEVER done anything. But yet he tries to explain to people who have made millions of dollars how to do their job...and when thedoc OWNED you and gave you the opportunity to PROVE your shit you ran like a scared BITCH. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

And now you are trying to tell lawyers about the law. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Next you'll be at the hospital telling heart surgeons how to do their job.

Gideongallery Jack-Off of all trades...master of NONE

lol..this thread is good

keep up the good fight robbie

I love fucking destroying gideongallery. I'm a gideon-a-holic :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

He fucked with Steve forever on here. I'm Steve's revenge. muahhhahahahahaha

Now hopefully gideongallery is busy FINALLY writing that email to thedoc so that he can prove his bullshit. Or is he STILL running like a bitch?

Maybe instead of armchair lawyering, he should get a fucking job. His parents have got to be tired of him living in their basement after 40 years...He can't "time shift" a job I guess.

Typical of Robbie to start throwing around the same fucking insults because he can't have a debate with people of opposing viewpoints without letting his inner redneck come out.

there is no debate or "opposing viewpoint" when it comes to content theft. If you support it you are either no in this industry or need to get the fuck out.

The case was sent back. What area of law does Steele practice again?

http://www.slyck.com/misc/minute_order_dismiss.pdf

So they were told that they need to be able to identify by name each of the "Does"?

This should have never happened. It's like hiring a dentist to fix a knee fracture. Besides, this is just one judge.

That is not what I understood but then I am not a lawyer. IMO It is giving them permission to find out who the Does are but it is not letting them file them all under one case. IE each one has to be filled separately unless they can tie the infractions together.

I believe that is correct as well as it did say "without prejudice". I am not a lawyer either but an entertainment/copyright lawyer told me this shouldn't have happened. Is it this one judge or the way the case was filed? Not sure.