Null 🥝 Joshua Moon Megathread

[Dude-Weed]

@Lunar Magma thank you for providing a summary of last MATI stream!

 

[The Gays From LA]

The Nonnas on LCF were discussing Null's lolsuit against LFJ in their KF thread.

This Nonna(?) insisted that Null should've capitulated to LFJ's demands instead of draining his paypigs' money to sue him:

The worst part is that all it would take is removing like 2 images and that's it kek. 144k a year because the head admin wants to fight with some rich nepo baby tranny instead of giving a fuck about preserving his only legacy to the world. But to the ardent dick suckers this retarded lolsuit is "based and redpilled" so its fine for the sites finances to be drained so long as they don't bend the knee to a tranny.

BTW, it wasn't just 2 images, it was 4 (now apparently 6) whole posts that LFJ wants Null to remove.

One of the armchair lawyer Nonnas posted this comment, claiming LFJ has deliberately set up a legal "trap" for Null to walk into:

He appears to have walked right into a trap, which he knew was a trap and walked into it anyway.
There is some precedent for this in the quasi-lolcow world. Julia Allison, an early influencer, sued a snark blog not for making fun of her for like 10 years straight but when they made a book proposal she wrote public, as well as images they reposted from her Facebook. She argued it was copyright infringement and she had a right to unmask the anonymous people behind the blog, they fought it (and I think GoDaddy was on their side, at least at first) but lost.

https://archive.is/j7GRz#selection-39896.1-39905.463

So I looked up the lolsuit in question, and indeed, the Nonna is misrepresenting what it was. It was about the snarkblog reposting "an 81 page book proposal, which included a 54 page manuscript draft, and 22 photos". I am assuming those photographs were going to go into the book, so they were either part of the book manuscript or meant for the book cover.

Clearly not the same thing as reposting a public LinkedIn glamour shot in the context of an ongoing public discussion about a controversial TRA. You're comparing apples and oranges here, Nonna:

In the DMCA, Congress enabled copyright owners to obtain pre-litigation discovery of alleged infringers (17 USC 512(h)). After sending a takedown notice, the copyright owner can apply for an unmasking subpoena, which the clerk of the court must issue without any discretion or review by a judge. This fast lane is a historical anachronism; it does little to balance the privacy interests of the alleged infringer. Knowing what we know now about the dangers of unmasking subpoenas, I would like to think that Congress would draft 512(h) with more privacy sensitivity today.

512(h) subpoenas rarely produce court opinions because the copyright owners get the subpoena automatically and the services usually automatically comply with the subpoena. This case is unusual because the Doe defendants attempted to quash the subpoena. The court rejects the Doe defendants’ efforts, and it gives us a little more insight about 512(h) along the way.

The copyright owner is Julia Allison Baugher, an author. For unspecified reasons, bloggers reposted some of her works, including an 81 page book proposal, which included a 54 page manuscript draft, and 22 photos. The proposal, manuscript, and 2 photos were previously unpublished and not registered; the other 20 photos were covered by a copyright registration. She sent takedown notices to the blog’s “registrar” (this is the court’s word), GoDaddy, which GoDaddy honored. The bloggers did not submit counternotices. Baugher then submitted a request for a 512(h) subpoena, which the court clerk issued. It’s not clear how the bloggers learned of the subpoena, but they moved to quash it.

Court Orders Unmasking Subpoena of Alleged Infringers–Baugher v. GoDaddy

Court Orders Unmasking Subpoena of Alleged Infringers-Baugher v. GoDaddy - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In the DMCA, Congress enabled copyright owners to obtain pre-litigation discovery of alleged infringers (17 USC 512(h)). After sending a takedown notice, the copyright owner can apply for an unmasking subpoena, which the clerk of the court must issue without...

blog.ericgoldman.org

IMO (again, I am not lawyer) this other case is more relevant: "If, on the other hand, a plaintiff is using a weak copyright claim to get at you for bad-mouthing the plaintiff, a court may see it for what it is, and deny the requested discovery"

Defendant raised a fair use argument, but the court does not rely on the possibility of non-infringement in resolving the disclosure issue. The court notes that “evidence of copyright infringement does not automatically remove the speech at issue from the scope of the First Amendment.”

The court employs a balancing test where it weighs the harm to plaintiff and defendants. Disclosure of Skywalker’s identity would have a chilling effect on other bloggers, and this weighed heavily in favor of defendants. With respect to harm to the plaintiff from quashing the subpoena, the court finds that AOLF would not suffer a comparable harm. AOLF could proceed in the litigation without knowing Skywalker’s identity—Skywalker had responded to written discovery, and if necessary, AOLF’s counsel could even conduct a deposition via telephone (or alternatively, Skywalker’s identity could be revealed on an attorneys’ eyes only basis). Ultimately, AOLF was unable to make a compelling argument that it needed to discover Skywalker’s identity at this point in the litigation. It raised a weak argument that it needed to find out the revenues generated from Skywalker’s blog but the court notes that this information could be gleaned through other sources, such as Google and Automattic.

his is a nuanced result. The court recognizes that the copyright claim is not particularly strong and there is a good chance, this is the end of the road for Art of Living Foundation. The earlier dismissal of its defamation claim (and accompanying liability for attorney’s fees) is a serious blow, but the court’s rejection of its request to unmask Skywalker deprives AOLF of what it was looking to get out of this lawsuit–early identification of a pseudonymous blogger. On the merits of his copyright claim, Skywalker may win on his claim for fair use or successfully argue that the damages are minimal at best. (See generally, the Righthaven debacle.)

The overall takeaway is that if you as a blogger face a claim for garden-variety copyright infringement, this type of a ruling shouldn’t give you much hope. Courts will readily cite to Sony Music v. Does and order compliance with a subpoena seeking your identification. If, on the other hand, a plaintiff is using a weak copyright claim to get at you for bad-mouthing the plaintiff, a court may see it for what it is, and deny the requested discovery. Of course, this depends on your luck of the draw and requires you to be in front of a thoughtful judge and have good representation.

It also requires that service providers don’t jump the gun when responding to subpoenas seeking identification.

Spiritual Group's Attempt to Unmask Online Critics Goes South-Art of Living Foundation v. Does - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] Art of Living Foundation v. Does, 10-cv-05022-LHK (N.D. Ca.; Nov. 9, 2011) Art of Living Foundation is an organization based in India that is dedicated to teaching the spiritual lessons of “His Holiness Ravi Shankar.” Defendants...

blog.ericgoldman.org

 

[The Gays From LA]

Get on it cunts.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2037030160923299865

Look luck asking for new information on Null on a forum where all people ever do is post the same old staledox from his Blockland says.

Granted, there were some surprisingly high effort posts in this thread over the years with more recent information about Null, but AFAICT none of those users are still active, so you're gonna have to find those posts on your own. I suggest you start reading at page 1.

If you're too lazy to do your own research and read through the rest of this thread, or to read any of the other more specific threads about Null, don't expect to be spoonfed by us.

 

[The Gays From LA]

Did you know? Subpoenas are court orders, Josh has complied with subpoenas in the past (even those of foreign governments), and that Josh is only fighting back this time because he doesn't want to have a second loss to LFJ? Remember when Josh claimed he wasn't personally responsible for you getting doxxed and it was your own responsibility to have good opsec? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Absolutely I remember him saying that, but this is his arch enemy from #DropKiwiFarms so this is different.

BTW, I found this old tweet from LFJ that I still had in my archive from the #DropKiwiFarms era:

This is a little more "personal" for him, you understand...

Speaking of Liz Fong Jones targeting "unrelated third parties", him going after iPostal1 and WyomingAgents.com so that Null wouldn't have a postal address, a phone number or a lawyer for KF, those were such examples of just how far they went at the time.

Naia Okami, one of TRA who broke with #DropKIwiFarms explicitly stated in a Twitter thread that it was because DKF decided to target Null's lawyers: "A coordinated attack to deny somebody legal counsel, regardless of what they are accused of, is absolutely not okay and is a violation of the person's civil rights. Those involved in these activities should be ashamed of themselves. I cannot and will not support activities to deny ANYBODY their inalienable civil rights. This has gone overboard and the people involved in this can be held liable. It isn't a game.". The person indirectly referred to here by Naia Okami was of course LFJ himself, as per the above tweet where LFJ openly gloated over, applauded and encouraged exactly such actions against Null as detailed in his screenshot Telegram post.