Copyright trolls are not figments of an over-active imagination. They are, unfortunately, quite real and indicative of a much larger problem in our legal system. Copyright trolls exist… though perhaps not in the context that you’ve previously been led to believe. I am not speaking writing about copyright owners who have the audacity to pursue copyright infringers. No… I am writing about a truly dangerous and malevolent beast… the copyright defense attorney who ‘trolls’ the internet and federal court system (PACER) in an effort to solicit clients to advance his/her own agenda (and just like that, at least 2 attorneys stopped reading this article and went back to their regularly scheduled trolling activities… but hey, that’s 2 more views they can’t take back).
What is the Definition of “Copyright Troll”?
“Troll” means different things to different people. As a fisherman, “trolling” is a fishing term meaning to drag a line through the water, spending a couple hundred dollars on gas in hopes of catching a fish you can buy for $20.00 at the grocery store. But “troll” can also refer to fairy tale lore of the fearsome creature living under a bridge who eats or taxes those who attempt to cross.
So a copyright troll fishes for… copyrights? A copyright troll eats… people? Maybe, but not really. Defense attorneys have for years accused copyright owners and their attorneys of being copyright trolls for utilizing the Copyright Act to enforce their rights and protect the unauthorized spread of their works. They even write blogs (though nowhere near as entertaining as CopyCat Legal’s blogs), espousing their own definitions of “troll” and inviting infringers to hire them to fight such ‘trolls.’
But irony, thy name is ______________ (much like Lord Voldemort, I shall not name you, but you know who you are). While many defense attorneys are aghast at the notion that copyrighted works should be protected, they are totally comfortable with ‘trolling’ court records on a daily basis to see when new copyright lawsuits have been filed, finding contact information for infringers, and then soliciting such infringers to hire them. Whether done for financial gain (more cases = more money), to advance their own careers, or to exact revenge for their earlier losses against particular attorneys, it is unlikely that these trolls’ precise motivations are ever clearly explained to the unsuspecting infringer who is solicited and offered representation.
Much like the fishing term, these copyright trolls will cast out many lines hoping that an infringer will bite and allow the troll to either make money or advance his/her career. And if the troll loses the case or doesn’t succeed in making new law, the expression “fish or cut bait” truly comes into play. Sorry I lost your case or dragged you through federal court litigation for 2+ years, but there are plenty more fish in the sea to solicit in my never-ending quest for vindication, revenge, to make new law, and several other motivations wholly detached from a client’s actual best interest.
This species of troll is unique in that it’s generally not self-aware. Fishermen know that trolling isn’t the most efficient means of putting food on the table. Bridge trolls understand that eating children usually doesn’t make them the hero of the story… usually. But these defense attorneys are completely oblivious to the fact that they are trolling the internet in search of fresh meat to advance their own ideals, all while openly accusing copyright plaintiffs of themselves being ‘trolls.’
Defeating the Copyright Troll
How do we defeat these nameless copyright trolls who aren’t even aware of their own existence? With pitchforks and tactical nuclear weapons, of course. Actually, I’m being told there’s arguably a better option… maybe we should stop trying to label people as ‘trolls’ and focus on the merits of individual cases. It doesn’t serve any purpose to label a copyright owner as a troll or to accuse a defense attorney of being a copyright troll for gobbling up new clients through ethically-questionable means. It’s certainly fun to do so as part of a tongue-in-cheek blog, but me calling defense attorneys “trolls” is as meaningful as them calling copyright owners “trolls.” It’s a nice moniker with a negative ring to it, but what does it actually accomplish?
Oh, you wanted an answer. Wasn’t prepared for that. The reality is that nobody should be called a “copyright troll”… even the handful of defense attorneys that hopefully made it to the end of this article (other names are perhaps both more appropriate and less PG-13). An unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is either an infringement under the law or it is not. Whether the ‘victim’ (the copyright owner) or the ‘perpetrator’ (the alleged infringer) is a ‘troll’ has no bearing on whether an infringement occurred – it’s a distraction from the actual issue and no more substantive than fluff. Thus, we can defeat “copyright trolls” by realizing they simply do not exist. Both sides to copyright disputes should be able to cross that bridge without fear of being eaten… at least not by a troll. I can’t guarantee safety from copyright gnomes or copyright chupacabras.
Disclaimer: The information contained on this blog post is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter.