Talk:Copyright troll

on trolling

The term appears to descent from the informal patent trolling. What springs from Dungeons and Dragons trolls. As such what is deemed in this article as "Copyright trolling" is not "trolling". A D&D troll invests to cause damage. What is deemed the "Copyright troll"
- appears to seek cash cows or rent.
- uses the free or affordable escalation offered by a legal system as its day-to-day business model. As such what is deemed a "Copyright troll" is better described as a parasite or a weapon. It is not committed to produce and seeks to evade the market mechanism. -- 15:15, 3 August 2021 77.173.226.152

Part of the language in the blocked quotation allegedly from a court in Colorado is NOT, in fact, in the ruling

See the ruling at https://casetext.com/case/righthaven-llc-v-hill-2

This language IS there

As I have previously noted, there is substantial evidence that Righthaven has engaged in a pattern of filing copyright infringement suits against naïve bloggers in order to secure settlement agreements, often with a minimal investment of time and effort. These lawsuits act as an effective bargaining chip in the negotiation of settlement agreements, because the cost of settlement is often less than the cost a defendant would incur in defending against Righthaven's suit. Indeed, if I were to award attorney fees in this case it would materially weaken the bargaining position that Righthaven has so successfully relied upon.

I don't have time to figure out where that quotation comes from So I am not editing the article itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAlanLevy (talk • contribs) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have found the source: it is here

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.124054.16.0.pdf When I have time I will edit the article accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAlanLevy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What is controversial about this article's content?

I noticed that the article has a "neutrality is disputed" notice on it. What controversy surrounds this article's content (if any controversy exists)? Jarble (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial; it's just unbalanced. There are no counter viewpoints that would support an idea that enforcing one's copyrights is a legitimate business model. This is especially a concern since the article lists so many examples, in a such a POV manner. - MrX 20:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed tag per WP:DRIVEBY

This is a straightforward case of drive-by tagging. Someone added an "unbalanced" tag to the article but didn't provide any specific suggestions for ways it could be reworded. I have therefore removed the tag. Whoever added the tag is welcome to add it back (I have no particular stance on the balance of this article), provided he/she offers concrete suggestions for improving it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the driver. I explained why I tagged it (see section above), but since no one else has shown an interest, and I gave no concrete suggestions for improving it, I'm fine with the tag being gone. - MrX 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Redtube scandal

Redtube scandal in Germany, currently a minimum of 20,000 people blackmailed by shysters within one strike around CHristmas 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4901:B08F:312E:DE9F:45FF:3DBF (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Internet Article 23

Is it another case? Besides the effect of restricting freedom of speech, it also makes copyright trolls. Copyright holders can sue netizens for copyright infringement, one by one, with any reason they want. --－yhynerson1 (talk, contribs) 14:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Image credit

Just noting that I strongly disagree with adding this form of attribution. What a ridiculous affair it would be if Philpot uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons and sued Wikimedia when it was used in the way images on Commons are meant to be used. As per WP:WATERMARK all credits for images used in Wikipedia go in the image description page, not in the caption. Even if it's meant ironically, we shouldn't be advertising this business or any others this way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. GMG^talk 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it quite funny illustrating the article Copyright troll using an image made by a copyright troll that's been known to get up Commons butt. casualdejekyll 00:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Marco Verch

is an afaik (in)famous Copyright troll : https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252488167/Automated-image-recognition-How-using-free-photos-on-the-internet-can-lead-to-lawsuits-and-fines

--Präziser (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)