BlognetTitleCardMUSIC: Theme. Intro and fade under.

NARRATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

MUSIC: Up, then under …

NARRATOR: You’re a Detective Sergeant. You’re assigned to Internet Detail. A serial copyright thief has been using the work of bloggers without permission. Recently, he has been subject to copyright takedown notices, but he is attempting to get his infringement republished. Your job … get the facts.

MUSIC: Up then under …

ANNOUNCER: Blognet … the documented drama of an actual crime. For the next few minutes, in cooperation with the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department, you will travel step by step on the side of the good guys through an actual case transcribed from official files. From beginning to end. From crime to punishment. Blognet is the story of the good guys in action.

MUSIC: Up and out.

SOUND: Footsteps in hallway.

FRIDAY: It was Thursday, May 15th. It was a foggy morning in Westminster with rain in the forecast. We were working the day watch out of Internet Detail. My partner’s Liz Smith. The boss is Twitter Town Sheriff, W. J. J. Hoge. My name’s Friday. It was 7:52 am when I got to Room S-140. Internet Detail.

SOUND: Door opens. Footsteps across room. Chair pulled out. Computer boot tone.

SOUND: Door opens a second time.

SMITH: Hey, Joe, you beat me into work for a change.

FRIDAY: Not by much.

SOUND: Footsteps across room. Chair pulled out. Computer boot tone.

FRIDAY: It looks like things were pretty quiet overnight.

SMITH: I could use a quiet day for once.

FRIDAY: Yeah. So could …

SOUND: Telephone rings once. Receiver picked up.

SMITH: Internet Detail. Detective Smith. … Good Morning. … Really? … When did it start? … But there was nothing before that? … I thought that account was down. … Oh, OK. … No, we’ll definitely check that out. Thanks for the tip. … Goodbye.

SOUND: Receiver hung up.

FRIDAY: What was that?

SMITH: One of my sources. She called to let me know that Parvocampus in on a roll again this morning. On Twitter.

FRIDAY: What’s he on about this time?

SMITH: Those books he published that were taken down for copyright violations.

FRIDAY: Well, we probably ought to keep an eye on him, just in case. Meanwhile, I’ll make the coffee this morning if you’ll fetch it when it’s done dripping.

SMITH: Sure. Cream and sugar as usual.

FRIDAY: Fine, but today I’ve got the feeling I’m gonna want something stronger.

MUSIC: Stinger and under.

FRIDAY: Liz took on the surveillance of Parvocampus’s Twitter timeline. By midmorning she was also following his blogging at Pain-in-the-Ass-Ombudsman.

12:58 pm.

SMITH: Hey, Joe. It looks like Parvocampus has filed DMCA counter notices on those copyright claims against those books.

FRIDAY: He has the right to do that, but it doesn’t seem very smart.

SMITH: Yeah. He lifted whole blog posts without permission.

FRIDAY: Uh huh. You know, he’s been doing that all along. Those weren’t the first DMCA notice he’s he been hit with. I wonder how many other times he has used whole posts without permission?

SMITH: We’ve got backups of his blog posts and tweets going back over several months, at least since that problem with the family from Texas. We could run a search against those backups to see how many times he’s infringed the bloggers he’s counter noticing.

FRIDAY: That’s a good idea. Why don’t you run down the tweets. I’ll take the blog posts. Meanwhile, keep Parvocampus’s feeds up on your second monitor.

Liz and I set to work. Scrolling through months of poorly written blog posts is not the part of this job that can be exciting, but it’s the sort of thing that is usually most productive.

2:49 pm

SMITH: Joe, it looks like Parvocampus is on his blog daring the bloggers he ripped off to sue him.

FRIDAY: I wouldn’t do that if I were him.

SMITH: Neither would I. You should see the stuff I’m turning up here.

FRIDAY: If it’s anything like what what I’ve found, there’s a huge infringement case lurking in the wings for Parvocampus. This is the wrong pot for him to be stirring.


FRIDAY: I’m just finishing with posts by the Maryland blogger that he screencapped either in full or almost completely and used in his posts. Since last August, he’s used them in at least four of the website he operated: Old Uncle Braggart, Lard of Satire, Fly The Wrong Radio, and Pain-in-the-Ass-Ombudsman. There’re at least 52 instances of such screencaps.

SMITH: I’ll see your 52 and raise you 15.

FRIDAY: Is that so?

SMITH: Yeah. I’ve got 67 of those sorts of screencaps that I’ve found under 9 different Twitter handles he’s used over the same period. I haven’t gone back past August yet.

FRIDAY: 67 plus 52. That’s 119 copyright violations.

SMITH: (Low whistle.) Wow! Even with low-ball statutory damages, that’s serious money.

FRIDAY: OK, let’s wrap this up and get reports out to the bloggers.

SMITH: Do we need to interpret any of this data?

FRIDAY: No. Just the facts, ma’am.

MUSIC: Up and under.

NARRATOR: On May 15th, a report with information concerning Parvocampus’s apparent copyright violations was forwarded to one of the bloggers whose material had been infringed. In a moment, the significance of that report.

MUSIC: Stinger.

ANNOUNCER: Are you a loyal supporter of Team Lickspittle? While there’s a lot of neat stuff to spend your money on at The Hogewash Store, sometimes you have to buy something useful. When that happens, there’s still away to support Team Lickspittle. Simply use the Amazon link in the sidebar on the Home page. When you shop at Amazon via that link, you’ll pay the same great price, and Hogewash! will get a cut of the action. The Hogewash Store and Amazon—two great ways to support Team Lickspittle.

NARRATOR: The report documents over 120 examples of Parvocampus’s use of the blogger’s copyrighted material. Statutory damages for such violations can be $750 for each violation. If a violation qualifies for enhanced statutory damages the amount per violation may be as much as $150,000 each.

MUSIC: Theme up and under.

ANNOUNCER: You have just heard Blognet, a series of authentic cases from official files. Technical advice comes from the office of the Twitter Town Sheriff’s Department.

MUSIC: Theme up to music out.

ANNOUNCER: Blognet is a work of fiction. Anyone who thinks it’s about him should read Proverbs 28:1.

Be sure to tune in on Monday evenings at 6 pm Eastern Time for the transcribed adventures of the man with the action-packed Twitter account, the fabulous Internet investigator—Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign. This is LBS, the Lickspittle Broadcasting System.

21 thoughts on “Blognet

  1. “Scrolling through months of poorly written blog posts is not the part of this job that can be exciting….” OUCH.
    Oh, and GIGGITY!

  2. Things I find odd:
    1. Why a faux advocate for the disabled hates people with emotional or learning disabilities and ridicules them, or lies about them having the disability.
    2. Let’s say that a restraining order says a man is 5’10 and weighs 350. I find it odd that he would call anyone else pudgy, obese, or a hog.
    3. Why an uneducated man of little accomplishment, and no formal education beyond high school (except for seminars), loves to denigrate those with multiple advanced degrees and genius level IQs. Especially if they happen to be female.
    4. Why a man who collapses into hysteria at perceived insults against his late mother, a married man with daughters, enters his sweaty-palmed happy place and revels in his sexism by insult accomplished women with vulgar and obscene commentary.
    5. Why an obese PD patient sits around in his pajamas all day.
    6. Why a man who claims to be a heterosexual is obsessed with male porn.
    7. Why a man who claims to be a heterosexual is obsessed with the sex life of another man.
    8. Why a man who claims to have terrific family relationships spends all his time stalking people on the internet.
    9. Why a man with little education fancies himself an expert on many things, and wades outside the kiddie pool of his intellectual depth.
    10. Why he likes to threaten and insult people’s children.

    Just wondering.

  3. In my thankfully limited experience with Bill, it seems safe to take anything he says and assume that the reality is the opposite.

  4. I believe there is also an ironclad case against Mr. Parvocampus’ recent DMCA counterclaim.

    Such a counterclaim is made under penalty of perjury, that the counter-claimant has a good faith belief that the material was taken down due to mistake or misidentification.

    But as Mr. Parvocampus helpfully points out, there ARE PENALTIES for knowingly filing a false DMCA Takedown Request!

    Unfortunately, the SAME PENALTIES apply for knowingly filing a false DMCA counterclaim as well!

    Mr. Parvocampus shows us a cap of a summary of the law. We drooling idiots prefer the real deal:

    “(f) Misrepresentations- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
    (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
    (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
    shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.”

    And Mr. Parvocampus has indeed stated, under penalty of perjury, a “good faith belief” that the takedown was a result of mistake or misidentification.

    But is that true representation, or is it a misrepresentation? A material misrepresentation? A knowingly material misrepresentation?

    Well, on page 5 of Inventional Affliction (or whatever it’s called), we find this quote:

    “You can see it for yourself here. I doubt he will try to sue me for copyright, since he would have to review his actual name.”

    I believe any reasonable judge or jury in any jurisdiction at any level would find that a very strong indication that he knew he was violating a copyright (an unlawful situation) but chose to ignore it (which, by the way is the very textbook definition of “guilty knowledge.”)

    A knowingly material misrepresentation that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification.


    Goodnight! Don’t forget to tip your waitress!

    • dont forget he claims Causey committed PERJURY!!!! when he sent his/her DMCA notice about their child’s pic…or so Twinkie claims.

      I wonder how quickly HoCo’s SA would jump at bringing charges against Twinkie ( a man we all know has made sure the SA and everyone in their office knows his name) for perjury given the above information…


      • Md. Criminal Law § 9-503. False statement–To public official concerning crime or hazard

        (a) A person may not make, or cause to be made, a statement or report that the person knows to be false as a whole or in material part to an official or unit of the State or of a county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the State that a crime has been committed or that a condition imminently dangerous to public safety or health exists, with the intent that the official or unit investigate, consider, or take action in connection with that statement or report.

        (b) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.

      • Hoge, the problem with that statute is thus:

        “that the person knows to be false”

        A person who suffers under severe delusions might not know that their fantasy world isn’t real. Yes. I am suggesting sanity may be at issue here.

  5. For someone who is supposed to be “off Twitter”, it’s clear the CB spends more time then ever stalking all of your Twitter accounts and divining evil intent from Hoge’s blog. The pure psychosis needed to fashion Hoge into a modern day Baal may give some actual relevance to the CB donating his bloated corpse to science. Discovering how someone can be so crazy with so little brain matter may actually have some scientific value.

  6. I just found out about Right of Publicity. I bet this is why Lulu pulled stuff as soon as I said a picture of me had been included without my permission. The laws vary by state, and so they probably quite sensibly assume that the best thing is to follow the most stringent state laws. So I may have only filed a DMCA request, but it brought the privacy issue to their attention, and that’s the one that worries them even more.

    • Personality rights are the rights to control the use of one’s likeness in commercial uses, and, yes, the existence and strength of those rights varies from state to state. IIRC, California, Tennessee and New York have fairly robust statutory protections for personality rights. Maryland, OTOH does not recognize even a common law right.

      Washington, where Amazon is headquartered, recognizes the right by statute. North Carolina, where Lulu is based, does not recognize the right.

      FYI, it’s a common law right in Connecticut.

      • There seems to be a significant overlap between the Right of Publicity and the Right of Privacy, one being a tort and and the other being a property crime.

        Privacy rights get updated and recodified after major changes in information technology. I think we’re about due for the next round, as everyone starts to catch up to what the internet and cheap publishing can do.

Leave a Reply