by Paul Alan Levy
Earlier this month I blogged about the legal issues raised by a subpoena used by a religious cult, Art of Living, relying on a marginal copyright claim as a basis for identifying one of its former members. In the course of moving for summary judgment, the Doe has called attention to a perhaps incautious statement on the web site of the cult's lawyers, seeking clients by assuring them that, "Unlike most traditional firms, we relish the challenge of stalking, identifying and bringing Internet actors to justice - often before they even know we're onto them."
Apparently, their business model depends on evading the notice aspect of the Dendrite test. Do these lawyers have so little confidence in the strength of their claims that they can't afford judicial scrutiny in an adversarial posture? When I was first litigating Dendrite issues, plaintiffs' counsel loved to make provocative statements of this sort while trolling for clients. More recently, such lawyers have been much more cautious; we can be grateful to the Kronenberger firm for their candor.