Memorable quote a while back by an SDNY judge about Liebowitz:
> In his relatively short career litigating in this District, Richard Liebowitz has earned the dubious distinction of being a regular target of sanctions-related motions and orders. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that there is a growing body of law in this District devoted to the question of whether and when to impose sanctions on Mr. Liebowitz alone. See, e.g., ... This Opinion is the latest contribution to that body of law. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that sanctions should indeed be imposed on Mr. Liebowitz for his repeated failure to comply with this Court’s orders, failures that imposed considerable and unwarranted costs on the Court, its staff, and Defendant NBCUniversal Media, LLC.
What this demonstrates: Years of unethical, overtly extortionary and often illegal copyright trolling isn't enough to trigger disbarment. (Not even criminal charges but a loss of license. In one state.)
It's years of copyright trolling so incompetent that judges began pushing back. Plus another period of angering those judges with non-compliance.
What this hints at: When copyright is on the table, unethical, extortionary and illegal trolling usually flies just fine.
The whole system where a person can lose a license and permission to work for arbitrary reasons is unfair. The license should prove that the person has necessary knowledge and should not be used as a mean to punish someone for his views or for being too smart to profit from unfair laws. If you want to punish people, there is criminal code.
Knowledge of how to do X isn't the only relevant qualification for being licensed to do X. In fact, I'd argue it's not even the primary qualification. Something else underlies it: the ability to be trusted to do X without causing damage or harm.
Take an example from another licensed practice: operating a vehicle on public roads. Knowledge, skill, and being of age are enough to elicit an initial trust from your local authorities. But if you violate that trust by, say, willfully disregarding a red light, your license may be revoked, not because you forgot what red lights mean, or because you stopped being skilled at using your brakes, but because your holding of this license is now demonstrated to be a threat to public safety.
The objective of a licensing system is to protect others from harm before it happens. The threat of losing a license is a good deterrent, and better, often, than the threat of criminal punishment, precisely because it's easier to invoke. (You called it "for arbitrary reasons", which is false, by the way.)
Haha--that one caught my attention as well. His litigation is so audacious as to begin setting precedent. This is how our system should work though; through contention it strengthens itself.
> In his relatively short career litigating in this District, Richard Liebowitz has earned the dubious distinction of being a regular target of sanctions-related motions and orders. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that there is a growing body of law in this District devoted to the question of whether and when to impose sanctions on Mr. Liebowitz alone. See, e.g., ... This Opinion is the latest contribution to that body of law. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that sanctions should indeed be imposed on Mr. Liebowitz for his repeated failure to comply with this Court’s orders, failures that imposed considerable and unwarranted costs on the Court, its staff, and Defendant NBCUniversal Media, LLC.
https://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/Lebowitz.pdf