Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie
from the porn-porn-everywhere dept
We've pointed out recently that porn producers seem to be rapidly jumping on the mass automated "pre-settlement" bandwagon, and it seems that's only increasing. More and more porn producers are filing mass lawsuits, demanding people accused of sharing all sorts of porn pay up or go to court. One of the latest targeted is the porn "classic," Debbie Does Dallas, for which 113 John Does have now been sued. Apparently, the lawyer involved is the same one who filed a bunch of these types of lawsuits a few months ago, Evan Stone. So apparently he's joined the ranks of lawyers who are pitching this kind of "service." Over in the UK, various politicians have been condemning these kinds of lawsuits, even calling them a scam. With thousands of these lawsuits being filed in the US now, will any US politician speak up and do something about this clear abuse of copyright law?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: infringement, lawsuits, porn, pre-settlements
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Coincidence?
Evan Stone
Another Evan Stone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coincidence?
Coincidences are funny :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mistake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mistake?
More interesting to me is the fact that despite the fact that this movie is so well known and viewed, it should be under the public domain now, at least if the copyright laws hadn't been hijacked. Imagine getting free, non-amateur porn legally, even if it is over 30 years old...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mistake?
What I grew up with is normal and morally right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subject
That's right folks, this is what the corporations and lawyers wanted. This is what people that you voted for in to government got suckered in to supporting and passing in to law.
Welcome to the ACTUAL reason for the DMCA; not to protect jobs, not to protect artists, but to make executives and lawyers the wealthiest people around. Wealthier and greedier they are becoming. While most normal people would be happy with a $1M in the bank and to live off the interest for the rest of their lives, these greedy lawyers and executives aren't content with their mega millions and sometimes even billions of dollars in their personal fortune sitting in their banks--and even having all of that is not enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Subject
* writes another email to Orrin Hatch*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rich
This is what is wrong with this country (America), and the world today. No matter how much wealth or power they accumulate, its never enough, they always, ALWAYS, want more.
Greed will doom this country, possibly very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't hold your breath. I doubt any politicians have it backwards like you do. By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law. Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She was so abusive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. You said "By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law". The same definition should apply to all laws. Or do they teach you in law school that copyright laws are all-important while other laws are OK to break?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. Funny then that UK politicians seem to recognize that this is a clear abuse of the law, far beyond what the intended purpose of copyright law is.
I don't have it backwards, kiddo. At the very least, why not admit your bias? You are in law school, studying how to use copyright law to your advantage. So you want this sort of abusive situation to continue such that you can profit from it.
I have no actual dog in this fight. I don't have it backwards. I see it clearly.
By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law.
You honestly don't think there's anything wrong with the incentive structure here? You don't think there's anything wrong with scooping up innocent folks in the process?
Really?
Sickening. Seriously. I can take a lot, but people like you who gleefully abuse a system for profit disgust me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wear my bias on my sleeve. Not sure what you want me to "admit."
Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?
Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?
And how am I abusing a system for profit? What have I done? Are you seriously just making stuff up about me now? You must be really desperate, Mike.
What innocent people are you talking about? What case? What are their names? What are the facts?
I can't really answer your questions without more. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions.
You have the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. Sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do or do you not agree that the rights holder can not quantify the supposed harm he is suffering from illegal downloads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If somebody infringes on your rights, you are a victim whether you can show actual damages or not.
Would you like it if people infringed on your rights? I wouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What purpose would that serve? Are you suggesting that only the USA matters? This website has a global audience and covers global issues.
"Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?"
Technically you're not a victim if you have no loss. If you accept the premise that there is a direct relationship between downloading something and losing an actual sale rather than a potential sale, then yes you could argue that they are victims. I don't accept that premise because it reminds me of the pork futures warehouse in Discworld.
"Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?"
No, that would make a murderer an abuser of the laws against murder. It just isn't what the word means. The very function of law is to deal with being broken, something functioning as intended is not abuse. You could argue that unauthorised copying is an abuse in itself, but not that unauthorised copying abuses copyright law.
"And how am I abusing a system for profit? What have I done? Are you seriously just making stuff up about me now? You must be really desperate, Mike."
You seemed to be defending the use of the copyright system for extortion. The article is about pre settlement letters, no cases of infringement are necessarily involved because no proof is provided. You made the assumption that everyone who received a pre settlement letter was guilty.
"I can't really answer your questions without more. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions."
Let me put it to you as you would to him: where is all the proof? How are all the people receiving pre settlement letters known to be guilty? What are the facts?
"You have the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. Sad really."
This from the person who dismisses the opinions of everyone outside their own country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I remember our last "debate" and honestly, it wasn't very fruitful. As I recall you were questioning my choice of words. For example, you told me my use of "appropriate" was incorrect. Obviously you haven't read a lot of U.S. IP jurisprudence, because if you had, you'd know that "appropriate" and "misappropriate" are used all the time. You were incorrect to point out my misuse of the word.
Someone who murders is an abuser of murder laws, you're right. I'd rather not waste any more time arguing choice of words with you. Surely you have something better to talk about.
And you are wrong that there's no proof in these infringement cases. There is prima facie evidence. Read the complaints.
You are also wrong that I assume all of the defendants are guilty. I never said that, nor have I ever thought it. I do think there's a prima facie case against them, as the sworn statements in the complaints indicate.
And again, I don't dismiss opinions of everyone outside my own country. It's the comparison of U.S. law to foreign law that I don't think is apples and oranges.
I don't find any of this particularly interesting or compelling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't believe Mike's analogy is correct then you should admit ignorance and move on (I doubt anyone would mind you not wanting to read about the UK cases), or read them and tell him why they are not analogous. Instead you claimed that no one's opinion from the UK mattered for the reason that you are ignorant of UK law. At best you insulted a whole country.
"I remember our last "debate" and honestly, it wasn't very fruitful. As I recall you were questioning my choice of words. For example, you told me my use of "appropriate" was incorrect. Obviously you haven't read a lot of U.S. IP jurisprudence, because if you had, you'd know that "appropriate" and "misappropriate" are used all the time. You were incorrect to point out my misuse of the word."
Putting that next to your assertion that someone who murders is an abuser of murder laws can only help convince people of whatever my previous argument was. While I appreciate that lawyers have their own lingo, I find it a stretch to believe that you've distorted the English language quite so badly. It would lend credence to the theory that the law is poorly written just to keep lawyers in work.
"And you are wrong that there's no proof in these infringement cases. There is prima facie evidence. Read the complaints."
Stoke my verisimilitude! A law student who believes prima facie evidence constitutes proof. Not requiring proof is not the same as having proof.
"You are also wrong that I assume all of the defendants are guilty. I never said that, nor have I ever thought it. I do think there's a prima facie case against them, as the sworn statements in the complaints indicate."
I address this in another comment.
"And again, I don't dismiss opinions of everyone outside my own country. It's the comparison of U.S. law to foreign law that I don't think is apples and oranges."
I'm pretty sure you mean 'I think is apples and oranges'. If he were comparing the laws then I would agree.
"I don't find any of this particularly interesting or compelling..."
I sincerely hope that no one is forcing you to post. If it helps, I included a six syllable word to lighten the mood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I recall you were upset by my saying "cite to authority." You tried to correct me. Guess what, "cite to authority" is a phrase I'm familiar with. Perhaps you are not. Who cares? Don't you have anything substantive to debate rather than my choice of phrase? People use phrases and terms you aren't familiar with. ZZZzzzzzz.
Prima facie evidence is just that--evidence. If not rebutted, it is accepted by the court at face value. Boring.
You are less compelling than you were before. Find somebody else to play with. So desperate to find even the slightest flaw in my posts. Yawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The laws don't have to be analogous because he was not drawing an analogy between the laws, but between the cases. If you fall asleep this easily in your law lectures then it might explain a lot.
'I recall you were upset by my saying "cite to authority." You tried to correct me. Guess what, "cite to authority" is a phrase I'm familiar with. Perhaps you are not. Who cares? Don't you have anything substantive to debate rather than my choice of phrase? People use phrases and terms you aren't familiar with. ZZZzzzzzz.'
I am unsure as to what you refer to? I am afraid I do not have a very good memory and cannot make sense of your reference without some context.
"Prima facie evidence is just that--evidence. If not rebutted, it is accepted by the court at face value. Boring."
You claimed that I was wrong that there is no proof because there is prima facie evidence, which implied that the prima facie evidence constitutes proof, which is wrong. Is there a reason that I should not have taken your words literally? I cannot imagine that you meant them as some sort of idiom. Your inability to communicate your point is only furthered by your refusal to admit that you did not mean what you said. If you wish to avoid all the boring semantics then just say 'no, I didn't mean that' instead of ignoring what you previously said altogether.
"You are less compelling than you were before. Find somebody else to play with. So desperate to find even the slightest flaw in my posts. Yawn."
Play with? I guess you don't care that people find your arguments lacking if you're just doing it for some sort of game. On the plus side, I appear to be winning whether this is a game or a genuine attempt to communicate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evidence is proof.
From Black's:
proof, n. 1. The establishment or refutation of an alleged fact by evidence.
Snore.
The rest of your points are equally as boring to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does this mean that you'd rather I argued the meaning of several? What a silly statement.
"Evidence is proof."
It isn't. If it were then we wouldn't need two words. Evidence may constitute proof, but that is not necessarily so. Evidence is pretty much anything presented in support of an assertion. Proof is evidence that supports an assertion to some degree of certainty. For an example of the distinction, you can have false evidence but you cannot have false proof, because that would be a contradiction in terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many people wouldn't be able to prove anything, they are not business, they don't have legal departments, they don't maintain logs and would be just overwhelmed by the courts, even business complain about that and they do have more resources then normal people so justice it is not being served by the system right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't consume the copywritten material. At all.
And make sure all of your media is strongly encrypted just in case you screwed up and have something that was stored that is under an abusive copyright license.
Starve the bastards out. Ignore what they are doing, feed the people who are making content we ALL can use.
>breaks copyright laws
Would this be the 'law' as originally written or the one where every few years the 'law' gets changed yet again?
If I had not taken the position of 'stop consuming' - I'd be looking into tools to help people follow the original law as a way of civil disobedience and nullification.
You, as a lawyer wanna-be DO understand nullification, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its the Achilles heel - if you stop consuming what they produce - they can't get money from you. No money from you means no money for the lawmakers OR lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's what is happening (assuming you didn't actually share this file). The system is set up to give this guy incentive to sue innocent people and force them to pay up even if they did not share the files in question. It is cheaper to pay up than it is to wage the most basic fight to prove your innocence.
So, if you think this practice is ok, you should simply be paying up every time one of these guys claims their works have been pirated. Since you are as guilty as the innocent people caught in the extra-wide net being cast, I think it is your responsibility to pay each of these guys that wants money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm also wondering how much responsibility a person who has an unsecured wireless should have in these types of cases. I really don't know the answer. When I get some spare time I'll research the caselaw to see how this fact pattern is handled by the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The courts are not competent to judge that, they lack the knowledge to do it.
The right people to ask about that is tech people.
And it would send shrills down the spine of any administrator to be have found guilty of things out of their control, but somehow some people may think it is ok to force layman people to become versed on tech, law and whatever they want. Its just ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case the law is wrong and should be repudiated and until that day comes, is the duty of every citizen under the sun to continue to fight for their own rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please explain exactly how I "gleefully abuse a system for profit." What have I done? Seriously, Mike.
Are you really assuming that in the future I'm going to do something you find despicable, and then holding it against me now? That seems really, really desperate. Don't you think?
I'm waiting, Mike. Explain it to me and to everyone exactly how I "gleefully abuse" the system.
You know that I don't. You're so desperate to take me down that you have to invent things to hold against me.
It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen. I know you're desperate, Mike, but this takes the sadness cake.
Shame on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?
Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?
I seriously would like to hear your answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you or do you not agree that the rights holder of the movie in question is a victim when people illegally download the movie?
You'd be hard pressed to find any group of people who deserve to be called "victims" less than these guys. If they are "victims" in any way, it's because they were denied the ability to make money through infringement, and this is not true. Infringement doesn't deny anyone the right or the ability to charge for content - as evidenced by the tons of publishers (e.g. Criterion or Dover) that make money from public domain material.
Even if they do lose money, they'd be "victims" only if they couldn't avoid losing money when infringement occurs. There are tons of ways they could avoid this. Many of them are talked about here.
If they are victims of anything, they're victims of their own financial mismanagement.
On the other hand, the defendents of these lawsuits are definitely victims. Even if guilty, then ethically speaking, they did nothing worse than sneak into a movie theater. Or, if you buy the wrong-headed "stealing" analogy, nothing worse than shoplift a DVD. Yet the lawsuits they face are far, far worse than the punishments for either of these things.
Do you or do you not agree that a person who breaks copyright laws by illegally downloading movies is by definition an abuser of copyright law?
Copyright law was written to protect publishers from other publishers. The intent of the law is that the rights holders are the only ones allowed to make money off of the sale of their works.
So, no, I don't believe that users who share movies are "abusers" of copyright laws. Those laws should never have applied to them in the first place.
Now, under current laws, they are infringing. But that's not "abusing" the law. You abuse the law when you work within the letter of the law, but against the intent or spirit of the law, for your own self-interest. That seems to describe the USCG pretty well, in my opinion.
They're not as bad as Righthaven, but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
victim, n. A person harmed by a crime, tort, or other wrong.
abuse, n. 1. A departure from legal or reasonable use; misuse.
Legally speaking, the rights holder is a victim when someone infringes on his rights. And a person who breaks copyright laws is by definition an abuser.
I was just wondering if Mike could admit either one of these things. I doubt it. I imagine if he speaks the words he will melt away like the Wicked Witch after Dorothy throws water on her.
This is the same Mike who holds my future acts against me. I think he's been watching "Minority Report" and thinks he's a pre-cog. Must be working for the pre-crime police.
Watch him never, ever admit it's wrong to blame me for things I haven't done. Who assumes someone is going to do something and then blames them for it? I'm still waiting for an explanation or an apology...
It's OK to admit you were wrong, Mike. I won't let Dorothy douse you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, a person who breaks copyright laws is a lawbreaker. A person who "misuses" the law is an abuser. For (an intentionally trite) example, someone who jaywalks is a lawbreaker; a cop who only writes you a jaywalking ticket if you're wearing white after Labor Day, is abusing the law.
And a "victim" is someone who is harmed when his or her rights are infringed upon. If there is no actual harm, it's not appropriate to call them a "victim," since that's a weasel word.
It all comes down to whether these lawsuits are a "misuse" of the law, and whether the rights holders were actually harmed when their (statutory) rights were infringed upon.
Naturally, the answers to these questions are somewhat in the realm of opinion. But to the degree that there is empirical or historical evidence, it's on Mike's side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said it better than I did. I worry when a law student can't grasp that simple distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't a very interesting thing to debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry I bore you. No, that wasn't sincerely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does that work when they are sending pre settlement letters without proof? You'll dismiss the evidence because it's from the UK, but the fact is that not everyone receiving a letter has been guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're thinking of defenses. I'm talking about what happens before the defenses are raised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Average_joe DOESN'T point out is anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime for any amount.
So to claim 'there is a lawsuit, ergo there is prima facie evidence' is incorrect.
But its Average_Joe's Labor on this day to show herself/himself to be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you are CLAIMING there is such a situation based on the existence of the filing of a lawsuit.
You've repeated over and over 'read the lawsuit'. You've offered up no other source of knowledge than the lawsuit.
If you have other knowledge, do post it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you, but I have already been through the complaint to check what evidence they were providing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As explained in another comment, a crime can be an abuse; however, the fact that a crime is abuse does not make a crime an abuse of the law. No one is contesting that infringement may not be considered abuse in law, but that it is not an abuse of law.
Feel free to dismiss my comment as pedantic or boring or whatever it is you're trying to paint me as. I don't mind being any of those as much as you appear to mind being wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But not wrong, I note.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He tried to squirm his way out of it:
As for the comment, I did not lie. You have said that you are planning a career in copyright litigation and that you support these types of actions that are a clear abuse of the law for profit. The "gleeful" part is an opinion based on the way you discuss these lawsuits as if they're some game. I find that sickening.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100904/23124610907.shtml
Um, no, Mike. Not good enough. Being interested in IP litigation does not mean that I now currently abuse a system for profit. Nor does it mean that I am going to abuse a system for profit sometime down the road. I don't know what I'm going to end up doing and you don't either.
Why can't you just man up and admit that your statement was false or at the very least misleading? Why can't you admit that you were mistaken?
Every assumption you've made about me has been wrong. Every time you state what you think to be my position you are wrong. Why can't you ever get it right when you're talking about me? Is your debating strategy really to just misstate the other side's position? That's really sad.
C'mon, Mike. Be a man and admit that I do not abuse a system for profit. You know that I do not.
I can take a lot, Mike, but people like you who have to lie when stating other people's positions make me sick.
What is wrong with you, Mike? Seriously.
Are you going to threaten to ban me for calling you out on your lie? Am I just supposed to let you intentionally spread lies about me? Am I not allowed to point out your mistake?
Go ahead and censor me if that's how you have to deal with people who point out your lies about them.
I'm still waiting for you to explain yourself. Your sad attempt at saying I "support" such people doesn't cut it. Explain exactly how I abuse a system for profit, or admit that I do not.
We both know that I don't. And we both know that you don't know what I'm going to end up doing.
Why are you trying to blame me for things I haven't even done? Are you really that desperate to get me?
Sad, Mike. Really sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When those "victims" sue innocent people, they are by definition abusers and victims usually become abusers.
But what the hell, sue away. Fuck the "casualties of war".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There, fixed that for you.
My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?
Didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if the defendants can prove they are innocent, they can ask the court to award them attorneys' fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:
My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?
That question had nothing to do with your answer of:
I'm not a party in this case,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:
Which is a non-substantive answer to the question you were asked.
That question was:
My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?
Explain it to me like I'm a little child,
Oh well in that case:
Quiet. Little children are to be seen and not heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:
Did I have good reason initially to think they weren't innocent? Why did I sue them in the first place? How did I later find out that they were innocent?
I'd need to know more to answer your question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't prove innocence only guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the defendant is found liable, the plaintiff can ask the court to award them attorney's fees. If the defendant is found not liable, the defendant can ask the court to award them attorney's fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or Guilty, until proven innocent?
It's up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant's guilt (beyond a shadow of a doubt), not the defendants task to prove their innocence.
But admittedly, this is from my understand of the law of the land, and years of watching crime documentaries and dramatizations. IANAL and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where? Show us the facts! The cases in the UK seemed to consist of a list of IP addresses and we all know how well that works. I wouldn't be surprised if they sued a network printer again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, as I suspected the evidence is a list of IP addresses. Why that is considered prima facie evidence is anyone's guess. If that is evidence then this IOU I just typed is evidence that someone owes me money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read a bunch of case law and then we'll talk more. Until then, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've read 7 cases about copyright infringement just today for pleasure reading. I read case law every day. I read case law for class. I read case law for work. And in my spare time, guess what, I read case law. Maybe that's why I'm at the top of my class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because it is alleged does not make it so. Having said that, I hold little hope that the court will throw this out like it should. I am not contesting the fact that they can do this, I am saying that they should not do this, ideally because the court would spank them for wasting time (wishful thinking, I know).
"Read a bunch of case law and then we'll talk more. Until then, you have no idea what you're talking about."
Honestly, I wouldn't claim to know more about law than you. Pretty much everything I've brought up here is based on you saying stuff that just doesn't make sense with a basic knowledge of English. That you appear to have some odd ideas about certain legal concepts is possibly also your communications skills at fault.
"I've read 7 cases about copyright infringement just today for pleasure reading. I read case law every day. I read case law for class. I read case law for work. And in my spare time, guess what, I read case law. Maybe that's why I'm at the top of my class."
I am glad that you appear to enjoy your work so much. Few people enjoy their work enough to be able to stand it in their spare time. Personally I prefer martial arts as a hobby, it makes a nice contrast to sitting at a desk trying to help people all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do love what I do very much. I'm researching the legality of reverse engineering software at the moment--got a presentation to make at school tomorrow. Interesting stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm short with people all the time, though I try to make sure that I'm only reflecting the attitude of those I'm talking to. Being 100% polite when others are taking the piss is a sure way to get them to ignore you.
I tend to focus on how people are communicating because that is a universal constant and often seems to me the biggest barrier to two sides of an argument reaching a consensus (even if it is a disagreement). The great thing about language skills (or reasoning skills) is being able to butt in on subjects that you don't necessarily know anything about. Most of my time on here is spent not trying to convince people that they are wrong, but that what they said isn't what they meant. I don't mind disagreeing with people, I'd just like them to know why I disagree with them as that tends to be the first step towards them changing their own minds.
"I do love what I do very much. I'm researching the legality of reverse engineering software at the moment--got a presentation to make at school tomorrow. Interesting stuff."
Presentations are one of the reasons that I'm glad I dropped out of school. I find it easier to write than talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that the 100 level classes on being a jackass or the post-doc jackass class?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Such a low bar. What you know. And what is known about a case that hasn't had its 1st trial.
Too bad that other cases HAVE shown various accused as being innocent.
Too bad for your position that one is supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I wonder if Mike can be compelled to turn over your identifying info so that if you ever did apply for the job as a judge your lack of understanding of the idea of 'innocence until PROVEN guilty'. I wonder how that discovery would have to be phrased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What cases are you talking about where a defendant has been shown to be innocent? What are the facts?
More importantly, what does that have to do with this case? Have any of the defendants here been shown to be innocent? I don't see how since we're not at that point in the proceedings yet.
People are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing about these cases says otherwise. Prima facie evidence is just one side of things. We haven't heard the other side yet. Maybe they are innocent, or maybe they're not. We don't know yet.
I do understand innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you want a list and case history?
Hrmmmm. Lets see if providing you that would "matter"?
>More importantly, what does that have to do with this case?
Oh. So you admit that you don't actually CARE about what you just asked for.
Again folks - if you want the likes of Average_joe to be un-employable as a copyright attorney - stop consuming copywritten material under oppressive licenses. No money, no problems. Kill copyright by choking off the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point was that in this specific case, there has only been the complaint filed. No one has mounted a defense. You cannot say innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.
Stop consuming all you want. Get everyone who reads your words to follow along. I couldn't care less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet in
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100902/11385710880#c909
People are innocent until proven guilty
If your statement 'People are innocent until proven guilty' is true one has to say 'innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why did you ask for one?
Why ask for something you did not need or would consider if provided?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: average_joe won't admit she/he's wrong:
I asked you a specific question as to your behavior. You can choose to answer it or not.
You might wish to grow a backbone and answer the question to show the others who read the posts that you are an honest human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: average_joe won't admit she/he's wrong:
What specific question would you like me to answer? I will answer it gladly. If my answer proves to be wrong, I will gladly admit it is so.
Not sure why you think I'm so nefarious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This type of rights enforcement is not going to end well. If you think the car warranty telemarketing scam was big, just wait for the upcoming you infringed scams. There will be huge collateral damage and the retort by apologists like yourself will be - too bad, so sad. The rights holders will not care about the results of their indiscretions because they are getting their rightful millions which they are owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You said: "By definition, the people who infringe on other people's rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law. Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers."
If that isn't an assumption then I might assume we're in the silly alternate universe anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright infringement is never an automatic abuse. Abuse must be proven in court. There are exceptions written into the law that you must be aware of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My question to you is...If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?"
Here's a hint, there's a key in your keyboard, it says "page up".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you have anything intelligent to say, Groove Tiger? I guess not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do your masters pay you for each time you click the refresh button in your browser, or is it a flat hourly rate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll simplify it then. You implied that those sued are guilty of infringement. On the safe presumption that you have no evidence of this, we can conclude that you assumed they are guilty.
"I don't find you compelling, vivaelamor."
I am very grateful that you would publicly state this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I perfectly well understand the difference. Got anything that's actually interesting to debate about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you implied that they are guilty when you referred to them as infringers. When I said evidence I meant proof. Now I'm mixing the two up, glad I'm not a lawyer. If you didn't mean to imply that then fair enough, but again you keep acting as if what you said means something completely different to how the rest of the English speaking world might interpret it. The fact that they are presenting their evidence as prima facie doesn't give you cause to imply that the accused are infringers. I hope you're not a defence lawyer if you don't get the whole innocent until proven guilty premise.
"I perfectly well understand the difference. Got anything that's actually interesting to debate about?"
I'm patiently waiting for you to get past the language barrier so that we can progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This from the guy who brought up something I said days or weeks ago? Still, your contrition moves me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go ahead and get the last word. I'm done with our little chat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers.... Is it any wonder?
"If you've ever taken > and you've been diagnosed with >, then you may be elligible for compensation."
Lawyers are chasing more ambulances, filing more law suits, and convincing more people and businesses of 'entitlement'. Why? Because they need money. The market is flooded with lawyers who've spent their entire lives following the Law industry, and they don't know anything else.
Is the sheer number of those being sued any wonder??? I wonder in how many cases where it's actually the people rather than their lawyers having a strong influence on them to get "sue happy"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For...you know, research purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well you do spend an awful lot of time defending despicable practices. It's not really a huge cognitive leap to assume that you might engage in such practices in the future.
You see, you might be completely right about how the law works. The problem is that many people think that the law in these and many other cases does more harm than good. That the legal system generally has been distorted into something that serves the best interests, not of the public, but of lawyers and law enforcement.
The law is distorted all of the time. Just read some Radley Balko articles over at Reason.com to see how cops abuse the law with knock and announce drug raids executed at 4 AM. Every single one of the raids he discusses involve harmless low level drug offenders whose houses are broken into by SWAT teams, whose dogs are shot on sight, whose children our terrorized, all to get half an ounce of marijuana.
Now you will find many citizens who are outraged by these raids, but if you ask many police officers, they will tell you that this is how the war on drugs has to be fought, and that if people don't want to be terrorized by police then they shouldn't buy marijuana (which is, after all, illegal). They will also tell you that these raids are standard operating procedure.
Now here's the deal: you kind of come off like one of these cops.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's true. If you want to avoid this, you might want to look at the way you write things and try to add a bit more balance to them.
But of course, you think that your views are balanced, don't you?
Sigh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i agree with Mike
Culture IS more important than copyright, and don't go and spew your garbage about how copyright created culture. That is about as truthful as one download = one lost sale.
I see this kind of trolling on all the boards concerning copyright, seems the **AA hire 'tards like joe here to debunk reality intended to steer the sheeple back to buying plastic discs using totalitarian fear of justice.
'If a substantial amount of people break a particular law, then there is something wrong with the law'
- Abraham Lincoln
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i agree with Mike
How much IP jurisprudence have you read? I'm guessing you have read absolutely none. Do some homework and come back when you're ready to debate like a big boy. Run off, little child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i agree with Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: i agree with Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well..
Jurisprudence, did you have to spell check that one?
Here, just to feed your internal fire.. I happen to be a double doctorate, late 40s, and currently work as a software architect for a major corporation. And I have been infringing on copyright for 15 years now, and love it.
I have been following this issue for the entire time, consider that my homework.
Spew some more, this is fun :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no
Did I spell it out like a good little child this time for you?
So, what about my distribution topic? Don't want to address this one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no
In these infringement suits, there is prima facie evidence that the defendant in question infringed on the copyright of the plaintiff. Read a complaint in any of the cases for an explanation of what proof the plaintiff is alleging.
I completely understand the definition of infringement. I'm not sure why you think I don't.
I answered your distribution question already. See my response above. If I didn't answer your question, then explain to me what it is you're asking. I'm happy to address any of your questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
guh
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: guh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
salud
I love winding up trolls, I dedicate a very small portion of my week towards debunking rocket scientists like yourself.
Have a great weekend Joe, go see your kids, get out and breath uncopyrighted air.
stw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: salud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, but there is a problem here, in that the phrase 'abuse of the law' is meant by people around here to be something distinct from 'breaking the law'.
Karl's example was pretty good, actually, but let's use another one. A black person who buys cocaine is a lawbreaker. A white person who sells cocaine is a lawbreaker. A policeman who apprehends these people in the middle of a transaction, but who 'throws the book' at the black person while letting the white person off with a warning is abusing the law.
What the cop does in this example is, perhaps, legal. But it is clearly an example of racism practiced by someone who is supposed to act with strict regard to the letter of the law. This is the sort of thing that people are calling 'abuse' of the law. And it can really only apply in this sense to someone, either an officer of the law, or an officer of the court, who has some kind of legal authority.
Is there some term of art that you have acquired in your legal education that has the sense that 'abuse' does in this example? If there is, you would do the community a service by telling us what it is.
If there is no such term, could you suggest one other than 'abuse'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you look at what I wrote above, you will find that I was asking a question, not debating.
You keep talking around this point, so I will put it in the plainest terms possible: sometimes cops and lawyers do bad things and get away with them. They get away with them because their positions as cops and lawyers give them authority and expertise that allow them to game the system in their favor. In my last few posts here I have given you numerous examples of exactly what I am talking about.
I don't care whether you call it "abuse" or "puddin tain" or "that's why I am going to law school dumass", just so long as you acknowledge the fact that this stuff happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that what you wanted me to acknowledge? Seems rather obvious to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sigh....
Is there a whole section of legal pedagogy called 'obfuscation and prevarication'? Because you are really great at doing these exact things.
What you left out was: they get away with doing these bad things because "their positions as cops and lawyers give them authority and expertise that allow them to game the system in their favor".
Other bad people don't have this advantage.
And so, when you write:
"There is a prima facie case against the defendants. If they put up no defense, then default judgment will be entered against them. The burden shifts to them to prove their innocence. Prima facie evidence has shifted the burden."
You are ignoring the fact that proving their innocence could cost them a lot of money, and that it might easily cost them less to settle.
It is really easy to believe that the people issuing these lawsuits know exactly this, and are counting on it as part of their business model. And if one does believe this, than it is a pretty clear case of the abuse (or puddintain, or whatever you want to call it) of the legal system by people who know how to game the system in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Feel better?
I'm not ignoring that settling can be cheaper than proving one's innocence. In fact, I've repeatedly said that settling might be the best alternative because of that fact. Of course, a defendant who's been proven innocent can ask the court to make the plaintiff pay their legal fees, so maybe it doesn't cost them a thing monetarily. Maybe not though.
It's also possible that people are filing these suits because they honestly think the defendants infringed on their rights, and they have proof to that effect. Enough proof to file a suit anyway. In fact, that's what these plaintiffs swear to in their complaints, under penalty of law.
"puddintain"?? That's awesome! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pinocchio: Uh. Hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where he is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn't be inaccurate to assume that I couldn't exactly not say that it is or isn't almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming: So you do know where he is!
Pinocchio: On the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn't probably be, if that indeed wasn't where he isn't. Even if he wasn't at where I knew he was
Pinocchio: That'd mean I'd really have to know where he wasn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Understandable. Once the fingers and toes run out, how else will he keep count?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think "Debbie Does Dallas" is entirely Public Domain.
:)
have fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dear average joe
Only a lawyer could quibble over such a statement being a lie. It is obviously an expression of emotion.
I am also disgusted by those that use a system that is highly broken to make a profit. I say anyone considering this as a viable option is just a profit monger that has no respect for the purpose of law or the rights and property of others. You have demonstrated already you have no respect for others so it seems I am not that far from the mark.
I try to make others aware of issues in IP law in my job as a computer professional, consultant and contractor. I am also active politically to help educate everyone on the harms these laws and loop holes have created for us all. I am trying to make the world better for us all, even you. This is where the disgust stems from, as you exploit the problems rather than see a problem and try to fix it. It speaks of a weak character that you would deem short term personal gain of more importance than cultural gain for society.
Look at stories in the public domain such as "Alice in Wonderland." Money can be made quite readily and easily from this based on the merit of what you add, and how you interpret the work, not in what you can squeeze out of the public.
We are living in a time when our own culture is locked up and not available to us. When has this ever happened in history?
This story is a case where not one person was harmed in any way at all. In fact I imagine that the file sharing actually increased the exposure this work had. A smart business person might try to sell to this audience rather than litigate. This does prove there is still a demand for the work.
Part of the issue is that "the long tail" of economics is less true on the internet than the old school brick and mortar mentality. You can make a successful business operating on what other deem "unworthy" to offer in their store. this is made possible by the open nature of the internet, the ease of file sharing, and the cheapness of storage relative to the value of the commodity.
I'd think a better business model than to sue others for infringement would be to try and license "abandoned" yet still protected content and sell it to provide some money to both your interests and those that produced the works.
I am not against people making profit, I am quite for it, but it needs to also respect the rights of the public. Abusing a system for personal gain should be reviled when there are legitimate and effective means to make a profit. Why not try to help everyone, and at the same time make a profit, rather than exploit what you know is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I pay 10-15 bucks for a cinema ticket for a (at max) 3 hours, I expect to be entertained, if instead I get bored to tears with inane dialog or sub-par acting or bad story-telling, where do I go with my complaints?
The cinema? Hardly, it's not their fault the movie was crap, and they barely make any money anyway, besides the food from the concession stand (which is generally overpriced but still decent food, level quality, you know what to expect)
No, I want to be able to sue the movie maker for wasting my time and for costing me my hard-earned money.
But those lawsuits would get thrown out of court for their frivolity they are.
But movie studios, music labels and book publishers can sue people based on a POTENTIAL loss of income, with a list of numbers (IP-addresses are just that, numbers), which according to them infringed on their copyright. A law which was supposed to work to protect distributors from other distributors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe, the best thing you ever did for this site was fucking off. Which you managed to finally do. It's either that or you're that much harder to trigger than blue/MyNameHere, so I suppose that's kind of an achievement.
Also the glorious Paul Hansmeier, savior of copyright enforcement, got 14 years in the slammer.
Something for you to look forward to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]