Judge Restricts Access To Details Of Mass Lawsuit Filing By Porn Company
from the too-dirty-for-the-court-system dept
In the last few months, there have been tons upon tons of stories of porn film makers following the tried and shamed method of legal extortion known as sending out mass automated threat letters, warning people that they'll be sued for downloading porn if they don't pay up. Barely a week goes by when we don't have people submitting another story of another porn studio suing thousands. We've stopped posting them because it's hardly news any more. If anything, all those lawsuits seem to represent the last gasp effort of a bunch of porn studios who haven't figured out how to compete in the new digital era.However, in one case, things have gotten a bit odd, as Judge John Preston Bailey has restricted access to all of the legal documents -- including the publicly filed complaint -- in the case brought by porn studio West Coast Prods, who sued 9,729 people for unauthorized file sharing of one of its films. There are a lot of questions as to why the documents have had their access restricted (only to lawyers involved in the case), but THREsq notes that it heard Judge Bailey has "decency concerns," and that "he can't stomach the thought of having a lot of dirty language floating around."
For obvious reasons, this seems to go against the nature of publicly filed documents. The EFF is already noting that with such actions "it will be difficult for the targets and their potential counsel to understand and assess the allegations against them." While an accused person could retain a lawyer, and that lawyer could probably get access to the documents, "a person should not have to hire a lawyer simply to be able to read the allegations against him or her."
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: copyright, lawsuits, porn, restricted documents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really. This is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further evidence of Mike's cheerleading of piracy. Since they aren't giving away their IP and selling t-shirts, they just "haven't figured out how to compete in the new digital era." Mike has zero respect for them, even though they are asserting the rights that the law gives them. He is 100% rooting for the pirates here. Yet Mike continues to lie and pretend that he's not a pirate apologist. Yeah, right, Mike. You aren't earning our respect by lying to us. Why are you so scared to just admit what you believe? It's past the point of ridiculous, Mike. Come out of the "piracy closet" already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are no guarantees the people who download illegally will buy something.
An illegal download does not equal an actual lost sale. Just the potential for a lost sale. Seriously...I don't know anyone who buys porn for the production values or stories. It's not like it's Gone With the Wind or something. It's porn.
Demanding settlements in the thousands of dollars for a single download of a film (any film, or record, or song, or video, or book) is ridiculous.
You should be limited to damages in the amount a physical copy of the media cost.
If you want to compete in today's market, make media available in the ways your consumers want to buy it, price it accordingly.
Look at the Beatles on iTunes. How many people have illegally downloaded their music because no digital versions were legally available? And how many sales have been made now that it IS available? And what percent is by the very same folks who got the music through unauthorized channels?
We'll never know, because people scream theft and denial of income. No one is guaranteed a profit by running a business. If you can't connect with your target demographic and provide goods and services they want, when they want, how they want and at a price they consider fair, you will not survive.
Welcome to the real world. Now go back to hiding under your bridge.
Disclaimer: I'm not a pirate, I just play one on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's that got to do with their alleged illegality?
Demanding settlements in the thousands of dollars for a single download of a film (any film, or record, or song, or video, or book) is ridiculous.
The laws are on the books. Ignorance of the law is no defense. They knew or should have known that their conscious decision to purposely break the law might have consequences.
You should be limited to damages in the amount a physical copy of the media cost.
That would not act a deterrent. Obviously, the punishment needs to be steeper than that.
If you want to compete in today's market, make media available in the ways your consumers want to buy it, price it accordingly. Look at the Beatles on iTunes. How many people have illegally downloaded their music because no digital versions were legally available? And how many sales have been made now that it IS available? And what percent is by the very same folks who got the music through unauthorized channels?
If consumers don't like how a business is run, that doesn't give them the right to infringe on the rights of that business. The consumer's recourse is to simply choose not to do business with them.
We'll never know, because people scream theft and denial of income. No one is guaranteed a profit by running a business. If you can't connect with your target demographic and provide goods and services they want, when they want, how they want and at a price they consider fair, you will not survive.
That's fine if these businesses fail, and perhaps they deserve to. That in no way, shape, or form justifies another to violate that business's rights.
Welcome to the real world. Now go back to hiding under your bridge.
Hide? Nope. Never have. I'm not the one violating the rights of others.
Disclaimer: I'm not a pirate, I just play one on the internet.
If you don't like the laws, change them. We don't live in a society where people can take the law into their own hands. If it's so obvious that your side is "right," it shouldn't be very hard to get the law changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did no such thing, and your insistence on misstating what I have said only serves to make you look silly. The point -- as is clear to those who read it and aren't here to act like a troll -- is that there are all sorts of opportunities to make money (and, no, it's not "selling t-shirts"). Whether you like it or not, the piracy aspect isn't going away. These lawsuits won't help. So why not try to do what will help and actually make money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure, there are opportunities to make money in lots of different ways. One such way is to sell your IP. Like it or not, people are going to sell their IP and the law is going to protect them. These people can actually make money selling their IP. Luckily, we live in a society where people can choose to sell it or give it away. We also live in a society where it is our duty to respect the rights that others choose to assert, whether we agree with them or not. I've yet to see you have any respect for the rights of copyright holders. Nor do you condemn those who intentionally impinge those rights. For this and many other reasons it's clear that you are pro-piracy.
Personally, I think if people start getting hit with lawsuits and penalties for pirating, some people might actually think twice about pirating, afraid of the possible consequences. Of course piracy will always exist, but that doesn't mean that some people might not be deterred. I respect a rightsholder's choice to enforce their rights, and I do not side with people who deliberately break the law. You clearly do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In reference to the rights of individuals tossed aside in the pursuit of piracy ... "do you condemn those who intentionally impinge those rights" ? Yeah, I didn't think so. You probably assume there is no collateral damage and if there was you probably think the end justifies the means. Amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No doubt. My point has nothing to do with that. My point is whether or not that's a smart way to make a living. I argue it is not.
We also live in a society where it is our duty to respect the rights that others choose to assert, whether we agree with them or not.
Well, considering you're an anonymous commenter who has shown no indication of understanding the very basis of our laws, I find it funny that you presume to tell everyone else what it is their duty to do.
But, I have never suggested, nor do I support, anyone not respecting what an artist chooses to do. I merely suggest that the artists themselves would be better off not making use of the monopoly privileges the government grants them.
I've yet to see you have any respect for the rights of copyright holders. Nor do you condemn those who intentionally impinge those rights. For this and many other reasons it's clear that you are pro-piracy.
You keep repeating that as if you think that repeating a lie will make it true. Of course, the implicit assumption in repeating a lie is that you think everyone else here is dumber than you. Thankfully, that's not the case. Most people can read and know what I do and do not support.
Personally, I think if people start getting hit with lawsuits and penalties for pirating, some people might actually think twice about pirating, afraid of the possible consequences.
Well, again, I believe in looking at the evidence. And we have evidence. 37,000 lawsuits filed by the RIAA... and file sharing went way, way, way up. In fact, it increased much more after the lawsuits were filed than before.
So, evidence says you're wrong. But I know you're not a big fan of evidence, so... no surprise.
I respect a rightsholder's choice to enforce their rights, and I do not side with people who deliberately break the law. You clearly do not.
Your ability to misunderstand complex subjects does not make you look good. Your desire to simplify things down to a level of moronic simplicity merely serves to show you do not understand what the adults are discussing. You can join the adult table once you've shown the ability to understand complex subjects. Until then, I'm afraid, you're relegated to the children's table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So even though that way of making of living works for many people, you think it's not "smart." And furthermore, you disapprove of anyone who doesn't act "smart" as you define it to be of course, because, well, that's not what you think they should do. Got it.
Well, considering you're an anonymous commenter who has shown no indication of understanding the very basis of our laws, I find it funny that you presume to tell everyone else what it is their duty to do.
But, I have never suggested, nor do I support, anyone not respecting what an artist chooses to do. I merely suggest that the artists themselves would be better off not making use of the monopoly privileges the government grants them.
Mike, it is not I that presumes to tell everyone else what their duty is. It is the law itself that presumes such a duty. This fact is axiomatic.
What difference does it make that you think that artists would be better off not making use of their government-granted rights? You don't get to decide what's right for everyone else. You just have to respect others' choices, even if you don't agree with them. That's how society works.
You keep repeating that as if you think that repeating a lie will make it true. Of course, the implicit assumption in repeating a lie is that you think everyone else here is dumber than you. Thankfully, that's not the case. Most people can read and know what I do and do not support.
True. They can read about how you never support anyone who chooses to defend or assert their rights. It is no lie.
Well, again, I believe in looking at the evidence. And we have evidence. 37,000 lawsuits filed by the RIAA... and file sharing went way, way, way up. In fact, it increased much more after the lawsuits were filed than before.
So, evidence says you're wrong. But I know you're not a big fan of evidence, so... no surprise.
There exists no evidence that proves that without the lawsuits you speak of file-sharing would not have increased more, nor could such evidence ever exist. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
Your ability to misunderstand complex subjects does not make you look good. Your desire to simplify things down to a level of moronic simplicity merely serves to show you do not understand what the adults are discussing. You can join the adult table once you've shown the ability to understand complex subjects. Until then, I'm afraid, you're relegated to the children's table.
I know you resort to insults when you cannot match me in wits. Such is your way. The fact remains that you do not respect the choice others have made with respect to the rights that they in fact do possess. At the same time, you go out of your way to praise those who infringe the rights of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait ... what?
That is too funny, I'll have to go back and actually read that wall-o-text to see if it was sarcasm - brb.
Damn, I was hoping it was worth reading. Oh well, it was a bunch of crap. Some things never change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least on whatever issue on whatever website I am talking about, I make an account EVERY SINGLE TIME and take my lumps accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, evidence says you're wrong. But I know you're not a big fan of evidence, so... no surprise.
There exists no evidence that proves that without the lawsuits you speak of file-sharing would not have increased more, nor could such evidence ever exist. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
The evidence IS conslusive in demonstrating that lawsuits are not an EFFECTIVE deterent to pirating even if some are detered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plenty of people once made money making horse carriages. As the automobile came along, it would behooved them to move onto making automobiles. What was smart in the past may not be smart in the future. That is all I am saying.
Mike, it is not I that presumes to tell everyone else what their duty is. It is the law itself that presumes such a duty. This fact is axiomatic.
I would suggest, with all due respect, that you learn a little more about the law, and the history of the law.
What difference does it make that you think that artists would be better off not making use of their government-granted rights? You don't get to decide what's right for everyone else. You just have to respect others' choices, even if you don't agree with them. That's how society works.
Indeed. But "respecting" their choice does not forbid me from explaining why I think it is a mistake, just as (apparently) you see no problem calling me all sorts of names, at time. I find it odd that according to you, I must respect the choices of others, but you show me no such respect with my choices. How odd.
True. They can read about how you never support anyone who chooses to defend or assert their rights. It is no lie.
People may take whatever lessons they like out of it, though I can assure you, that most will not fall for silly lies told by someone like you. But, do keep it up. It entertains many people.
There exists no evidence that proves that without the lawsuits you speak of file-sharing would not have increased more, nor could such evidence ever exist. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
So now, beyond your clear ignorance of the law, you also wish to add ignorance of statistical evidence as well? You might want to look at the actual data and research in the future before making statements that are wrong.
I know you resort to insults when you cannot match me in wits.
Son, I am not the one resorting to insults. In the last week, I do believe you have called me a jerk, stupid, a fucking asshole, a dillweed, a moron and a number of other similar epithets. You have also threatened me personally via comments and by email. I have done no such thing in response.
I think those reading the site can determine for themselves who is resorting to insults when at a loss for actual arguments.
I also think they can determine who does, and does not, respect others. You continue to repeat lies to make your argument, which is kind of funny, for someone talking about respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That analogy's getting old, don't you think? People have been making money off of IP for hundreds of years, and they will continue to do so with the full support of the law whether you like it or not.
I would suggest, with all due respect, that you learn a little more about the law, and the history of the law.
And yet, you cannot deny that it is one's duty to respect the law, or else face the consequences.
Indeed. But "respecting" their choice does not forbid me from explaining why I think it is a mistake, just as (apparently) you see no problem calling me all sorts of names, at time. I find it odd that according to you, I must respect the choices of others, but you show me no such respect with my choices. How odd.
One can be critical of another's choice, yet still respect their right to make that choice. You do neither.
People may take whatever lessons they like out of it, though I can assure you, that most will not fall for silly lies told by someone like you. But, do keep it up. It entertains many people.
And yet you do not deny that you do not respect their choice to assert their rights.
So now, beyond your clear ignorance of the law, you also wish to add ignorance of statistical evidence as well? You might want to look at the actual data and research in the future before making statements that are wrong.
You can pretend like my ignorance of the law has been demonstrated, but it has not. Linking to some paper that agrees with your point of view is not "the law." And, again, you don't deny that the data can never conclusively prove how things might have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, ignorance of history and IP does not look good on you.
And yet, you cannot deny that it is one's duty to respect the law, or else face the consequences.
It is not about "duty," but we agree that if you do not follow the law, you may face consequences -- I have said that many times.
One can be critical of another's choice, yet still respect their right to make that choice. You do neither.
I have always respected the right to make choices, but it will not stop me from explaining why it may be a bad decision. Nor will it stop me from speaking out against abuse of the law that violates one's rights.
And yet you do not deny that you do not respect their choice to assert their rights.
Of course they are able to make that choice. Why do you think I spend so much time explaining why that's a bad idea? If I didn't think they could make bad choices, that wouldn't make sense. They may make whatever dumb choices they wish, and I can explain those dumb choices.
Your lack of respect towards me speaking out about it, while believing you can lecture me on respect from a position of ignorance is amusing, if childlike.
You can pretend like my ignorance of the law has been demonstrated, but it has not. Linking to some paper that agrees with your point of view is not "the law." And, again, you don't deny that the data can never conclusively prove how things might have been.
Your ignorance of the law is quite clear to those who know the law. Your denial only makes it more amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a point to make? Then make it. Conclusory statements unsupported by analysis are simply meaningless.
It is not about "duty," but we agree that if you do not follow the law, you may face consequences -- I have said that many times.
I simply said it was one's duty to respect the law. The imposition of that duty is precisely what allows the "consequences." Is there no duty? How am I wrong?
I have always respected the right to make choices, but it will not stop me from explaining why it may be a bad decision. Nor will it stop me from speaking out against abuse of the law that violates one's rights.
That's well and good. My problem is that you rarely if ever speak out against those who are infringing on the rights of others. You're too busy telling those who are the victims how they are the bad ones. And all the while you pretend like you're not pro-piracy. It's fascinating to watch.
Of course they are able to make that choice. Why do you think I spend so much time explaining why that's a bad idea? If I didn't think they could make bad choices, that wouldn't make sense. They may make whatever dumb choices they wish, and I can explain those dumb choices.
Your lack of respect towards me speaking out about it, while believing you can lecture me on respect from a position of ignorance is amusing, if childlike.
Right. Anyone who makes a choice to assert their rights is "dumb" and anyone who gives in and sells t-shirts is "right." We can all see that's your game.
Your ignorance of the law is quite clear to those who know the law. Your denial only makes it more amusing.
Ummm, that doesn't mean the papers you link to are not in fact "the law." It's pretty funny that you think they are. And it's pretty funny that you change the subject when cornered rather than concede a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I made the point. Many times over. You choosing not to understand it simply is a reflection on your willful ignorance of the law and history.
I simply said it was one's duty to respect the law. The imposition of that duty is precisely what allows the "consequences." Is there no duty? How am I wrong?
Duty implies something quite different.
That's well and good. My problem is that you rarely if ever speak out against those who are infringing on the rights of others.
I speak out quite frequently when the rights of people are infringed upon. The use of gov't monopolies to stomp on free speech is a case where I am a frequent commenter. I believe that such rights qre quite important.
You're too busy telling those who are the victims how they are the bad ones. And all the while you pretend like you're not pro-piracy. It's fascinating to watch.
Victims? I'm sorry, but explaining to people who don't adapt how they can make more money by adapting is not about talking to victims. I'm sorry that you don't understand this point.
Right. Anyone who makes a choice to assert their rights is "dumb" and anyone who gives in and sells t-shirts is "right." We can all see that's your game.
That you still think this way only goes further to show how ignorant you are. We are not talking about selling t-shirts.
Ummm, that doesn't mean the papers you link to are not in fact "the law." It's pretty funny that you think they are. And it's pretty funny that you change the subject when cornered rather than concede a point.
*sigh* And this is why debating with you is pointless. I prove my point and back it up with all sorts of research and you say "but that doesn't count."
I give up. Go back to your correspondence course, and see if they offer any courses in basic logic. I'll leave this debate for now. I'm sure I'll have to disabuse you of your ignorance again elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I only saw conclusory statements of how I was "wrong" without any support.
Duty implies something quite different.
And yet you don't explain what that is specifically. More conclusory statements.
I speak out quite frequently when the rights of people are infringed upon. The use of gov't monopolies to stomp on free speech is a case where I am a frequent commenter. I believe that such rights qre quite important.
And yet you don't deny how you never speak out for those who have their IP infringed upon. No wonder the pirates love you (and you them).
Victims? I'm sorry, but explaining to people who don't adapt how they can make more money by adapting is not about talking to victims. I'm sorry that you don't understand this point.
They have no duty to "adapt" as you think they should. And people are intentionally infringing on their rights. That's what makes them victims, Mike. Funny how you never admit that they are indeed victims.
That you still think this way only goes further to show how ignorant you are. We are not talking about selling t-shirts.
I understand that you claim it's more than "t-shirts." Notice though how you don't deny that anyone who doesn't roll over and accept piracy is "dumb." We can all see your pirate flag from here, Mike.
*sigh* And this is why debating with you is pointless. I prove my point and back it up with all sorts of research and you say "but that doesn't count."
I give up. Go back to your correspondence course, and see if they offer any courses in basic logic. I'll leave this debate for now. I'm sure I'll have to disabuse you of your ignorance again elsewhere.
And yet you haven't proven a thing, nor have you explained how some research you found is "the law." Do you not know what proof is? Do you not know what makes something "the law"? Apparently not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of these days, you'll learn. Until then, you'll continue to speak from a position of ignorance to the amusement of everyone else. I'm not kidding here. You look like a fool.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20101122/LIFE/11220321/1005/RSS04
Friggin' pirates, killing the industry. If only the film hadn't been leaked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There exists no evidence that proves that without the lawsuits you speak of file-sharing would not have increased more, nor could such evidence ever exist. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive."
There is no evidence because the law is the law, and any evidence that might show that the law isn't working FOR WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO (PROMOTE THE PROGRESS) doesn't exist because the law is in place. Sounds like a typical catch 22 situation... who would have ever guessed that this would be presented as 'evidence' by a corporate shill....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you ever spoofed and IP?
Have you ever spoofed a mac address?
Did you know most virtual machines let you specify your mac address to a certain point?
It's not like it's that hard to prove their IP evidence is flimsy at best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability -over-infringement
Have a great day rooster sucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical retuglican tactic. Lie, lie, and lie some more. Lie until the truth is lost in the noise generated by all the idiot morons parroting the daily talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This article seems to be almost a year old. Anyone know of any updates to the story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This article seems to be almost a year old. Anyone know of any updates to the story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I expect there to be C&D letters sent out soon - claiming the amateur videos have stolen the porn industries ideas. Those damn freetards are at it again. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]