Guy Agrees To Pay $250,000* Just Days After Being Sued For Uploading Movies

from the *-may-not-actually-be-$250,000 dept

Mon, Jan 10th 2011 7:07pm — Mike Masnick

TorrentFreak notes that a guy who was apparently sued for uploading some porn movies from Liberty Media agreed to settle the lawsuit just four days later with a settlement that claims he'll pay $250,000. What's odd, of course, is that seems like a rather large settlement -- especially done so fast, with no apparently legal fight. However, TorrentFreak noted a little semi-hidden caveat in the consent agreement:

Defendant has an opportunity to reduce the amount payable to Plaintiff if Defendant ceases any further content theft (whether the Plaintiff�s content or anyone elses), and if he makes regular payments toward the judgment on a schedule which will be agreed upon between the parties in a separate settlement agreement.

Reading between the lines, it seems likely that the company and the guy worked out a much lower actual settlement amount, and basically the guy is really paying that. But this way, if he's found to infringe again, it'll jump up to $250,000. In the meantime, though, it gives Liberty Media the ability to claim it got a $250,000 settlement, even though it's unlikely to actually be anywhere near there.

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: awards, copyright, fines

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 7:50pm

Well, good to know that Liberty Media is perfectly fine with him continuing to infringe their copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:22am
  
  Re:
  A guaranteed $250k fine if he's caught again is "Liberty Media (being) perfectly fine with him continuing to infringe their copyright"? Huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    If you were going to get $250k, wouldn't you be ok with the guy doing it again? Hell, I'd pay $100k to his friends to have them get him drunk and talk him into infringing. Good investment in my book.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, but I doubt the guy is going to walk over to Liberty Media HQ and steal their content.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He never 'stole' it in the first place. What has that got to do with anything?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 8:06pm

It doesn't really matter if it is $1 or $1 million. The point is made. The guy knows he did wrong and is going to work to make it right.

More gotcha reporting, pointing to the asterisk and avoiding the bigger story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 8:50pm
  
  Re:
  One down and more than a hundred million to go! Any day now!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marketing Consultant, 10 Jan 2011 @ 8:59pm
    
    Not an atty spokesperson
    One more cowardly attorney down that is!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:01pm
  
  Re:
  Right. Uploading is gonna stop tomorrow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:47am
  
  Re:
  It doesn't really matter if it is $1 or $1 million. The point is made.
  
  Yep. He'll never buy anything from Liberty Media again, even if he could afford it after damages.
  
  And since each download is a lost purchase, I'm sure Liberty Media's sales will just jump up by a thousand units right away. Go ahead, hold your breath waiting.
  
  To get even more sales, they should sue every uploader, and make sure that no Liberty Media porn is ever uploaded to any site ever again. Then, people would have to buy their product. Because without Liberty Media, there would be no porn on the internet.
  
  Point taken!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't think anyone thinks any of that at all. I am sure they don't think this guy is suddenly going to become a life long customer (although he may be paying for the rest of his life for doing something very stupid and illegal).
    
    However, with one less source for material, one less initial seeder, one less peer, it makes the material a little harder to get. Because most porn has a small number of initial sources, cutting off those sources may make the material much harder to get in the illegal marketplace, driving some consumers back to actually paying for something.
    
    At bare minimum, other people might think twice about seeding this stuff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 7:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because most porn has a small number of initial sources, cutting off those sources may make the material much harder to get in the illegal marketplace, driving some consumers back to actually paying for something.
      
      Yeah, good luck with that.
      
      For one thing, the internet isn't lacking for "initial sources." Once it's out there, anyone who has a copy can be a source. Some may think twice about "seeding," but most won't.
      
      For another thing, I doubt very much that people who wouldn't get it for free would be "driven" back to actually paying for it. Even if they couldn't pirate different porn (unlikely), most probably wouldn't even watch it if it wasn't free.
      
      I said this in a different comment, but I doubt very much that stopping piracy is even a goal here. I think Liberty Media is just using the court system as a revenue stream.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - theangryintern (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 7:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nope, it just means they'll use other ways to share the files. Newsgroups and private trackers immediately come to mind. If they completely shut down torrents some day, there will still be the same amount of piracy, it will just be harder for them to crack down on it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  Funny how the asterisk usually has the more pertinent information that is most relevant to the story.
  
  Such as "I will give you $100mil!!!*"
  *Under a ridiculous set of circumstances which would never be able to happen in reality.
  
  Now, what's more newsworthy? The fact that I offered you $100mil or the fact that I was so trying to falsely play up my philanthropy that I set it all up in such a way that I'd never have to give out that money? What's more telling about me and about the facts of the story?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing Consultant, 10 Jan 2011 @ 8:48pm

Any advertisement is good advertisement
Although I am not as knowledgeable as you heros and cowards alike it would seem to me that publicity would only be a good thing. Perhaps next time the bigwigs could go back to good old fashioned business strategy and ask before dipping their hand/s in the "cookie jar".
Besides, here and now it really only matters how the angels and sinners feel. Not the shareholders or special interest groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:20pm

"In the meantime, though, it gives Liberty Media the ability to claim it got a $250,000 settlement, even though it's unlikely to actually be anywhere near there. "

Collecting money is not easy, it'll probably end up costing more than what they collect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:33pm

Shill
"and basically the guy is really paying that."

Or the guy is a sort of shill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:39pm

how long has each anonymous coward been a special snowflake? first time i'd noticed that.

Wasn't there a little more to the story? dude was a first source or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:43pm

When you break the law, you take the risk bad shit will happen.

Welcome to the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:59pm
  
  Re:
  But it's OK for the department of homeland security to break laws when going after potential infringers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean US Customs?
    
    And no laws were broken, despite Masnick's efforts to incite the freetards to believe otherwise.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      .torrent = .crime
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ".torrent = .crime"
        
        Dumbest thing I've read all day, and there's plenty of stupidity to be found everywhere. Clearly from a shill who's never heard of Linux, Pioneer One, the Humble Indie Bundle, or any current uploader at Mininova, who only now allows legal uploads provided by those who own the rights to do so.
        
        Look around you. See all that color? Life is not so black and white.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dumbest thing I've read all day
        
        Or, most sarcastic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 1:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Or, most sarcastic."
        
        Possibly... but it's just so damn hard to tell without a sarcmark;) But judging by his previous comment, I'm not thinking so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, after reviewing everything in threaded format, you may be right. The downside to this though, is when something new is added, it's not as easy to find.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ah, you poor fellow. See, the freetards have this meme, .torrent = .crime. Problem is, it's essentially true, as only .03% of torrent traffic is actually even legal, so the "joke" usually just ends up confusing people, like yourself for example.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought skype was getting very popular?
        Where do you find this .03% number?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They illegally downloaded it from the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't really expect anonymous to actually post any evidence of his claims do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and anonymous has this meme where anyone who disagrees with his false logic and backs up their statements with facts and references is a freetard. Be warned you poor fellow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, the freetards have this meme, .torrent = .crime. Problem is, it's essentially true, as only .03% of torrent traffic is actually even legal
        
        ...says the guy who is afraid of technology.
        
        If it's true (which I doubt), the solution is to make more legal .torrent files.
        
        Ten years ago, you could say the same thing about people downloading MP3's. Now iTunes is making a killing, all because Apple had the smarts to legally offer this "pirate" technology to consumers.
        
        In another ten years, distribution via .torrent files will be an industry standard, and they'll be making more money from the labor of those same "freetards."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        .mp3 = .crime
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, after reviewing everything in threaded format, you may be right. The downside to this though, is when something new is added, it's not as easy to find.
        
        Just FYI, Techdirt uses "Gravitars" for AC's. That means, that if they have different "snowflake" icons, they're (probably) different posters. It makes anonymous comments a bit easier to track, even in "flattened" format.
        
        I agree that it's sometimes a pain to read a big discussion in threaded format, because after a couple of replies, everything is squished up against the right margin. I'm not sure there's a solution, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BigKeithO (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Gawkers threaded format is easier to follow, notifications when you have a reply to your comment in a specific thread as well.
        
        Techdirt's comments are pretty good but still could use a little work. An edit button would go a long ways as well! Just saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "And no laws were broken"
      
      Why do you think that repeating a lie gives you any credibility?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "despite Masnick's efforts to incite the freetards to believe otherwise."
      
      Yes, name calling is the solution to your bad logic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You mean US Customs?"
      
      Both of them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Exept they were, dumbtard.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Since US Customs is under Homeland Security, he's still right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So there's absolutely no First Amendment issues with the seizures without trial or notice.
      
      Good to know, Mr. Music Man.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sic Semper Tyrannis.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DH's Love Child (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So there's absolutely no First Amendment issues with the seizures without trial or notice.
        
        Good to know, Mr. Music Man.
        
        I think you meant 4th Amendment. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's kinda both. The 1st amendment would be the prior restraint if the courts view it as such. The 4th is the seizures, but they did have a warrant. The only problem is the affidavit used to get that warrant was so fraught with errors I'm not sure how it's going to look for anyone involved in using it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DH's Love Child (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Too true. I forgot about the Prior Restraint part.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:03pm
  
  Re:
  When you break the law, you take the risk bad shit will happen.
  
  Right, that's why the Record Labels had To Pay $45 Million for Pirating Artists� Music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    and the CRIA also gets away with piracy as well without paying much either, at least not for many years (if at all).
    
    Not to mention the RIAA getting away with not paying artists what they owe. But it's OK for big corporations to break the law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BigKeithO (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That $45 million settlement quoted by techflaws.org IS the CRIA settlement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lisae Boucher (profile), 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:06pm

It also serves as precedent for further cases. They "won" this case, so next time their claims will be even more intimidating...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:05pm
  
  Re:
  And yet filesharing will continue unabated. Of course one has to wonder why ppl even bother uploading movies given the amount of pr0n available on Youporn & Co.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    And yet filesharing will continue unabated.
    
    At this point, I doubt stopping filesharing is even on the agenda. They're just using the court system to make money. They're the porn version of a patent troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:28pm
  
  Re:
  After 10 years of similar cases?
  
  I don't think that may work...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:23am

Eliot Ness lives (AC)
"It doesn't really matter if it is $1 or $1 million. The point is made. The guy knows he did wrong and is going to work to make it right."

The only problem with that statement is that he knows he did "wrong". He broke the current law.

Perhaps all of the AC's that visit and decree "but it's breaking the law..." have forgotten about Prohibition in the US. When you outlaw human nature then you set yourself up for an uncontrollable backlash from the population. File sharing networks are the speakeasy clubs of the digital age, and until the laws are aligned with human nature, "piracy" will continue.

Calling people thieves and freeloaders really has no effect on people who don't perceive they are doing anything wrong ( which is why the guy kept downloading his porn for free ).

Funny thing is that if you look at the actions objectively and then overlay morality, you get a rather interesting picture. If I were to stop downloading music for free and pay for all my music and movies, I would be funding the RIAA and MPAA which lobby Congress. So by ceasing to share (morally correct), I would be funding legalized bribery (morally incorrect).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:55am
  
  Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
  If I were to stop downloading music for free and pay for all my music and movies
  
  I personally suggest you stop doing both. Don't be a pirate, support free culture instead.
  
  IMHO of course.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 3:58am
    
    Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
    Exactly!
    Don't support them financially and give them nothing with which to make moral claims.
    
    Advice for pirates:
    If you are caught up in an infringement case, just say the file is on your ""pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending."
    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:05am
  
  Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
  Prohibition is a horrible example, because the booze was not available legally at any price. It wasn't a question of choice between free booze and pay for booze, it was booze or not booze.
  
  If piracy magically disappeared tomorrow (and it won't, let's not start on this), there would still be all the same movies and music available. It isn't like the movie and music industries would dry up and die.
  
  So it is hard to compare the moral choices made by people in the two cases, as the motivations are different.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:51am
    
    Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
    It's a bad analogy for copyright infringment, but it's a wonderful analogy of willfully breaking a law that one feels is unjust.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
      > It's a bad analogy for copyright infringment,
      > but it's a wonderful analogy of willfully
      > breaking a law that one feels is unjust.
      
      A better one would be Rosa Parks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
        I wanted to avoid the area of Civil Rights as some might claim we're trying to say piracy is an inherent right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DH's Love Child (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
    Not really. During prohibition, folks could make their own booze for private consumption legally. The basic premise is the same though.
    
    IMHO, most piracy results from the lack of legal availability the content. I will admit to having donned an eyepatch on a few occasions when looking for content that simply isn't available anywhere else but in pirated form (Harry Potter ebooks, for example).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:36am
  
  Re: Eliot Ness lives (AC)
  ...or stop downloading illegal material and start using legal alternatives that gives you all the rights and freedoms back.
  
  Jamendo is a good place to start.
  
  But there are others places:
  
  Librivox for audiobooks.
  Freesound for sounds and samples for your videos.
  Creative Commons has a bigger list of places you can also look for.
  Archive.og has a big collection of movies, videos, books and other things.
  VODO a distribution channel for videos and movies.
  Mininova is 100% legal now.
  YouTube Shows is a bit hidden but is there and have a lot of stuff.
  Miro which is a open source program have tens of thousands of channels throught their Miro Guide and can show you the licenses they use so you can decide what to support or not.
  
  I could go on there is more, much more out there if you choose to look for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FREEPRON, 11 Jan 2011 @ 12:53am

thehun.net pichunter.com
well gee why is anyone buying pron...lots freebies
like people that have to pay just aren't thinking right

someone ought to rub those two sites in this guys face a lil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sam sin, 11 Jan 2011 @ 2:47am

i'll bet this is a publicity stunt, done with an actual employee, purely to make out that they have one a 'high profile copyright infringing case'. has anyone else heard of a case of this type being settled 'within a couple of days' without any sort of fight back/denial of guilt by an accused? i haven't. this stinks of a set up to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron Rezendes (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  That's exactly what I thought when I first read this! They set this whole thing up believing this will be precedent setting for future cases where the defendant isn't in on the whole thing from the beginning!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
teka (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:51am

i would not be terribly surprised to see some of this kind of language revealed in more of these threat letters, or at least the responses to the people unlucky enough to actually respond to them.

"tell you what, you sign here and here. That means you agree to keep the one dollar a month payment secret. if you don't keep it secret, we will come back and have a judge force the rest of the two-hundred thousand out of you, got it?"

next day there is another press release about the Dirty Pirate who agreed to pay two hundred thousand dollars because he finally realized he was a villain and a terrorist. huzzah, success, champagne all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jaszmin (profile), 11 Jan 2011 @ 9:31am

Liberty Media
This isn't John Malone's Liberty Media is it? That would finally make manifest Rent's claim that the internet truly is for porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:03am

Anonymous, either immediately provide full and detailed evidence of how the sharing of a specific file has harmed a specific artist, and also the specific methodology by which you calculated your figure for the percentage of torrents that are legal, or give a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now.

I've already begun reporting every post you make, just as I said I would. Ignore me and that will only continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:17pm

The "Guy" is exactly what they want to find.
A tiny bit of digging shows that he might be someone involved in some sort of ministry/theology.
This lets the amazing leeches apply a whole bunch of pressure.
We are going to out you, we are going to ruin your life unless you agree to sign this document. You will never have to pay us the full amount, and we'll keep your name between us... promise.
Well his name is out there, and they have their $250k judgment to wave around to scare everyone else.

Had the guy been doing what others sued by Liberty Media had done, I would have no problem. In that case, that i recall, someone was compiling and eBaying homemade DVDs of the content. They were actually who copyright law is meant to stop. Someone actively profiting off of someone else's work.

But this guy committed the ultimate sin of liking something so much he opted to share it with others. He made no money from doing this, and by exposing others to some of the productions he might have generated more customers for Corbin Fisher productions.

Just because someone might see your product without paying does not mean it is the end of the world. What can and will hurt your bottom line is outing someone so you can have a new big stick to run around with scaring people into paying you "settlements" because they have your IP address on a list. You can offer the hottest guys anywhere, but if the perception of your target audience is your a flaming douche bag, your going to have a hard time making that sale at any cost.

They have no problem handing over customer information to other people based on an IP address. They have no problem lying to get you on the phone with their lawyer. Do you think when people become aware of the tactics being employed that even people who don't share might start avoiding your site. With the number of "false positives" in the IP collection methods used, there is a good chance someone innocent will end up being targeted and outed.

The "they have a right to get paid" crowd will go on about how this is fair game for pirates. Does their "right" to be paid include setting other people up to face threats and violence? Or can you not wrap your mind around the idea that someone closeted might have some worry about outing themselves to their credit card company or other payment service? Because there is no way your "personal" information can end up in the hands of data brokers. And no insurance company has ever dropped anyone for being gay. And the tooth fairy is real, and lives next door to the easter bunny.

Copyright law is broken in this country.
Huge judgments were meant to protect against others making fakes of your product and selling it as their own.
Now you can't forward an article you see to a friend or re-post a section to your blog without worrying if your going to be sued for a stupid amount of money.
You need to have a lawyer make sure any noise in the background of your babies first steps video does not include a song, movie or tv show.
Intellectual property has been elevated to a stupid status in this country, it is our most valuable thing.
As I have pointed out before IP in the US also includes a masturbating bear in a diaper.
If that is the pinnacle of IP needing protection with $500k judgments, we need to be smacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]