Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
from the good-luck-with-that dept
Liberty Media/Corbin Fisher continues its somewhat aggressive attempts to blame everyone but itself for failing to put in place a better business model. Remember, we just noted the bizarre claim that it made in the mass infringement lawsuit it filed that anyone who did not secure their internet routers to block all infringing material was negligent. In the comments to that post, someone pointed out that the company also had recently changed its terms of service to say that if anyone with an account had content from that account end up pirated, the user owed $25,000 even if they could prove that the account was hacked (see update below):6.6Whether or not you can give up such a right via a terms of service, I'm not sure, but from a business standpoint, this seems like a really, really dumb move on the part of Liberty Media/Corbin Fisher. As this information gets out, who's actually going to sign up for an account? A move like this puts tremendous liability on customers, and makes a clear case for interested people not to become customers in the first place. Who wants to take on the possibility that, even if you're hacked and had nothing to do with it, you might owe $25,000? The entire strategy here seems brain-dead from a business standpoint.
You agree to take all possible measures to keep your username and password secure.
6.7
You agree that if your password security is breached, you are solely responsible for any damage or liability occurring by this breach.
6.8
You agree that, even if you can prove hacking by clear and convincing evidence, you are still liable for any 3rd party use of your username and password.
6.9
You specifically agree that if your account is used to download any of Our content and that content is later found on a one-click hosting site, a file locker site, a torrent site, a tube site, or any other site, service or server or any other medium used for sharing content, that You will pay liquidated damages of $25,000 to Us."
Update: It appears that after the original site posted this information, the company did, in fact, change their terms of service, adding a line noting that you would not be liable for the $25k if you could prove that you were hacked.... There was a comment made on the site that explains:
I brought your issues to to our general counsel. After reviewing your concerns about the terms and conditions on Corbin Fisher we adjusted the language to be more relaxed. We do not want to punish our users for our own security issues or system breaches. We are specifically targeting users who share their accounts with infringers or are direct copyright infringers who lie and use the "my account was hacked" excuse.
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, hacked
Companies: corbin fisher, liberty media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's damn near the same situation that Sony is dealing with in regards to Geohot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The jokes are there but I don't want to come off as sexist in any way, shape or form.
Nuf' said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll retract the Buttman thing. After all, he's a straight character.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Me neither. Here's some Stewart Lee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I mean to be a pedant and choose to point out that sexist is different from homophobic. Unless you're making a subtle comment on the concept of gender roles, in which case: kudos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost as if they should be trying to take it out of MS for selling insecure software... They probably understand how bad of an idea that is though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems to imply that anyone who downladed a given piece of content that is later pirated owes them $25k
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm willing to bet EULA # 69 is much more satisfying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amazing. This is what I love about the true douchebags that troll here. This is obviously either TAM or AJ (likely the latter), based on his use of Mike's last name. For those that maybe not be familiar with Queerty.com, it's a blog written for homosexuals. So the implication is plain here: If Mike is reading an article on that blog, he must be gay AND being gay is bad (otherwise what would be the point of pointing this out?).
Honest question: what backwater fucktard community are you a part of where you think that calling someone "gay" is in any way a hip or creative insult? It's clear that you're about as big a bigot as I can fathom. And you know what? I'm pretty sure this is you, Average Joe, because this is right up your jackass alley (pun fully intended).
Previously you went out of your way to insinuate that Mike was protecting child molestors. Now you've moved on to your latest incindiary verbal fecal matter, jabbing at sexual orientation. Frankly, I don't know or care what Mike is. All I care about in this instance is that you're a homophobic bigot jackass that I hope never gets that law degree you're working oh so hard on (pun fully intended again) for fear that you would turn your legal mumbo jumbo on some poor gay kid who'd gotten his ass kicked while you defend his attackers.
There's plenty of room for disagreement here. What there isn't room for is blatant prejudice, at least not in my world. I'm pretty sure you owe an apology on this one, though being as how you couldn't conjure one up after your last bit of asshatic ignorance, I won't be holding my breath....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, whatever. I know that's average joe. I can tell. Maybe it's that I'm one of those city slicker types, but there has to be a special place in hell for anyone who thinks sexual preference is something to mock.
What a dick....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thank you for beating me to that. Pretty much made my day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you really stooped to gay bashing, now? Really?
Not that it matters, but I even pointed out clearly in the post that I found this article via a link in the comments on yesterday's article. But, even if I did read that site, why would that be "a story" other than displaying that you're a homophobic loon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously. Go figure out a way to get cancer....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like on top gear?
Here's a tip: don't make jokes where the punchline is that you're a bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If watermarking is how they track the leak I highly doubt they are watermarking it with any personally identifiable information. Just some random code that is assigned to the account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awesome Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awesome Business Model
I think they're trying really hard to sign their own death warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hack proof
A company that would try to make you liable for their security getting breached, probably wouldn't be above 'hacking' your account themselves, just to get that $25k
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid TOS, or amazing business plan?
Wait till there are an adequate number of clients signed up, leak the user account details, wait, then Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid TOS, or amazing business plan?
Given that they're saying that no matter what happens, if someone else uses your username/password to get data that later winds up being pirated, you are the responsible party and own $$, whats to stop them from deliberately releasing that info themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems this company could just take its most popular piece of content, get it on the pirate-net themselves and then try to collect 25k from anyone who has ever accessed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also True of Video Rental Stores
This is unconscionable, but it is also with precedent in physical video rentals. The Blockbuster Video rental agreement (at the store I went to years ago) said that you were responsible for anything rented under your account, no matter how the thieves managed to check out items using your account, even if your card was stolen. Blockbuster did not check photo IDs upon rental, either, so they refused to take any reasonable means to protect user accounts. The only difference between Blockbuster and this stupid contract is, presumably, the amount of liability demanded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also True of Video Rental Stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get it right people
Stupid journalists keep using hacker when they KNOW the right word is CRACKER.Don't let ignorance get the best of you!
LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get it right people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh
"5.2.4
No employee of the United States Department of Homeland Security and especially no fucking U.S. Transportation Security Administration employees may be members. "
Also, if you can prove the breach was due to their site being hacked you are not liable.
Anyway, off to youporn to cleanse the pallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You agree they can just then sell the debt to a collection agency, since you signed a contract accepting all the blame.
When in doubt in the shakedown business, go back to the German model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then once they are fully 'hacked' they will then have no recourse than suing their account holders otherwise they themselves would be in breach of their own TOS.
Resulting in so many counter suits and sanctions by every single account holder, rights activist organisation, et.al against them that their own baratry against alleged infringers would be the least of their concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps if he had read the actual TOS, he'd have found something different from what Queerty posted.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
briceforshin made statements in several places about the new TOS, and then forwarded the mocking to you.
Accusing sites that have nothing to do with torrents of trying to farm your sites login and passwords to get content to share via bittorrent really is a cute claim that I am sure your willing to back up. Or were we just trying to lend support to your interesting conspiracy claims?
Of course you do all of this using a sockpuppet so you can claim later that no one knows the real truth.
New TOS were posted that were stupid, and after the public went wild with them they were then "clarified". Because you changed them after does not alter the fact LMH/CF posted ridiculous terms.
As for making up facts, please post the evidence of actual harm and loss suffered by LMH/CF so that we can validate your claims in this area.
Please post the methodology used to capture the swarm information, so that it can be peer reviewed and we can make sure your not just taking a run at innocent people who will accept your ridiculous terms to avoid the social stigma of you trying to link them with gay porn.
It must be hard trying to fund a new studio complex in Vegas in a recession. Why else would you attempt to farm your customers in this manner, even go so far as getting the terms to sell the "debt" in the TOS?
You can play indignant all you want, but you have launched multiple attacks against your customers and fans. How does it feel to be the one who set fire to a brand that is slowly fading?
I'm sure if you go check the briceforshin accounts my writing style will become clear, you know who I am and you know I'm smarter and faster than you. I actually even held out an olive branch, but your determined to get money at any cost, and that cost is the destruction of the whole studio in the pursuit of it. Well played. *giggle*
Stomp your foot and cry some more, it worked so well for Lucas. So when do you think Texas is going to disbar Stone for his antics?
Oh and a protip - If your going to sell the idea that they are straight guys, once they start to get a rosebud retire them - it kills the illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whether or not this is actually Marc John Randazza, the guy is a real lawyer who has represented porn companies. I'm not sure why you call him a sock puppet, unless you're making a meta metaphor pointing out how obvious the connection is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Its been pimping the settlement agreement, and the recent TOS changes, and then trying to do damage control after they were posted and mocked. The "concerns" were forwarded on to their lead counsel in this matter.
As Randazza has been pushing everything LMH/CF is doing, it seems unlikely he is unaware of this sockpuppet speaking on his behalf. It is disingenuous his posting here that they don't say that, when it is very clear they did say that.
briceforshin at least made the attempt to "manage" the situation while Randazza insists on denying its existence.
They really need to take a meeting and get all of them saying the same things.
And it is possible that was posted by Randazza, it is flippant enough to be his pouting style when things do not go his way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, that makes sen... Wait. Someone actually used an anagram for their sock puppet? Do they also burn up in sunlight and treat 'bloody mary' as a literal description for a drink?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Randazza refereed to their clientele as thieving little bastards, suggested nothing bad would happen from outing people, and really is loosing touch with reality.
The TOS is just the latest in a campaign of trying to scare people into handing them money.
I read the terms of the amnesty agreement, I even sent Mike a copy, the high points were -
If your ever naughty again your on the hook for the rest of the 25K. But no definition of how they plan to track that.
Even if you sign and pay, they still might take you to court anyways. Oh and then this contract is actually a signed confession.
While I supported the efforts against the person selling bootleg DVDs of CF content on eBay, you know what the law was meant to stop, they are now pursuing silly claims and trying to use the fear of outing and public shaming as a gay porn perverts to extract money.
Of course the timing of this has nothing to do with the ACS:Law model being imported into the US.
With LMH/CF trying to build a new studio in Vegas (someones been calling the neighbors of the house in Florida where they shoot - those nice Republican people were so "HAPPY" to learn what was happening).
The sudden press release of the "premier" site desperately trying to rebrand itself and move past the boring content that was their staple that the customers grew bored of.
So pretty much, they lit their brand on fire - fanned the flames - added a bunch of gas - and now want to try to be friends with the community they have shown obvious disdain for.
See cause all of the fallout from this is people who never even considered filesharing their content, now want nothing to do with them, and they will tell 2 friends and they tell 2 friends... and so on and so on...
Because on the internet Gay Porn with "Straight" guys is soooooo hard to find, and even pairing your models with a guy and a girl to "prove" they are straight wasn't enough.
Maybe they should have accepted the offer of help when I made it the first time, because right now anything I could have suggested or done to help them adapt to the new business models won't work.
Because you see me as evil thieving scum, rather than a customer you never tried to reach. Despite the propaganda, not all of us are stick it to the man give it all away free people.
Now you can get mad and try to name me in a lawsuit like the Unicorn guy cause you see that as an admission of guilt... except I never liked your content so I never bothered with it.
In fact I actively suggest people skip it because your insane and the contents not that good.
So I'm helping... I'm getting people to stop sharing your content... so they can forget all about you and you can go away.
Its win win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's par for the course though, this "legal team" has given their client so much poor council that these gaffes have come to be expected now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the TOS that is posted on that site now is still total bullshit and anybody who signs up with that company is an idiot. They can't be trusted. Especially not with scum like Randazza on their payroll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Porn said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]