Porn Copyright Troll's New Tactic: Maybe Public Humiliation Will Magically Make People Pay
from the well,-that's-one-strategy dept
It's no secret that the real strategy of many of the porn companies who have turned into copyright trolls is to use public shame into the game as a way to pressure people into settling. As per usual, these companies almost never follow through on actual lawsuits against people. They do just enough to get ISPs to cough up identifying information and threaten to file the lawsuit. In some cases, the threat of having to fight a lawsuit is enough to make people settle (even if they're innocent). However, often enough, it seems that the companies know that merely the possible embarrassment from publicly claiming someone downloaded porn will make them settle. It seems that one German copyright troll, Urmann and Colleagues (U+C) is skipping the legal middleman, and is just going to start posting information it's collected on people it accuses of infringement directly on its website, hoping this will create incentives to pay up, without the company having to go through any actual legal process. Of course, threatening to expose information about you unless you pay up, sure sounds an awful lot like extortion...The article also notes that some legal experts believe that this move will violate Germany's (somewhat strict) privacy laws. Either way, U+C claims that it has a list of 150,000 people who it wants to pay up. I actually wonder if a list quite that large actually makes it counterproductive. When you're in the company of so many people, perhaps it's not quite so embarrassing... Of course, given that, perhaps it's not surprising that U+C has indicated elsewhere that it's going to be releasing the info in drips and drabs, and will be targeting those who have the most to lose if it's exposed that they were downloading hardcore porn.
According to comments an Urmann insider made to Wochenblatt, the law firm is planning to target the most vulnerable people first – those with IP addresses registered to churches, police stations and – quite unbelievably – the embassies of Arab countries.How nice of them.
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 troll, germany, humiliation, publicity
Companies: u+c, urmann and colleagues
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's German libel law like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's German libel law like?
It sure sounds like those people could get in a lot of trouble using that tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's German libel law like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, who are the movers?
If you believe this is good business, stand behind your work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
German Privacy Laws
Oh they are breaking FOUR major laws in Germany concerning Blackmail (public humiliation bit), Privacy Rights (Rember how the German Courts reacted to Google's street view), Liable (falsely accusing private citizens is a huge no no), and as Mike Masick rightly concluded it to be, extortion. It's not wide to do any of those 4 in Germany.
In the German Court of Law, minimum charged would amount to 50 years in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
If the producer of "Oily Asses III" contacted you and said that unless you paid them $5000 they'd tell your boss (and/or the world) that you illegally downloaded it, that is unlawful. However, if the producer files a lawsuit against you for illegally downloading "Oily Asses III", then it is a matter of public record. This is called t-r-a-n-s-p-a-r-e-n-c-y. No hidden legal proceedings. It's all out there in the public where it belongs, right? Something that Techdirtbags only seem to embrace transparency when it suits them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
I think that is going to be a big clincher, whether or not there actually is an ongoing lawsuit.
Also, do you know for a fact that is how it works in Germany? I have no idea, but it would be a bit ironic if you don't have any more insight into German law than the previous poster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
As for the AC's tramspersncy argument....in spite of the fact it can be revealed to the public is irrelevant because the porn company won't release it if they get what they want....hence extortion and blackmail. I am no expert, but I do know that extortion blackmail is illegal in Germany and is severely punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
No, boy, he's quoting what others have said about German law.
Of course, since you listen only to the little voices in your head, you have no idea what it's like to listen to other people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
Two:
First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: German Privacy Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sauce for the goose
Copyright law is used for extortion - so should copyright be shut down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Yes it does. More than likely, the people stuck in a 1950's time warp would be, you know, people born in the 1950's and thus, have a 50's outlook on the viewing of porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
And let's be honest...is there anyone here who DOESN'T like porn in one form or another? Is there anyone here who doesn't have some porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Why stop at watercress sandwiches? DRINKS ALL AROUND!!!!!! ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
:3 there even it out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Derp Trolling never works in a well thought out argument like this. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a comment don't derp troll. It makes you easier to point to as a butthurt troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?
Some examples taken from Ars Technica and Techdirt articles include such interesting titles as "Big Butt Oil Orgy 2", "Teen Anal Nightmare 2", and "Juicy White Anal Booty 4".
They're not simply going for the "tame" stuff, they're going for the ones with the most blatantly embarrassing names that could possibly show up on court documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These extortionists just don't even care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if I'm understanding, they are pulling a 'rightshaven' ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you considered that they are just tired for making a product that 95% of the people feel no need to pay for? That they feel bad that 5% of people are paying the tab for massive freeloaders?
Maybe a little public shaming will chance a few people's ways of operating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please answer honestly, briefly, and without attempting to deflect or distract.
1) Do you think that this amounts to "a little" public shaming, rather than life / career / relationship threatening disclosure?
2) Do you honestly and whole halfheartedly support this approach?
3) Especially considering there is no judicial process involved at all?
4) Since porn is ridiculously profitable, if 100% of the people getting it would pay for it, how much would the price decrease?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please answer honestly, briefly, and without attempting to deflect or distract.
1) Do you think that this amounts to "a little" public shaming, rather than life / career / relationship threatening disclosure?
It a public shaming. It may have serious consequences. Too bad that those who chose to illegally download didn't think of the consequences. But I suppose if they're adult enough to watch porn, then they're adult enough to deal with the consequences of the illegal behavior.
2) Do you honestly and whole halfheartedly support this approach?
I'm going to interpret the a wholeheartedly. Yes. Piracy apologists have done everything imaginable to prevent the enforcement of IP rights. Now your boss/mother/wife/minister is going to find out you are a law breaker and a serious fan of "Chubby White Boyz Gone Wild"
3) Especially considering there is no judicial process involved at all?
Who cares? The judicial process favors the criminal not the property owner and is not required here.
4) Since porn is ridiculously profitable, if 100% of the people getting it would pay for it, how much would the price decrease?
Who knows? Maybe it would stay the same and you'd get a decent script or production values.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who cares? The judicial process favors the criminal not the property owner and is not required here.
That is one of the most terrifying statements I've seen in a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) cause and effect. Don't pirate gay porn, and you won't get outed.
2) why not? See point 1.
3) There is no legal right to pirate. What's your point?
4) Porn is remarkably NOT profitable, piracy has all but killed the industry. Production of porn is was down from what it was, because there is no money left in it.
Mike hates point 4. Piracy decimated porn, and has left it withering even on the internet. You cannot sell what people can get for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right, they'll probably all **** off to Youporn exclusively from then on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you mean the public shaming will make them pay? Oh, wait... that's a strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people instead of paying a chef to cook for them just cook themselves.
Besides how do you know that 95% don't pay?
Are you psychic now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then there were the filesharing shakedowns, that evolved into porn shakedowns. One of the largest firms was thrown out of court when it was revealed they tried to hide known flaws in their IP gathering tech, and then a partner lawfirm sued them for being mislead.
They then exported this game to the UK then the US.
But somewhere in the middle of this 2 more fun things happened.
1 - As was covered on Techdirt, a woman who no longer owned a computer was sued for having downloaded a movie and the court ruled on the flimsy evidence she must be guilty because this nice company said so.
2 - There was a company trying to sell of alleged "debts" owed from settlement shakedown letters that people refused to pay to debt collectors pretending they were real debts because they claimed it had to be true without needing a court.
This is what the future looks like for us. A new wave of copyright shakedown has hit the UK, after the ACS:Law fiasco someone started up again. It will get exported here and it will clog the courts with cases of dubious merit all in an attempt to keep porn producers from accepting the business changed. Their losses are not from filesharing but from the simple fact that you can record HD video on a phone, put it on a tubesite and make some serious bank if you can get a following. The days of $60 a tape porn are over, and being well known for suing people interested in your material just makes them look elsewhere for new content... who don't charge or charge much less and offer much more.
The Cartels must be crying themselves sick, seeing the porn companies able to clean up in this market and doing what the years of litigation they tried could not do.
The average porn producer gets around $200-$250ish per settlement... the average settlement is in the $3000-$3500 range. They can not see they are destroying their market completely, but sit back smug and secure in their belief they stuck it to the pirates... and it only destroyed the company faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How nice of them.
How effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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: Re: Re:
And:
First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.
Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.
Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought out argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.
So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"(U+C) is skipping the legal middleman, and is just going to start posting information it's collected on people it accuses of infringement directly on its website"
Libel and Privacy
I'm pretty sure my thought process conveys common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are people pirating porn anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are people pirating porn anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quickest way to handle this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EX -
Bangaroo Jack
Ball Street Spray it Forward
Beaverly Hills Cock
Cum And Cummer
Good Will Cunting
Die Hard-on
Men in Black Women
The Passion 2: Christ's Second Cumming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This one is new. I'm fairly sure baby Jesus cried blood tears when this title was though. And several kittens died in despair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how this is possible...
U+C most probably don't plan to claim that someone, say Max Mustermann, has illegally downloaded porn, all they are going to do is to publish a list of their legal opponents. But as this law firm has specialized in copyright infringement and its clients mainly are porn companies, you can guess what it means that Max Mustermann is their opponent...
Publishing a list of legal opponents has been ruled to be allowed for self-advertising - using this as a threat against opponents has never been intended by politicians or courts.
I think this makes it even harder to fight against false accusations - because even if a court rules that Max Mustermann is innocent, Max Mustermann still has been a legal opponent of U+C.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will be hilarious to watch them all squirm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion
This is just a weak threat to all of those they are sending letters to, it is something they hope will encourage people to pay up without a fight or even any court interference. If this is said in a letter to just one of those accused they would be in court so fast there heads would spin, so they release this story and use the public outcry to make those people they are conning pay up and Techdirt and many other sites are helping them by publishing this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inspect Porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would this not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Julian "I didn't rape those girls" Assange published this list on Wikileaks as some sort of secret document, you would be praising him for it. You would even praise him if he used the existance of the document to blackmail people on the list to donating to the cause or otherwise unblocking funding - say he found the christian CEO of a credit card or payment company on that list.
You guys are remarkably two faced about these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Praising a person/organization when they do things you approve of is not evidence to say that you would praise them if they did something you don't approve of. That's just...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]