Latest Mass Copyright Infringement Suit Involves Paris Hilton's Sex Tape

from the who-owns-the-copyright-now? dept

In the past year or so, it seems that the porn industry has really jumped on board the train of supporting the mass "pay up or we'll sue" copyright infringement shakedown efforts. While some folks have been paying up to avoid a lawsuit, the actual court cases haven't been particularly successful so far. However, it's interesting to see that the latest "film" being used in one of these programs is the famed Paris Hilton sex tape, "One Night in Paris," that came out in 2003 and is a big part of what catapulted Hilton to her current level of fame. Of course, when it came out there were a few legal fights over who actually owned the rights to the film. Those legal fights have been settled for now, with both of the "participants" in the video apparently earning a cut of any revenue. Of course, given how much the free distribution of this video helped increase Ms. Hilton's value and bank account, it's a little silly to see folks now suing over it. I imagine that, like the other similar cases, those bringing the lawsuit will find that it's not that easy to succeed in court. But I'm sure plenty of people will still just pay up, rather than risk having to go to court to explain their porn downloading habits.

Filed Under: copyright, paris hilton, pre-settlement, sex tape

Mass Infringement Pre-Settlement Lawyers Team Up To All Fail Together

from the good-luck dept

We've noted how in the past year, a bunch of "pay up or we'll sue" law firm operations have popped up, signing up confused and short-sighted copyright holders, who believe that shaking down fans is a business model that can work. Of course, to date, this legal strategy has been failing pretty spectacularly in court. It is true that some folks just pay up but as these lawsuits continue to have trouble in court, people will begin to realize that paying money to someone who just demands it probably isn't a smart move. Of course, one of the issues is that none of the law firms actually have the manpower to follow through and sue people, so it should come as little surprise that some of the law firms who have recently been losing in court, including Kenneth Ford, the lawyer for Axel Braun, as well as Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (which is the law firm behind US Copyright Group) are teaming up to try to work together. I guess they figure it's better to fail together, rather than to watch each fail alone.

Filed Under: copyright, pre-settlement
Companies: us copyright group

Expendables Producers Decide To Demand Cash From Fans Who Downloaded

from the how-to-lose-fans dept

Most of the movie producers who have jumped onto the "pre-settlement" letter bandwagon, whereby they simply demand cash from people, who might have downloaded the film, in exchange for not suing them, have been either small time producers or porn producers. The one exception, so far, had been the producers of Hurt Locker, who suggested that anyone who suggested this move might backfire was naturally a "moron and a thief." Others in Hollywood had seemed to recognize that suing people, who downloaded your movie and demanding that they pay thousands of dollars to avoid a lawsuit, might lead to a serious backlash. But, apparently that's not true of everyone. The producers of the "let's get together a bunch of has-been actors and make a film" action flick, The Expendables, have apparently signed up to be the next big name movie to extort money from fans. Even though these types of threats and lawsuits haven't been shown to work all that well so far and often lead to a massive backlash among fans.

In related news, US Copyright Group is now insisting that it really, really (no really!) is planning to start suing people in a variety of different jurisdictions. They've promised this for a while, but there have been some doubts. I'm sure that some lawsuits will definitely be filed, but I'm guessing that the number won't be nearly as big as has been suggested in the past.

Filed Under: copyright, expendables, pre-settlement
Companies: us copyright group

Why Do The Various Copyright Pre-Settlement Lawsuit Factories Keep Copying Each Other?

from the that-design-looks-familiar dept

Earlier this year we noted, with some amusement, that the US Copyright Group (the biggest name among the recent glut of copyright pre-settlement shakedown letter factories popping up all over the country) had apparently copied the code for its settlement website from a competitor, the Copyright Enforcement Agency (even leaving in the phone number). And, of course, we've also noted that the US Copyright Group is now involved in a lawsuit after threatening to sue competitor Media Copyright Group, for being too similar.

Now, a reader who goes by the name Mr. Piracy Reporter, notes that yet another new pre-settlement lawsuit factory, going by the name of the Copyright Defense Agency, appears to have created a very, very similar website to that of the Copyright Enforcement Agency (the same company that USCG was accused of copying. You can see the images below:

Now, it's true that they're not exactly the same, but it certainly looks like one site pointed their designer towards the other's and said "make it look like that." Either that or the design firm they hired just went looking for a similar site to mimic. I especially like how both have similar, but not identical, graphics on the right-hand side, including the globe with the arrow (what does that even mean?). Of course, such copying almost certainly is not illegal, but for organizations trying to convince the world that they're all about preventing unauthorized copying, it does seem amusing to note just how much copying of each other they seem to do.

Filed Under: copying, copyright, pre-settlement
Companies: copyright defense agency, copyright enforcement group

Media Copyright Group Sues US Copyright Group Over Trademark Threat

from the that's-what-you-get dept

We had just written about the rise of a bunch of new pre-settlement shakedown shops, who send out massive amounts of lawsuits over claims of file sharing in order to get people to pay up. Just recently, some had noticed that these firms all seem to copy from each other, and now two of the firms may be heading to court over it. Seriously.

An anonymous reader passed along the news that the Media Copyright Group -- which was set up recently by a divorce lawyer to work with porn providers -- has filed for declaratory judgment against US Copyright Group, the offshoot of Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (the firm that was the first to get attention for bringing these sorts of pre-settlement deals to the US). We had already noted that US Copyright Group appeared to have copied its website from a competitor, but apparently even though US Copyright Group thinks it's okay to copy others, it doesn't like anyone else copying it. A lawyer from Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver sent a cease and desist to Media Copyright Group, alleging trademark infringement. Media Copyright Group filed for a declaratory judgment that it is not infringing: All I can say is that there's something quite amusing about watching two of these law firms suing each other in court, arguing over whether or not one infringed on the other's "intellectual property."

Filed Under: copyright, pre-settlement, trademark
Companies: media copyright group, us copyright group

UK ISPs Refusing To Hand Over Subscriber Data To Pre-Settlement Lawyers Due To ACS:Law Data Leaks

from the oh,-now-they-decide-this? dept

The fallout from the ACS:Law email leak continues. Law firm Gallant Macmillan, who only recently jumped into the pre-settlement shakedown game, went to court this week to seek the names of various people it wanted to send such letters to and UK ISPs BT and Plusnet -- who had previously cooperated with such requests -- refused to hand over the information, citing the privacy issues raised by the fact that ACS:Law did not properly store and privatize the information it received on subscribers. Of course, it's a bit weak to wait until now to make this complaint. These ISPs should have been standing up for their users from the beginning. Still, better late than never.

Filed Under: pre-settlement, privacy, uk
Companies: acs:law, bt, gallant macmillan, plusnet

Why Are Gay Porn Producers So Quick To Get Involved In Shakedown Copyright Pre-Settlement Schemes?

from the hoping-people-pay-an-embarassment-tax? dept

Over in the UK, where firms like Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law made the whole mass "pre-settlement" letter "pay us or we'll sue your for infringement" practice popular, it seemed that many of their early customers were gay porn producers. And now, we're seeing something similar in the US. While US Copyright Group is getting lots of attention for bringing this sort of campaign to the US with some independent films, the gay porn producers are jumping into the game quickly.

In July, we noted that one such gay porn producer had filed a bunch of lawsuits for sharing films via BitTorrent, and now THREsq is reporting that litigious porn producer Io Group is also suing a bunch of John Does for the same thing. If Io sounds familiar, that's because they were also one of the first to sue a video site for infringement, in this case Veoh, in a lawsuit that Io lost.

Of course, with gay porn movie claims, the privacy questions for ISPs who received demands to turn over names associated with IP addresses becomes a bit trickier. One reason why gay porn producers may be drawn to these sorts of legal actions is because they're assuming that at least some of those they target may not be "out," and having it go public that they were being sued for accessing gay porn could present a bigger issue -- so they may be more likely to pay up quickly. But for ISPs, this also makes the privacy issues a lot clearer. I could definitely see some people turn around and sue ISPs right back for revealing their private info in these cases.

THREsq notes that many ISPs are getting sick of these pre-settlement schemes, but it's not yet clear how far they're willing to go to stand up for the privacy of their subscribers.

Filed Under: copyright, gay porn, pre-settlement
Companies: io group

Lawyers Who Tried To Get Into The Mass 'Pre-Settlement' Game Threaten Wordpress

from the let-me-explain-safe-harbors dept

Lots of attention has been paid to Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law as two UK law firms that have sent out thousands of "pre-settlement" threat letters, demanding payment to avoid a lawsuit over copyright infringement. There was a third firm in the UK that briefly popped up trying to do the same thing: Tilly Bailey & Irvine (TBI). A ton of complaints were filed against TBI and even members of the House of Lords in the UK called them the "new entrants to the hall of infamy." After that, TBI "reluctantly agreed" to stop these kinds of campaigns, due to "the amount of adverse publicity" that came with it. Apparently TBI is a big law firm that's been around for nearly two centuries, and it realized that smearing its name this way probably wasn't a good idea.

However, since then, it's tried pretty much everything possible to pretend that it never did anything. Its latest move is to threaten Wordpress.com for hosting a blog that was critical of TBI. The ACSBore blog has been following the law firms involved in these types of actions and uncovering all sorts of embarrassing stuff at times.

However, in one post, the blogger behind the site put up a "wanted" poster of a TBI lawyer who had been involved in the pre-settlement letter campaign along with a blog post quite critical of the firm. Rather than go after him directly, TBI is using a bit of third party liability trickery, claiming first that using the image of one of its lawyers in a "wanted poster" is copyright infringement, and secondly, that the nature of the wanted poster was defamatory. TBI claimed that Automattic, the company behind Wordpress.com would be liable for defamation.

Of course, Automattic is a US-based company, and it almost certainly would not be liable under either issue. On the defamation claim, it's clearly protected by Section 230. On the copyright claim... well... just a year ago we wrote about an almost identical situation, with some company execs suing a guy who created "Wanted" posters out of their corporate photos. The company claimed copyright infringement, but the court noted it was fair use. Unfortunately, Automattic accepted the complaint as a DMCA takedown and removed the content to avoid liability. Perhaps the ACSBore owner will file a counternotice and get the image put back up.

TBI is also trying to find out the identity of who is behind the ACSBore blog. Wordpress is standing behind its user on that front, though, saying: "We will not, under any circumstance, disclose any contact/personal/private details of our bloggers without a U.S. Court Order, and this has not been presented to us."

For a company that was worried about its reputation, you would think it would learn that trying to intimidate critics is probably going to backfire badly and give you an even worse reputation than whatever it was you did in the first place. If TBI is really worried about bad publicity, it should ignore the critics -- not try to bully them legally into shutting up.

Filed Under: copyright, defamation, dmca, fair use, pre-settlement, safe harbors
Companies: acs:law, automattic, tbi, tilly bailey & irvine, wordpress

Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence

from the dolphins-in-the-fish-nets dept

In the recent amicus filing by the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass copyright infringement lawsuits, one of the points that they raised was that these mass filing strategies always snare a significant number of innocent users -- many of whom still feel the need to pay up, as it's cheaper to do so than to hire a lawyer and fight. It looks like that's already happening. Ars Technica is reporting on a number of people proclaiming innocence over the filings. What you get is a picture of frustration as well. Many were informed by their ISP that they had just a couple days to try to quash the subpoena or their info would get handed over to USCG. Even those that tried to understand the details of what they were being threatened with were left in the dark:

"Originally we got a letter from our ISP stating they have a subpoena for our name and address. We literally had 2 business days to research and try to find legal counsel on this matter. I called a local ISP lawyer here in [state redacted]. His advice was to contact a lawyer over where this lawsuit originated (Washington, DC). Well, we do not have the monetary means or time to try and fight this..."

Another example:

"I received a subpoena notice from [ISP redacted] on May 4, with a deadline of May 7 for response. It included NO INFORMATION as to what the subpoena was about so I immediately tried to contact the sender of the notice. After countless e-mails & phone calls, I finally reached an informed, live person by calling [ISP's] corporate line (which I found online and was NOT included in the notice).

"I was finally provided a copy of the subpoena itself and I recognized the date that I was accused of downloading Far Cry (a movie I never heard of) as a period when I was having Internet connection and wireless router issues. I suspect my neighbors may have been using my connection without my permission and my ISP should have record of my support calls...

"Unfortunately, I tried to hire an attorney that could help me with this and I was repeatedly told there was little I could do without further information from [ISP], and certainly nothing I could do in the very short period before the subpoena deadline. I did all this in the span of only a few days and STILL DIDN'T GET ANYWHERE. I assume my identity has been sent to the plaintiff and I can only imagine what others are going through trying to figure out what is going on here."

We've had numerous defenders of these sue-em-all programs in our comments say that false positives are few and far between, and that it's "easy" to get the case dropped if you didn't do it. I'm guessing most of those people have never been on the receiving end of a lawsuit. It is not a good feeling -- especially when it is incredibly expensive to defend your innocence. I have no doubt that many, many people on the list actually did make unauthorized copies of these files. But is it worth this sort of collateral damage on innocent people to go after them?

Filed Under: innocence, pre-settlement
Companies: us copyright group

ACS:Law Asks Those Who Deny Infringing To Incriminate Themselves

from the well,-that's-one-strategy dept

ACS:Law, the UK-based copyright threat letter operation that has been called a "scam" by UK politicians and condemned by ISPs alike, is apparently using a new tactic. The operation, which is apparently being investigated for potential disciplinary action (like Davenport Lyons, whose lawyers have been disciplined for initiating the "pre-settlement" mass letter campaign, and which has some sort of connection with ACS:Law), seems to know that the "evidence" it has isn't enough to actually take anyone to court, so if you reply and deny the infringement, ACS:Law sends you a questionnaire effectively asking you to incriminate yourself.

Of course, there's no legal obligation to reply, just as there's no legal obligation to pay, based on such a "pay up or we'll sue" letter. TorrentFreak notes that, despite all of this, people are still paying, even though not a single case has gone to court. No wonder we have multiple copycat operations showing up in the US. Extortion-like processes are apparently quite profitable. I'm sure that's exactly what the folks who created copyright law in the first place were thinking of in their creation: a system to send out thousands of threat letters demanding payment to avoid a lawsuit. It's all about promoting the "progress" of a few copyright lawyers, you see...

Filed Under: extortion, pre-settlement, self-incriminate
Companies: acs:law