Looks plausible, and I think it was Mike's intention, but if I was the author of this post, I would elaborate, because it may be read differently: "thankfully one guy is left on this case, better than none".
Of course my statement about the pressure was only a metaphor and was not meant to be mathematically correct, yet try to to imagine yourself in this guy's place before and after this ruling. No difference at all?
"This Court does not condone copyright infringement and incourages settlement of genuine disputes. However, plaintiff's desire to to enforce its copyright..."
Why "thankfully"? Why it it would be bad in your opinion, Mike, to dismiss the entire case outright?
Now a single Doe feels the pressure that was evenly distributed over 5000 before. Given the "quality" of the evidence gathering methods, this Doe could be a bystander (I have an educated guess that likelihood of error is around 15%)... I'm a collaterally damaged myself, and believe me, it is not fun.
there are likely (a) a significant number of people getting falsely accused, and (b) a significant number of people falsely claiming that they are falsely accused.
True. But I draw a different conclusion from this statement: I can't be sympathetic to the accuser because he impudently trumps Blackstone formulation, one of the main pillars of justice.
I can't estimate (b), though again the headcount is obviously greater than zero, but my educated guestimate of (a) is ~15% in these cases, and not only those who have open wi-fi are falsely accused.
Kind of. If you are accused of copyright infringement, rightfully or wrongly - does not matter - either hire a lawyer for a couple of your monthly salaries or go to a legal college to educate yourself the sophistry needed to clean your name from being associated with gay porno. Otherwise just fucking shut up and pay. Right?
Do you have any regrets over the firestorm started by your statement that no one would consider suicide over your allegations, and then suggesting they could instead lie about what was allegedly downloaded being from the bi-sexual line of movies LMH/CF now offers?
By the way I keep e-mails from a troll victim who claims that he seriously considered suicide. Given the overall sincere tone of his e-mails, I'm pretty much sure that it was just a figure of speech.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Negligence - The tort of Insurance and snails
Actually I exaggerated a bit: it is not such a nightmare anymore. It really was when I first learned that I was targeted, I was scared and did not know what to do - even considered paying while I never tried to download any gay pornography - I'm not against those who enjoy this type of entertainment in privacy, but it's just plainly outside of my universe.
I continue with my blog as time permits, pursuing the same goal - to increase awareness. I have 300 page hits a day on average - not a lot, but it keeps me doing what I'm doing.
I understand that sometimes my forum comments look like spam since I almost always link to my blog. I do it deliberately, and I have no intention to monetize the traffic in any form.
While reading TechDirt, TorrentFreak etc., it is easy to fall under an illusion that the majority is educated and at least aware of the grand scam in progress, but it's not true: general public is still in dark. I'm outraged as you are about the lack of media coverage.
Everyone is talking about patent trolls now: my neighbors, coworkers, I even overheard people discussing this in a commuter train. That's happening only because NPR aired its famous program recently. I hope copyright trolling problem will gain at least similar publicity.
Re: Re: Negligence - The tort of Insurance and snails
My thoughts... expressed in much better words than mine.
Definitely, I'm not so good at writing, which does not hurt my self esteem anyway: I hope this nightmare will go away soon and I will be able concentrate on doing what I'm good at...
I bet that this debate wouldn't be so heated if Randazza's negligence theory was just that - a theory. But it is not just a theory, it is a practical tool for extortion, and while thinking about it logically, there always be some kind of subconscious awareness of the unethical extortion scheme that brought this "theory" to light.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obligation ends when someone else commits crime on your dime.
Yes! That guy who is worried about the possibility of a small store to be burned is also nice to offer protection for a small fee. Store owner does not have to pay if he does not want.
Poor scripts. Not allowing them to run ruins their scripty childhoods. Authorities must intervene, take those scripts from you and pass them to loving hands (or browsers).
Maybe I’m emotionally (not factually) biased, but it is understandable given my predicament. Yet I still see much more common sense in arguments against negligence theory. Forget about the posts themselves – Randazza is an interested party, sure he uses all his skills in sophistry to maximize his profit. (And some trolls even resort to lies pushing this argument) I find discussions much more interesting – and the user nicknamed “Common Sense” had an upper hand by far in my opinion.
On the post: Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
Of course my statement about the pressure was only a metaphor and was not meant to be mathematically correct, yet try to to imagine yourself in this guy's place before and after this ruling. No difference at all?
On the post: Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re:
"This Court does not condone copyright infringement and incourages settlement of genuine disputes. However, plaintiff's desire to to enforce its copyright..."
On the post: Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional
Why "thankfully"? Why it it would be bad in your opinion, Mike, to dismiss the entire case outright?
Now a single Doe feels the pressure that was evenly distributed over 5000 before. Given the "quality" of the evidence gathering methods, this Doe could be a bystander (I have an educated guess that likelihood of error is around 15%)... I'm a collaterally damaged myself, and believe me, it is not fun.
On the post: Needed: Bright Line Rule On Mass Infringement Lawsuits To Stop Copyright Troll Forum Shopping
On the post: Judge Slams Copyright Troll Lawyer John Steele's Latest 'Fishing Expedition'
Re:
On the post: US Copyright Group Lawsuits Based On Highly Questionable Evidence
Re: Re:
If you learn anything, please share.
On the post: US Copyright Group Lawsuits Based On Highly Questionable Evidence
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. But I draw a different conclusion from this statement: I can't be sympathetic to the accuser because he impudently trumps Blackstone formulation, one of the main pillars of justice.
I can't estimate (b), though again the headcount is obviously greater than zero, but my educated guestimate of (a) is ~15% in these cases, and not only those who have open wi-fi are falsely accused.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re:
By the way I keep e-mails from a troll victim who claims that he seriously considered suicide. Given the overall sincere tone of his e-mails, I'm pretty much sure that it was just a figure of speech.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Negligence - The tort of Insurance and snails
I continue with my blog as time permits, pursuing the same goal - to increase awareness. I have 300 page hits a day on average - not a lot, but it keeps me doing what I'm doing.
I understand that sometimes my forum comments look like spam since I almost always link to my blog. I do it deliberately, and I have no intention to monetize the traffic in any form.
While reading TechDirt, TorrentFreak etc., it is easy to fall under an illusion that the majority is educated and at least aware of the grand scam in progress, but it's not true: general public is still in dark. I'm outraged as you are about the lack of media coverage.
Everyone is talking about patent trolls now: my neighbors, coworkers, I even overheard people discussing this in a commuter train. That's happening only because NPR aired its famous program recently. I hope copyright trolling problem will gain at least similar publicity.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Negligence - The tort of Insurance and snails
Definitely, I'm not so good at writing, which does not hurt my self esteem anyway: I hope this nightmare will go away soon and I will be able concentrate on doing what I'm good at...
Thank you.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
On the post: Motion To Quash Against Copyright Troll Explains How IP Address Does Not ID User
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obligation ends when someone else commits crime on your dime.
On the post: Motion To Quash Against Copyright Troll Explains How IP Address Does Not ID User
Re: Re:
On the post: Motion To Quash Against Copyright Troll Explains How IP Address Does Not ID User
Re:
First he tried to accuse Antonio in the tort, but after he realized that Antonio's defense is solid (the guy was not even in the US at the time of alleged infringement) he mulls some additional "discovery".
I talked to Antonio, and from his statements I realized that he did not know the difference between eDonkey and BitTorrent! What a shame (not to Antonio for not knowing, but to Sperlein/Randazza for pursuing a clearly innocent person) .
On the post: Motion To Quash Against Copyright Troll Explains How IP Address Does Not ID User
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Motion To Quash Against Copyright Troll Explains How IP Address Does Not ID User
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>