Skip to comments.Ky. Woman Fights Porn Companies' Anti-Piracy Suits (Extortion)
Posted on 07/11/2012 12:28:43 PM PDT by nickcarraway
t's a common tactic for pornography producers trying to protect their product from online piracy: They sue unknown "John Does" who illegally download movies, then go to Internet providers to learn their true identities and collect.
Hundreds of porn companies have filed thousands of lawsuits across the country in recent years. Often, representatives will call up the defendants, offering quick settlements of $1,000 or $5,000 to avoid facing $150,000 claims and the embarrassment of being publicly outed.
Some defendants in the lawsuits are pushing back, arguing that they're being squeezed for quick settlements even when they claim to have never downloaded anything.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Interesting. All this time I’ve only heard about the music angle. This is completely new. And it does have the “embarrassment factor”.
Now if we could only apply this kind of reasoning to red-light cameras and other forms of official harassment.
14 year old kid just around the corner in his bedroom snickers as he leans his head this way and that, to see what's on his computer screen better.
I honestly believe that red light cameras can be beaten by going to court and requesting to confront the accuser.
Did we loose that constitutional right too?
However I don't want to be the one to test it. Me ole daddy taught me how to beat a speeding ticket. It is very simple. DRIVE THE SPEED LIMIT and don't get caught in the first place.
True story. Guy here in Florida claimed his cat downloaded the child pornography while walking on the keyboard at night.
Must have thought it was kitty porn.
When did it become a crime to download a file, at least one that doesn't contain proscribed content like child pornography?
You don't violate a copyright unless you redistribute a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. Simply downloading it doesn't do that.
Of course, if you use any kind of file-sharing client (which shares the parts you have downloaded with other people downloading the file at the same time), you are indeed redistributing the file. And, if you continue to share a copyrighted work after downloading, you are certainly violating the copyright.
Is that what this article is doing: equating "downloading" with "sharing"?
LOL, kitty porn...
I’ve always thought kitty porn was for pussies. ;^)
Not advocating, but with all the open and easily-cracked WEP wi-fi systems around everywhere, anyone who wants to download “content” of any kind that could land him in trouble is an idiot for doing so from his own IP address.
I don’t download porn (far too old for that stuff) but I do download music.I assume what I download is legal but if it’s not I wonder what would be a defense? I live in a condo complex.When I click “networks” on my laptop I get about a dozen different routers displayed.I wonder if you can claim “hey,someone must have tapped in to my router.I didn’t download that”.
That defense has worked. I remember a few years ago some defendants beat the RIAA defense. One was a chearleading coach who had unsecured wifi and the court ruled the RIAA couldn’t prove she was the one.
However I don’t want to be the one to test it. Me ole daddy taught me how to beat a speeding ticket. It is very simple. DRIVE THE SPEED LIMIT and don’t get caught in the first place.
Are you going to claim someone hacked your account on here and used your screen name to admit you downloaded music? Just kidding.
'traffic' is an entirely different animal...the judge is the jury and the burden of proff is on the driver...its setup [usually] so that the
fine tax is preferable to the hassle in time/money...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.