Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ky. Woman Fights Porn Companies' Anti-Piracy Suits (Extortion)
San Francisco ^ | Wednesday, July 11, 2012 | BRETT BARROUQUERE

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 07/11/2012 12:28:48 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Interesting. All this time I’ve only heard about the music angle. This is completely new. And it does have the “embarrassment factor”.

Pretty funny.


2 posted on 07/11/2012 12:35:41 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time," Brown wrote. "It is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function — here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film — than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call."

Now if we could only apply this kind of reasoning to red-light cameras and other forms of official harassment.

3 posted on 07/11/2012 12:37:34 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
You bastard! No honey, I didn't download anything, honest!"

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.

4 posted on 07/11/2012 12:51:32 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Disgusting.


5 posted on 07/11/2012 12:57:34 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
"Now if we could only apply this kind of reasoning to red-light cameras and other forms of official harassment."

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.

6 posted on 07/11/2012 1:01:47 PM PDT by DeaconRed (My vote in Nov will be dictated by my extreme hatred for ZERO and what he is doing to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


7 posted on 07/11/2012 1:12:34 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
This article appears to have some serious errors. I'm not sure if it's the reporter being clueless, or if it's a calculated effort to obfuscate the issue.

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"?

8 posted on 07/11/2012 1:14:17 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

LOL, kitty porn...

I’ve always thought kitty porn was for pussies. ;^)


9 posted on 07/11/2012 1:23:58 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

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.


10 posted on 07/11/2012 1:24:40 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

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”.


11 posted on 07/11/2012 1:36:32 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Jimmy Carter Is No Longer The Worst President Of My Lifetime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

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.


12 posted on 07/11/2012 2:36:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DeaconRed

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.


Sheep.


13 posted on 07/11/2012 3:22:36 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Are you going to claim someone hacked your account on here and used your screen name to admit you downloaded music? Just kidding.


14 posted on 07/11/2012 6:12:42 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DeaconRed
Did we loose that constitutional right too?

'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...

15 posted on 07/12/2012 10:30:29 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson