acs:law get raked over the coals in court let the backpeddling begin

[gideongallery]

http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-try-t...-court-110117/

it seems that ACS:law was denied their motion to dismiss
they tried to drop their case to avoid paying the court costs of the defendants

this is going to get nasty.

and they are already starting to backpeddle to avoid the huge liablity for what seems like the inevitable judgement against them.

got a qustion for those sue the downloaders crowd of copyright holders

what are you doing that so different

We will take legal advice, however our intention is to return any post to sender should we receive any.

We are advised that the Director has taken the decision stop further trading through GCB Ltd in respect of alleged copyright infringement. We believe that he has moved swiftly to minimise the damage to his name in taking this decisive action. We are further advised that he was unaware of the background involved in these claims or the precise nature of the claims.

To that end anyone receiving letters from or on behalf of GCB Ltd in respect of copyright infringement should ignore these letters. We have been assured that no further action will be taken.

[ottopottomouse]

Article makes it sound like they tried dropping the cases after the judge had decided they had done something iffy. Not surprised they can't pull out really.

[DamianJ]

I cannot wait till those cunts get their comeuppance.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Article makes it sound like they tried dropping the cases after the judge had decided they had done something iffy. Not surprised they can't pull out really.

the process these guys were following has been iffy from the begining

their arguement was that if your ip address was being used, that automatically ment you were aware and authorized the transaction so that it would qualify for "wilful" infringement.

the problem is steve /robbie etc are basically copying this bogus process to do their sue the downloaders stuff too

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the process these guys were following has been iffy from the begining

their arguement was that if your ip address was being used, that automatically ment you were aware and authorized the transaction so that it would qualify for "wilful" infringement.

the problem is steve /robbie etc are basically copying this bogus process to do their sue the downloaders stuff too

robbie and steve's time is numbered on this despicable behaviour too:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ight-troll.ars

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

robbie and steve's time is numbered on this despicable behaviour too:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ight-troll.ars

thank you eff

i donate to these guys every year i am so glad they are defending the right of individuals against they abuses of the law

[TheDoc]

The IP argument is valid in "most" cases... it's not in "some" cases. The IP is powerful enough to subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof (even with open wifi) that someone in the house did the illegal uploading.

It's the IP "ONLY" blanketing/threats that's the issue, not dong it in the proper regions, etc.... but if they did get sued in that area, they would lose. It's the 1% that didn't do it, that makes IT ALL an issue.. The other 99% that choose to fight it, will lose.

Edit: Just like in this article/case... The judge kept one, the IP is a valid way to fight this ALL AROUND - It's not valid if you try to sue out of your region, the court can't touch those people... but that doesn't mean the case isn't valid though.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The IP is powerful enough to subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof (even with open wifi) that someone in the house did the illegal uploading.

citation needed

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

robbie and steve's time is numbered on this despicable behaviour too:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ight-troll.ars

Thanks for the link/read foo.

[Caligari]

adapt or die
why do you think they call it the long arm of the law?
http://torrentfreak.com/no-ads-or-wh...-rules-110118/

As far as we are aware, this is the first case where advertising networks have been prohibited from providing services to a site that is accused of facilitating copyright infringement. Last year there was a case where Disney and Warner Bros. went after the advertising company Triton Media, but this outfit was believed to be more heavily involved in the day to day operations of several ?online piracy? related sites.

can you dig it? i knew that you couldn't;)

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Caligari

adapt or die
why do you think they call it the long arm of the law?
http://torrentfreak.com/no-ads-or-wh...-rules-110118/


can you dig it? i knew that you couldn't;)

Well done! You've unlocked today's "My post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP" badge.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

citation needed

Almost every court case that has come up related to this has had subpoena records from the ISP based on the IP. You can't sue an IP - you can only sue a person - to do that, you need the information.

Same can be done with hosting companies, users on tubes (ie youtube), facebook, twitter, all have given it info on nothing more than IP and sometimes just a login/user to get the IP and a court order of course. Has happened 1000's of times.

P.S. It can all be done without the user ever knowing about it too.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Almost every court case that has come up related to this has had subpoena records from the ISP based on the IP.

Same can be done with hosting companies, users on tubes (ie youtube), facebook, twitter, all have given it info on nothing more than IP and a court order. Has happened 1000's of times.

Sorry, I meant specifically the part where you said:

subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof

I don't recall an ISP giving up log ins or usage information that has "often and easily" provided proof of copyright infringement. I wondered if you had a citation.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Sorry, I meant specifically the part where you said:

subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof

I don't recall an ISP giving up log ins or usage information that has "often and easily" provided proof of copyright infringement. I wondered if you had a citation.

How do you think they sued the person? The ISP gave up the info. Once it's in court, come on... they'll get your ISP, credit report and make you pull your bank statement if they want.

.... Can't remember the case. The one chick argued her ex husband did the downloading/uploading, while she was sleeping. They used her ISP records to prove the case.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

How do you think they sued the person?

Usually the "suing" is done from solely a public listing of an IP on a tracker.

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The ISP gave up the info. Once it's in court, come on... they'll get your ISP, credit report and make you pull your bank statement if they want.

.... Can't remember the case. The one chick argued her ex husband did the downloading/uploading, while she was sleeping. They used her ISP records to prove the case.

I see, I've just not seen a court giving up 'usage' that 'easily' proves a case. What would they give up? Low level packet analysis that "proves" a file that reports to be an infringing file went through her router? Or physically prove the file is on her HDD? And that the file is what it claims it is?

Just curious as to what is "proof".

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Usually the "suing" is done from solely a public listing of an IP on a tracker.



I see, I've just not seen a court giving up 'usage' that 'easily' proves a case. What would they give up? Low level packet analysis that "proves" a file that reports to be an infringing file went through her router? Or physically prove the file is on her HDD? And that the file is what it claims it is?

Just curious as to what is "proof".

Well... Like most normal people, not in law - I don't keep proof, citations or records of shit that doesn't directly mean anything to me. I just read the articles and move on...

Anyway... they sent letters to the people directly, they got the address from the ISP. IP's don't have a home address and they can't be sued... Once court proceeds on, getting more information is VERY normal.

I've never read an IP case that didn't get various details through various subpoenas, most based on users & ip's, all of which was used in the case.

[TheDoc]

Think of how basic this is.... how does anyone get the Home Address to send a letter to, just based on an IP address? They CLEARLY ask someone...

They ISP tells them WHEN the IP was used, and by WHO. They 'could' give up a lot more details, if asked.

Without this very basic, very needed info... NOBODY would be getting sued. Even if the person sued the IP's first, the court is just going to make the ISP's give up the info so they know who to sue, so they can be served.

[carzygirls]

I don't see how guilt by IP is any different then city cameras capturing license plate numbers and sending tickets in the mail. They are not ticketing the car but the owner of car... same thing right?

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Well... Like most normal people, not in law - I don't keep proof, citations or records of shit that doesn't directly mean anything to me. I just read the articles and move on...

Anyway... they sent letters to the people directly, they got the address from the ISP. IP's don't have a home address and they can't be sued... Once court proceeds on, getting more information is VERY normal.

I've never read an IP case that didn't get various details through various subpoenas, most based on users & ip's, all of which was used in the case.

Oh I understand how they get an IP, I just wondered if you had any citation for any case at all where any 'proof' at all was given up by an ISP and concerned data usage and what that actual proof was. Logs of packets?

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by carzygirls

I don't see how guilt by IP is any different then city cameras capturing license plate numbers

That's because you're a really obvious troll.

HTH

Love

Damian.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Oh I understand how they get an IP, I just wondered if you had any citation for any case at all where any 'proof' at all was given up by an ISP and concerned data usage and what that actual proof was. Logs of packets?

All the court cases that make it to court where the person fights it... either side, the ONLY proof they have is the ISP logs vs. the IP/times of the infringement.

You make it sound like I said data usage was the only proof used... it's just more proof. Data usage shows a pattern of active use, not what it was being used on.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You make it sound like I said data usage was the only proof used... it's just more proof. Data usage shows a pattern of active use, not what it was being used on.

Well what you said was this:

subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof

And it was just that I was questioning as I don't recall seeing any case where the proof of infringement was reliant on evidence from the ISP. As you claim it often and easily provides more than enough proof I wanted to read up on those cases. Not suggesting for a split second it didn't happen, just curious about what this 'proof' would actually look like. Usage patterns on an IP address aren't proof of an individual infringing copyright, obviously. It's a record of someone using that IP address (or spoofing it).

It's the proof aspect you mentioned I am interested in.

[DamianJ]

Anyhoo, that's not really the point. The point is Andrew is fucked. And this pleases me no end. The disgusting cunt.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Well what you said was this:

subpoena ISP's for login, usage info, etc... that often and easily provides more than enough proof

And it was just that I was questioning as I don't recall seeing any case where the proof of infringement was reliant on evidence from the ISP. As you claim it often and easily provides more than enough proof I wanted to read up on those cases. Not suggesting for a split second it didn't happen, just curious about what this 'proof' would actually look like. Usage patterns on an IP address aren't proof of an individual infringing copyright, obviously. It's a record of someone using that IP address (or spoofing it).

It's the proof aspect you mentioned I am interested in.

I did say, login and etc... which is more than just usage data. I would also recommend not reading articles on the subject, as they don't cover anything but opinions.

Their is no other way to argue these cases without "proving" the person was infringing. You can't "claim" an IP did anything, you have to PROVE it. You can't even claim a person had an IP, you have to prove that first, then prove the other crap.

This is just logical... it's IMPOSSIBLE to do it any other way.

[DamianJ]

I just wondered what this proof was/is. I wasn't denying its existence.

Google isn't helping me find anything about ISPs giving up data that proves infringement that any case I can see rested on.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Anyhoo, that's not really the point. The point is Andrew is fucked. And this pleases me no end. The disgusting cunt.

Damian, dont hold anything back now, tell us how you really feel !

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I just wondered what this proof was/is. I wasn't denying its existence.

Google isn't helping me find anything about ISPs giving up data that proves infringement that any case I can see rested on.

Here in America, it's written into our Laws.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/11042...wnloaders.html

"A U.S. federal judge has again sided with the recording industry in its efforts to subpoena the names of music downloaders, upholding a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that requires Internet service providers to turn over names of alleged copyright infringers. Critics said the law provides a cheap and easy way for music companies, or anyone else, to find out the names of anonymous Internet users."

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Here in America, it's written into our Laws.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/11042...wnloaders.html

"A U.S. federal judge has again sided with the recording industry in its efforts to subpoena the names of music downloaders, upholding a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that requires Internet service providers to turn over names of alleged copyright infringers. Critics said the law provides a cheap and easy way for music companies, or anyone else, to find out the names of anonymous Internet users."

I am not sure how you are reading me saying "what is the actual proof the ISPs give up" as "ISPs will never give up the name and address of someone after they get asked to by a court".

You seem to keep arguing that courts will give out a name and address. We all know that. No one is suggesting they won't. I am asking what proof of copyright infringement they give up. Is it a log of packets or what?

Sorry I was unclear.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by JFK

Damian, dont hold anything back now, tell us how you really feel !

I took part in a panel at interNEXT on suing end users and didn't say cunt once!!!

I was all polite. I did say despicable and unethical a few times though.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I am not sure how you are reading me saying "what is the actual proof the ISPs give up" as "ISPs will never give up the name and address of someone after they get asked to by a court".

You seem to keep arguing that courts will give out a name and address. We all know that. No one is suggesting they won't. I am asking what proof of copyright infringement they give up. Is it a log of packets or what?

Sorry I was unclear.

... you can ask for anything you want in a Subpoena, only a few things aren't allowed - like an ISP can't give up your emails through Subpoena only. But during the case, if your emails hold evidence for or against you, they can be requested - just like all other evidence.

You ask for more info, login dates, times.... that's how they build the case and that's how you defend yourself.

Otherwise it's not a court case, it's two people pointing fingers without a single bit of evidence.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I took part in a panel at interNEXT on suing end users and didn't say cunt once!!!

I was all polite. I did say despicable and unethical a few times though.

what self control, what restraint, I'm proud of you

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Well done! You've unlocked today's "My post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP" badge.

hey and congrats to you for having your head so far up your ass you fail to see the inevitable conclusions to all of your whining and pirate ass kissing!

on edit: and btw it has everything to do with this thread because as you and people like gideongallery continue to post meaningless crap about how you think cases against pirates are not working, the reality is that the BIGGER cases are working like gangbusters.

you may continue to play cheerleader all you want for piracy but in the end you will only experience butthurt.

[RycEric]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I took part in a panel at interNEXT on suing end users and didn't say cunt once!!!

I was all polite. I did say despicable and unethical a few times though.

Practicing law in the US might get you sanctioned

[RycEric]

Originally Posted by JFK

what self control, what restraint, I'm proud of you

Hillarious picture. Damian is standing next to Sean Holland whose company, New Sensations, is also suing bit-torrent users. I see NS listed here as a customer of Damian's.

http://www.adultmarketing.co.uk
"My Clients Past and Present
New Sensations"

Does that make him a cunt as well Damian? Sean is a great guy and always has my respect in the biz.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by carzygirls

I don't see how guilt by IP is any different then city cameras capturing license plate numbers and sending tickets in the mail. They are not ticketing the car but the owner of car... same thing right?

it like going after you guys for selling porn to minors when little ohnny steals his fathers credit card and uses it to signup for the site.

would you support extending the law to that extreme

how about whenn your perfectly legal porn is superimposed on the picture of a preteen to make virtual kiddie porn, should you be held liable for assisting


the copyright laws require a "wilful" aspect for the liability
and the copyright act has this thing called fair use that turns what would otherwise be illegal into perfectly legal actions.

you can't get away with extending the law in that way without stomping all over those rights.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

... you can ask for anything you want in a Subpoena, only a few things aren't allowed - like an ISP can't give up your emails through Subpoena only. But during the case, if your emails hold evidence for or against you, they can be requested - just like all other evidence.

You ask for more info, login dates, times.... that's how they build the case and that's how you defend yourself.

Otherwise it's not a court case, it's two people pointing fingers without a single bit of evidence.

the point is those types of fishing expeditions have been eliminated, because they invade peoples privacy rights.

we don't know if your guilty so we will route around in your private lives is going to cut it anymore

you need to collect proof of guilt before you invade a persons privacy.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the point is those types of fishing expeditions have been eliminated, because they invade peoples privacy rights.

we don't know if your guilty so we will route around in your private lives is going to cut it anymore

you need to collect proof of guilt before you invade a persons privacy.

Shhhh, you don't know what you're talking about, again...

It's called a Doe Subpoena. From wiki "A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name.[1] A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post."


It's not a privacy issue, AT ALL - it's written into the laws!

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Shhhh, you don't know what you're talking about, again...

It's called a Doe Subpoena. From wiki "A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name.[1] A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post."


It's not a privacy issue, AT ALL - it's written into the laws!

did you even read what i said

i never said that they couldn't get the identity, i said the fishing expeditions have now been denied.



there is a huge difference between getting the identity of a person who you know did something wrong anonymously (ie someone posting slanderous statements under a fake nick) and going on a fishing expedition thru logs to get the proof that they are guilty of a crime.

just because they can get a persons name, doesn't give them a right to route thru a person private surfing history hunting for proof of a POTENTIAL crime. That what the judges are now saying.

?The plea that ?allowing? others to infringe is itself an act restricted by s16 (1)(a) and 17 of the 1988 Act is simply wrong,? noted Judge Birss. ?The term used by those sections of the Act is ?authorising? and the difference may be very important if the allegation is about unauthorised use of an internet router by third parties.?

Judge Birss later noted: ?A key part of the plea of infringement rests on an assertion [by ACS:Law] that ?allowing? others to infringe is itself an infringing act, when it is not.?

the point is for a john doe subpoena to be valid the lawsuit arguement of culpability must be valid
and judge birss just ruled that it wasn't

the bar has been set much higher, you need to prove that the infringment was "authorise" now.

now all we have to do is wait for the US courts to get their head out of their asses and do the samme thing across the pond.

[Caligari]

its sad really, rather like watching a dinosaur who has been fatally shot yet is still stumbling along unaware of it's dire predicament.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

did you even read what i said

i never said that they couldn't get the identity, i said the fishing expeditions have now been denied.



there is a huge difference between getting the identity of a person who you know did something wrong anonymously (ie someone posting slanderous statements under a fake nick) and going on a fishing expedition thru logs to get the proof that they are guilty of a crime.

just because they can get a persons name, doesn't give them a right to route thru a person private surfing history hunting for proof of a POTENTIAL crime. That what the judges are now saying.

Yes, I read it... You said it invades peoples privacy, and it doesn't.

In relation to the Doe Subpoena, what you stated exactly what previous court cases have stated, well before any IP cases happened. All you did was repeat what the law says....in your own half twisted way.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the point is for a john doe subpoena to be valid the lawsuit arguement of culpability must be valid
and judge birss just ruled that it wasn't

the bar has been set much higher, you need to prove that the infringment was "authorise" now.

now all we have to do is wait for the US courts to get their head out of their asses and do the samme thing across the pond.

No the point of the John Doe is so you can sue and use the court to force people you couldn't otherwise ask, to give up the needed information.

The bar hasn't changed... The Judges have said, they CAN sue, just do it in the right district. Another words, blanket attacks wont get you far, but if you want to blanket the attack per state, and you have a lawyer in that state, have at it.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Caligari

on edit: and btw it has everything to do with this thread because as you and people like gideongallery continue to post meaningless crap about how you think cases against pirates are not working, the reality is that the BIGGER cases are working like gangbusters.

you may continue to play cheerleader all you want for piracy but in the end you will only experience butthurt.

It disturbs me that your reading comprehension is at the level of a 5 year old.

This thread is about acs:law a UK firm of ambulance chasing lawyers are in trouble with a judge for not turning up for their own case against some john does.

I am not pro piracy. I am anti-suing IP addresses.

How many times do I need to explain this?

Even the LAWYERS on the suing end users panel agree with me that this sort of litigation is stupid and immoral.

Are you calling them pro piracy? Of course not.

Read the words I actually write, not the words that you think I wrote and you won't come across looking quite so silly.

HTH

Love

Damian
x

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by RycEric

Hillarious picture. Damian is standing next to Sean Holland whose company, New Sensations, is also suing bit-torrent users. I see NS listed here as a customer of Damian's.

http://www.adultmarketing.co.uk
"My Clients Past and Present
New Sensations"

Does that make him a cunt as well Damian? Sean is a great guy and always has my respect in the biz.

Oh you are such a funny little chap. I love the size of the hard on you have for me.

Your detective game is weak though, because Sean and I are great friends and have been for many years. This is why we are photographed together often. And it's not his company. It's Scott's. Bless you for trying though.

I think sending blackmail letters to people that pay for an IP address is a cunt's game. Sean probably thinks some things I think are cunty too.

That doesn't mean that we cannot be friends and cannot work together, love. It means we have a difference of opinion on something.

I can draw you a picture if you are still unsure on this. LMK.

Damian

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Caligari

its sad really, rather like watching a dinosaur who has been fatally shot yet is still stumbling along unaware of it's dire predicament.

I agree. ACS: Law will be extinct first when they have their hearing about being unethical in a few weeks. Then the US lawyers that copied them will be next.

It's about time that judges realised these people have no intentions whatsoever about stopping piracy, and just want to make money.

In the panel I took part on in interNEXT someone made a great point. All piracy is done by one person or one group of people. One member gets the stuff and seeds it.

It is very easy to find that person.

Yet the "lawyers" don't go after him, they send out 9,000 john doe blackmail letters...

I wonder why?

Of yes, because this is nothing to do with piracy and is everything to do with making as much money as possible. The leaked emails from ACS:Law prove this.

I thought it was a brilliant point.

What do you think?

[Nurgle]

Amen Damian, nice to see someone on this board with some common sense and tired of these fucking assholes who arent interested in stopping piracy but just making a quick buck

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

No the point of the John Doe is so you can sue and use the court to force people you couldn't otherwise ask, to give up the needed information.

The bar hasn't changed... The Judges have said, they CAN sue, just do it in the right district. Another words, blanket attacks wont get you far, but if you want to blanket the attack per state, and you have a lawyer in that state, have at it.

really then why was the case that was in the correct jurisdiction also throw out.

ALL the case were thrown out not just the ones outside the jurisdiction

and yes the bar has changed
you can no longer claim that paying for the internet connection means your authorizsing every use of that connection including people hopping on your unsecured/secured wifi connection.

why because

iJudge Birss later noted: ?A key part of the plea of infringement rests on an assertion [by ACS:Law] that ?allowing? others to infringe is itself an infringing act, when it is not.?

JDS do not nor have they ever given you blanket right to force people to give up their private information
one of the conditions for a JDS to go forward is that the case must have merits

the fundamental merits of the plea (not the JDS the entire plea) has been challenged and found wanting,

only a complete moron would claim that this doesn't raise the bar on these types of cases.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Your ISP will rollover on you in a New York Second.

Any "officer of the court" can issue a subpoena in a civil matter. A Plaintiff's counsel can issue a subpoena for ISP data with a discovery motion before trial. (US Laws.) The ISP will be in contempt of Court if they to not respond or motion to quash before that Court. What data may be handed over is regulated by local laws and then by the Court as relevant.

No ISP is going to incur legal expense over a piracy suit — they have no point to argue — piracy is an unlawful act ...

You want a link? Look up your local version of the Court Rules. This discovery and subpoena power may very some country to country.

Why believe me when you can spend money on lawyers ...

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I agree. ACS: Law will be extinct first when they have their hearing about being unethical in a few weeks. Then the US lawyers that copied them will be next.

It's about time that judges realised these people have no intentions whatsoever about stopping piracy, and just want to make money.

In the panel I took part on in interNEXT someone made a great point. All piracy is done by one person or one group of people. One member gets the stuff and seeds it.

It is very easy to find that person.

Yet the "lawyers" don't go after him, they send out 9,000 john doe blackmail letters...

I wonder why?

Of yes, because this is nothing to do with piracy and is everything to do with making as much money as possible. The leaked emails from ACS:Law prove this.

I thought it was a brilliant point.

What do you think?

I think you're full of it.

You keep taking the lame stance that tracking ip addresses is just a money making ploy...

But consider this concept genius-

What if the real idea was to try to get your money back?

Did you ever, even once, consider the amount of $ LOST by these companies and these extreme measures are being taken to *recoup their losses* from piracy?

Why of course not because it doesn't fit into your whiny rant.

Bottom line: companies are tired of getting ripped off and they will *succesfully* do whatever it takes to get their money back and then some.

Lawyers, Guns and Money

Adapt or die

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Caligari

I think you're full of it.

Ah, at least we have some common ground because my opinion of you is exactly the same!

Originally Posted by Caligari

You keep taking the lame stance that tracking ip addresses is just a money making ploy...

Hilarious. It is, love. Everyone involved has said so. ACS say so, even our very own Lightspeed has said so. Do try and keep up. Go and read the acs emails.

Originally Posted by Caligari

But consider this concept genius-

What if the real idea was to try to get your money back?

Wow. That is funny! So you make a film for - say - 50k. And some people who wouldn't ever have bought it pirate it, and you want to get money from them, so you send out 10k john doe blackmail letters to do that? Genius!

Originally Posted by Caligari

Did you ever, even once, consider the amount of $ LOST by these companies and these extreme measures are being taken to *recoup their losses* from piracy?

No. Because they all say they are doing it for the cash. Otherwise they would go for the SOURCE of the piracy to stop them losing all this cash you claim they are losing.

Or they'd go after IRC, and Usenet, and private FTP.

They ONLY reason this is do-able is because of the public nature of torrent trackers. It's nothing to do with piracy, and all to do with making bank.

If someone started a campaign against the rippers I would be all behind it, this is how little you understand of my thinking.

Originally Posted by Caligari

Why of course not because it doesn't fit into your whiny rant.

Or because it is a fallacy. You do the math.

Originally Posted by Caligari

Bottom line: companies are tired of getting ripped off and they will *succesfully* do whatever it takes to get their money back and then some.

Bottom line: Piracy is unsteoppable and some dispicable fraudsters are sending out blackmail letters to people to try and make money. Judges in the UK are now stopping this happening, and it looks like they are in the US too.

So, if you LIKE the idea of blackmailing people into paying you cash, you'd better fucking work fast, kid, cos that gravy train will be derailed by the judicial system this year.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Wow. That is funny! So you make a film for - say - 50k. And some people who wouldn't ever have bought it pirate it, and you want to get money from them, so you send out 10k john doe blackmail letters to do that? Genius!

and there you go again with the weak arguement of "well they wouldn't have bought it anyways."
it is amazing that you know every time in every case that those people would never have bought it in the first place! your clairvoyant powers are incredible!

but let's get beyond this angle for one minute.

what you're saying is that these people have pirated said material and should not be held responsible for their actions right? they should be in no way culpable for willfully downloading a copyrighted work?

What else needs to be said? You're trying to say these people are being blackmailed when in reality they are the law breakers.

Wow.

All of this aside i don't think this is a great way to stop piracy as there are simply more efficient methods, but it can instill fear, which is a good thing. If one guy gets sued for an illegal download you best believe at minimum 20 people in his direct line are going to know and most of them will think twice about downloading protected material.
And with coverage in the local news and the schools etc., the message will be heard.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Caligari

and there you go again with the weak arguement of "well they wouldn't have bought it anyways."
it is amazing that you know every time in every case that those people would never have bought it in the first place! your clairvoyant powers are incredible!

So, you are saying that the American judicial system is wrong and the judges are "weak"?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...lost-sales.ars

This isn't *my* argument, but a judge's.

Do you think he is stupid?

Originally Posted by Caligari

but let's get beyond this angle for one minute.

what you're saying is that these people have pirated said material and should not be held responsible for their actions right?

Fuck me sideways, are you being intentionally stupid or just trolling?

Please quote me saying anything that even RESEMBLES that.

Why do you struggle separating thinking that blackmailing innocent people is bad from piracy is good?

It's really not hard.

On one had you have me saying that sending blackmail letters to people that you have no proof committed any crime is bad. However you somehow seem to read those words as me saying piracy is great.

Once again, let me stress that I think piracy is bad. Of course it is, everyone apart from gideonmentalcase thinks that.

However, this position doesn't preclude me from thinking that the 2 bit ambulance chasing cunt lawyers are subhuman scumbags. Do you see? The two things are not mutually exclusive.

If someone can *prove* that someone downloaded a copyrighted work, then I am all for suing the fuckery out of them. Sadly, I've not seen any actual PROOF. An IP address is as far removed from proof as a picture of a cheeseburger is.

Originally Posted by Caligari

but it can instill fear, which is a good thing.

Damn right. It can install fear into decent credit card owning porn buyers thinking that 'we' are fucking outrageous cunts for threatening to blackmail people over porn. A teacher might think that he best not actually BUY membership to a porn site in case they decide to go public with the lists, much easier to just watch a tube, right!

We've got a bad enough rep already. Dialers, hidden prechecked cross sales, shit sites with no content, banging cards etc etc.

We really don't need to add quasiblackmail to the list of bad things the public thinks about us or we'll scare off the last few remaining prospects out there.

You need to look at the big picture.

Originally Posted by Caligari

And with coverage in the local news and the schools etc., the message will be heard.

All the 'message' does is increase people's awareness of how easy it is to steal porn. If you look at alexa around the time the Jamie RIAA case blew up you will see a HUGE increase in their traffic.

You would think the publicity would work against piracy, in fact, all evidence I've looked at proves the exact opposite and it educates people about how to pirate more efficiently.

Thanks for playing, pick up your goody bag at the door.