Suing IP addresses being challenged.

[DamianJ]

Whilst Lightspeed et al boast about new business models sending threatening letters to people who pay the bill for an IP address, here in the UK, things aren't looking quite so rosy.

Us Brits pioneered this idea of sending blackmail letters to people who pay for an IP address that may or may not have infringed copyright. Davenport Lyons did it years ago. And the two people behind it went to the recently famous ACS Law. And now they are in a shit load of trouble.

Finally, someone has realised this is pretty sketchy behaviour. The regulatory body for lawyers thinks it's a bit shit to send threatening letters who have the intention of extracting money and not going to court. And they aren't too happy about the whole total lack of evidence thing.

"The pair are also accused of acting in the interests of Davenport Lyons, rather than those of their copyright-holding clients. They sent 6,113 demands for money and were "regarding the scheme which they were operating as a revenue-generating scheme", according to the SRA."

So they will face a hearing in March. Hopefully it will stop people thinking it is reasonable to pretend to try and sue an IP address.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...ort_lyons_sra/

[Agent 488]

fuck you pirate cunt.

i am retired.

- the tugboat.

[Davy]

I read that Google, Yahoo and other companies charge about $25 to hand out private user data to the government. That quote came from the "crack pot" Adam Curry, so it would need to be double checked. Still, it is a sick way of doing business.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Agent 488

fuck you pirate cunt.

i am retired.

- the tugboat.

I pirated your Mom.

She was fucking shit.

[borked]

https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17719822&postcount=57

Originally Posted by borked

In other news, Davenport Lyons is up in court in March charged with "knowingly targeting the innocent"

The Brits have been there, done that. It will take time before the penny drops across the channel.

I mentioned this in a slightly less in-your-face way. It got lost, so glad to see plan B put into action ;)

I despise these methods purely for this reason - glad the SRA is doing something about it....

[borked]

However, it has to be said, this will only affect the lawyer/solicitor but I think even this plus all that's gone on in the Uk the last few years, not many/if any lawyers will touch this stuff with a barge pole.

The US however is a different story... for example, the lawyer SL has on the job isn't even a copyright lawyer if I understand correctly, so in that case, all bets are off.

Still, it's safe to say that IP-based revenue is country-restricted, whereas real copyright infringement cases need not be so.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I pirated your Mom.

She was fucking shit.

AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH

[AzteK]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I pirated your Mom.

She was fucking shit.

lol mama jokes.

Yo mama was so fat I ran out of bandwidth....ooooo.

[borked]

Originally Posted by Davy

I read that Google, Yahoo and other companies charge about $25 to hand out private user data to the government. That quote came from the "crack pot" Adam Curry, so it would need to be double checked. Still, it is a sick way of doing business.

No, I read something along those lines - google was like 100+, yahoo 25 but microsoft was free...

it was an interesting read, especially the author's take on the matter... let me dig that out

--edit - ok, forget that google 100$ comment. Article here that I read: "The documents confirm that Microsoft does not charge for surveillance. But they show that Google charges $25 and Yahoo! $29."

....


On the one hand, Microsoft could be commended for choosing not to make a single penny from government surveillance. But on the other, Soghoian says, the company should at least charge that penny, as that would create a paper trail. "You don't like companies to make money spying on their customers, they should charge something," Soghoian tells us. "You can't FOIA Microsoft's invoices, because they don't send any invoices."

[Barry-xlovecam]

In a criminal trial — beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil trial — the preponderance of the evidence.

[Just Mike]

Originally Posted by AzteK

lol mama jokes.

Yo mama was so fat I ran out of bandwidth....ooooo.

Love Mama jokes too!

"Yo mama so fat she licks other peoples fingers at kentucky fried chicken"

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

In a criminal trial ? beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil trial ? the preponderance of the evidence.

this is for the pay us blackmail letter campaigns

it about the shoddy evidence used to make the threats, and it is a purely civil issue.

so i don't understand the comment.

if anything it means that if the evidence is too shoddy for a civil trial that level of evidence doesn't have prayer of surviving in a criminal trial.

[will76]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Whilst Lightspeed et al boast about new business models sending threatening letters to people who pay the bill for an IP address, here in the UK, things aren't looking quite so rosy.

Us Brits pioneered this idea of sending blackmail letters to people who pay for an IP address that may or may not have infringed copyright. Davenport Lyons did it years ago. And the two people behind it went to the recently famous ACS Law. And now they are in a shit load of trouble.

Finally, someone has realised this is pretty sketchy behaviour. The regulatory body for lawyers thinks it's a bit shit to send threatening letters who have the intention of extracting money and not going to court. And they aren't too happy about the whole total lack of evidence thing.

"The pair are also accused of acting in the interests of Davenport Lyons, rather than those of their copyright-holding clients. They sent 6,113 demands for money and were "regarding the scheme which they were operating as a revenue-generating scheme", according to the SRA."

So they will face a hearing in March. Hopefully it will stop people thinking it is reasonable to pretend to try and sue an IP address.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...ort_lyons_sra/

Only in the UK

[Rochard]

I run a gaming clan for the PC version of COD, and the "Black Ops" came out and we were discussing it via our admins and it was mentioned that a number of people had already downloaded the game from torrent sites before it was in the stores.

I don't care how you look at this, this is illegal. They are using the software without purchasing it, and broke the law multiple times over in the process. The easy way to catch them is to find it on line, and then cross reference it with everyone who illegally downloaded it. Then you legally sue them. According to law, you send them a letter explaining that you have proof they illegally downloaded your copyrighted protected material without paying for it, and give them a chance to settle out of court.

It's really just like a speeding ticket. You get a letter in the mail saying you got a ticket, and you can either just pay the fine or take your chances in court.

That's how the fucking law works.

[botfurom]

omg......

[Nathan]

Rochard,

If you lend your car to a friend and he speeds and you get a ticket, do you have to pay the fine?

If your car is stolen and they speed then return it to you and you get a ticket, do you have to pay the fine? Will you if it is hard to prove it was stolen from you for a few hours?

Honest questions here. Do not know how it works in us law.

[d-null]

Nathan, if it is photo-radar, then the owner of the car is liable for the fine, but they are not penalized on their driving record as they would be if caught specifically in the act. With photo radar, it is more of a money grab by localities instead of being a punitive thing for a crime, which is why they tend to set them up in locations where normally law abiding drivers might make a mistake and get caught, such as after a sign changes the limit or in a clear area with a downgrade.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I a number of people had already downloaded the game from torrent sites before it was in the stores.

I don't care how you look at this, this is illegal.

Of course it is. What is your point?

Originally Posted by Rochard

The easy way to catch them is to find it on line, and then cross reference it with everyone who illegally downloaded it. Then you legally sue them. According to law, you send them a letter explaining that you have proof they illegally downloaded your copyrighted protected material without paying for it, and give them a chance to settle out of court.

In order to 'legally sue' someone you need proof a crime has been committed, right? In the UK that is how it goes.

What is the proof of your little video game people infringed copyright? I have a feeling you're suggesting an IP address.

You do know an IP address isn't proof, right?

You understand how it could be unsecured wifi, so it could be a neighbour. It could be someone's nephew. Could be a rented building where the landlord pays for the internet. Could be a spoofed IP. Could be a printer's IP.

So sadly, you cannot sue an IP address.

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's really just like a speeding ticket. You get a letter in the mail saying you got a ticket, and you can either just pay the fine or take your chances in court.

That's how the fucking law works.

The fucking law works on evidence. If you get a traffic ticket, they will have a PICTURE of you shooting the red light. They will have a PICTURE of you breaking the speed limit. They will have a PICTURE of you parked illegally. You cannot contest it as there is PROOF.

The problem with the blackmail letter game, is that there is no proof at all. This is why not a SINGLE case has gone to court. Because the case would be laughed out as there is no PROOF. ACS Law, who are now facing review, boasted about doing this just for the money. As Lightspeed has here.

Rochard, this was NEVER about being right legally. It was about extracting money from scared people.

Innocent until proven guilty, right? Unless they are Mexicans, obviously.

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's really just like a speeding ticket. You get a letter in the mail saying you got a ticket, and you can either just pay the fine or take your chances in court.

Except its being done in a way where you are sending out speeding tickets to people who don't have a car.

[will76]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Except its being done in a way where you are sending out speeding tickets to people who don't have a car.

mmmm no. Rochard's analogy is right. It is like the red light/speeding ticket cameras. The person who owns the car gets the ticket regardless who is driving.

The person who's name is on the internet access account and pays the bill obviously owns a computer. Just the same as the person who's name the car registered to own and pays the registration fees.

However, the camera stuff is getting challenged and has been removed in some areas.

Originally Posted by DamianJ

The fucking law works on evidence. If you get a traffic ticket, they will have a PICTURE of you shooting the red light. They will have a PICTURE of you breaking the speed limit. They will have a PICTURE of you parked illegally. You cannot contest it as there is PROOF.

The problem with the blackmail letter game, is that there is no proof at all. This is why not a SINGLE case has gone to court. Because the case would be laughed out as there is no PROOF. ACS Law, who are now facing review, boasted about doing this just for the money. As Lightspeed has here.

Rochard, this was NEVER about being right legally. It was about extracting money from scared people.

Innocent until proven guilty, right? Unless they are Mexicans, obviously.

There will be a picture of YOUR CAR not you. They can't make out from the picture who is driving. I know first hand. I've gotten tickets from someone else driving my car, and guess what I had to pay them and it wasn't me that was running the red light. Just like the picture proves the CAR was involved in breaking the law, the ip they collect proves that the computer/modem was used.

You are innocent until proven guilty. Go to court if you didn't do it. You better believe if I didn't download the shit and they sued me that I would defend myself. Most of these people who did it, don't have the money to pay. I highly doubt that many, if any people who really didn't do it will just fork over the money.

You are innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately that is the way the law works. Anyone can sue anyone for just about any reason.

Originally Posted by DamianJ

In order to 'legally sue' someone you need proof a crime has been committed, right? In the UK that is how it goes.

You do know we are not in the UK ??

[Paul Markham]

So removing the domain of pirate sites looks like the best bet.

So far.

Why do I get the impression Damian is smiling with glee at the avenue of suing pirates is likely to go down?

[Agent 488]

the pirate sites that have had their domain seized thus far have just moved their traffic to a new domain and their operations completely offshore.

[Phoenix]

suing someone without proof and just using threatening language or suggesting that you will ruin them in court because you have more money should be illegal.

that being said...if you are stealing from people you should expect a backlash

hard road to navigate, lets hop in the future it becomes more clear on how to go after illegal downloaders

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Agent 488

the pirate sites that have had their domain seized thus far have just moved their traffic to a new domain and their operations completely offshore.

Moving offshore won't help if your domain disappears. Moving domain makes advertising on Pirate sites less effectual. The loss of traffic while they get people to learn of them again will hurt. Risking paying for advertising on a site that might disappear tomorrow will make advertisers very wary of spending up front.

Won't deter those who want to run sites for free. But it will help.

My belief is stopping piracy will do little to nothing to stem the flow of customers away from porn. Sites like Pornhub and Youporn won't give up and go away. They will simply buy licenses.

My stance against piracy is why should someone else make money from my hard work?

Not that him doing so is taking money out of mine.

THE ONLY THING. That will bring porn Tubes down and return customers is a return to hosting and BW costs of 2005 or earlier. Amazing how many were cheering as costs plummeted. All it did was allowed more people to flood the market with more free porn.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

suing someone without proof and just using threatening language or suggesting that you will ruin them in court because you have more money should be illegal.

that being said...if you are stealing from people you should expect a backlash

hard road to navigate, lets hop in the future it becomes more clear on how to go after illegal downloaders

Agreed. The people suing have to have the will to take them to court. It's up to those being sued to ask for an out of court settlement.

[borked]

"An IP address does not however necessarily lead to a conclusion that the ISP account holder has infringed copyright or authorised another person to infringe copyright. There were other factual possibilities known to [Gore and Miller] such as unauthorised access or a change in IP address after a 24-hour gap following modem switch off follow or other such occurence."

The submission highlights customers' use of poorly-secured Wi-Fi routers and ISPs' deployment of DHCP as problems with the evidence that were allegedly known to Davenport Lyons.

Well, the courts will have a say in this matter as this is the evidence being put up against Davenport Lyons. If the court agrees and slaps a fine on them, then there is not a single lawyer in the UK that will take on clients wishing to pursue this ISP account-holder badgering process.

[Agent 488]

read what i wrote. this had already happened. domains were seized. they got a new one and the traffic followed. when the new domains are seized they will repeat it. use the google machine for further information. this is not hypothetical, this is how it has already played out.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Moving offshore won't help if your domain disappears. Moving domain makes advertising on Pirate sites less effectual. The loss of traffic while they get people to learn of them again will hurt. Risking paying for advertising on a site that might disappear tomorrow will make advertisers very wary of spending up front.

Won't deter those who want to run sites for free. But it will help.

My belief is stopping piracy will do little to nothing to stem the flow of customers away from porn. Sites like Pornhub and Youporn won't give up and go away. They will simply buy licenses.

My stance against piracy is why should someone else make money from my hard work?

Not that him doing so is taking money out of mine.

THE ONLY THING. That will bring porn Tubes down and return customers is a return to hosting and BW costs of 2005 or earlier. Amazing how many were cheering as costs plummeted. All it did was allowed more people to flood the market with more free porn.

[Noe]

In the US if you have the money for a lawyer, you can sue anyone for just about anything you want to...one of the downfalls to our system. Good thing gfy is not limited to the US lmao.

[Agent 488]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

THE ONLY THING. That will bring porn Tubes down and return customers is a return to hosting and BW costs of 2005 or earlier. Amazing how many were cheering as costs plummeted. All it did was allowed more people to flood the market with more free porn.

i really hope you don't think this will or could actually happen.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Agent 488

read what i wrote. this had already happened. domains were seized. they got a new one and the traffic followed. when the new domains are seized they will repeat it. use the google machine for further information. this is not hypothetical, this is how it has already played out.

I never said the traffic wouldn't follow. I said it would disrupt the advertisers profit. Unless all the traffic follows overnight and the new domain never gets banned again and again.

i really hope you don't think this will or could actually happen.

No but it's about as "pie in the sky" wishful thinking as those who wish piracy will be stopped and their traffic will flow back.

Piracy isn't the problem and eliminating it won't mean squat to peoples incomes in the legit porn biz.

The problem is sponsors who spend way too much on what's outside their site and way too little on what's inside their sites.

Damian once said something like. If the you're selling hamburgers and someone starts giving them away. Sell Kobe beef.

In essence he's right. The problem is Hamburger meat is $5 a pound, Kobe beef is $120 (approx). And making people throw away their hamburger meat and replace it with fillet steak. Then paying the bill to promote the site and generate traffic.

[Paul Markham]

The solution to declining sales isn't eliminating piracy. It might help a bit but not much. As I said the big Tubes would go licensed content and still retain all their traffic.

The problem is the sites that bring in the money are locked into a system that no longer works in 2010.

The cost of traffic, in it's entirety, is far too high. With the other costs such as banking/processing, admin/office, programming, legal/accounting, overheads, it leaves too little for the product.

Even then these costs tie us into a model of $30 a month recurring. Which a lot of customers simply don't want. Or sites aren't worth a 30 day membership.

Adding things like live content, live chat, forums and great content cost money. Doing all that on the budget most people have for the product is impossible.

Not doing it we are always going to be selling a months supply of hamburgers while Tubes give hamburgers away for free.

[Agent 488]

if there is traffic, there are advertisers. simple as that. anyway some of these sites have set up their own ad networks and manage their own inventory, and i suppose if it got really bad they will just sell their own products and websites and stop relying on advertisers.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I never said the traffic wouldn't follow. I said it would disrupt the advertisers profit. Unless all the traffic follows overnight and the new domain never gets banned again and again.



No but it's about as "pie in the sky" wishful thinking as those who wish piracy will be stopped and their traffic will flow back.

Piracy isn't the problem and eliminating it won't mean squat to peoples incomes in the legit porn biz.

The problem is sponsors who spend way too much on what's outside their site and way too little on what's inside their sites.

Damian once said something like. If the you're selling hamburgers and someone starts giving them away. Sell Kobe beef.

In essence he's right. The problem is Hamburger meat is $5 a pound, Kobe beef is $120 (approx). And making people throw away their hamburger meat and replace it with fillet steak. Then paying the bill to promote the site and generate traffic.

[borked]

Paul, adding live content, live chat, forums etc isn't what will survive above tubes - it's an idea granted, but I don't agree.

When there are sites delivering free HD content of 30+ minute clips, it's an impossible struggle to force a porn surfer to get out his credit card for something similar.

There are comments on mainstram boards that have been posted here that show that naive (ie non-gfy crowd) porn surfers believe these tubes are the studios releasing their content for free. That's a tough battle.

I didn't see how tgps unfolded as I wasn't in adult then, but I saw how blogs then tubes unfolded into the adult world and how tubes then seized that advantage to go present bittorrent content for free to all.

In your analogy of hamburgers - if you are offering a Big Mac with bacon and hot sauce and fries and a large cola for xx$ and just next door I can get a regular beefburger for free, same meat, same tase, no frills.... When I'm hungry, I know where I'll go.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Why do I get the impression Damian is smiling with glee at the avenue of suing pirates is likely to go down?

Paul, love, it's not an avenue for suing pirates. Bless your ignorance. There isn't a SINGLE case that has gone to court. This isn't about SUING people. ACS admitted this. Lightspeed admitted this.

It is an avenue for scaring people into paying money without having any proof they committed a crime.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by will76

You do know we are not in the UK ??

Who the fuck is WE?

I am in the UK.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Moving offshore won't help if your domain disappears. Moving domain makes advertising on Pirate sites less effectual. The loss of traffic while they get people to learn of them again will hurt. Risking paying for advertising on a site that might disappear tomorrow will make advertisers very wary of spending up front.

Paul, this happened already. The pirate sites relaunched the next day with a new domain.

It doesn't work. It didn't halt traffic. It didn't deter advertisers.

Bless you!

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Won't deter those who want to run sites for free. But it will help.

It didn't and it won't.

[SteveLightspeed]

DamianJ, why do you always sound like such a bitter cunt?

[fatfoo]

It's difficult to think about an IP address. A computer may have multiple users. So, it's not really about the IP. It's more about which user did the crime.

[Tjeezers]

Nothing wrong with downloading stuff, if you never intended to pay for it...

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by SteveLightspeed

DamianJ, why do you always sound like such a bitter cunt?

Ah fuck it.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam View Post
In a criminal trial ? beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil trial ? the preponderance of the evidence.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

this is for the pay us blackmail letter campaigns

it about the shoddy evidence used to make the threats, and it is a purely civil issue.

so i don't understand the comment.

if anything it means that if the evidence is too shoddy for a civil trial that level of evidence doesn't have prayer of surviving in a criminal trial.

Let me shed some light on this:

An auto is illegally parked and is issued a ticket (a civil infraction and not a crime) ? his auto was parked illegally even if he did not drive it personally.

The same car is involved in a fatal accident ? vehicular manslaughter ? that is a criminal offense (involuntary or with intent (depends on the circumstances)). The owner will not be convicted of vehicular manslaughter unless the state can prove he was actually driving the car.

Copyright infringement (barring aggravating circumstance) is a civil tort ? a civil lawsuit and not an indictable criminal offense.

You may call this blackmail and some will agree. A damaged Plaintiff (read copyright holder) would say he simply wants compensation for the theft of his property.

Who is right here?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Let me shed some light on this:

An auto is illegally parked and is issued a ticket (a civil infraction and not a crime) — his auto was parked illegally even if he did not drive it personally.

The same car is involved in a fatal accident — vehicular manslaughter — that is a criminal offense (involuntary or with intent (depends on the circumstances)). The owner will not be convicted of vehicular manslaughter unless the state can prove he was actually driving the car.

Copyright infringement (barring aggravating circumstance) is a civil tort — a civil lawsuit and not an indictable criminal offense.

You may call this blackmail and some will agree. A damaged Plaintiff (read copyright holder) would say he simply wants compensation for the theft of his property.

Who is right here?

but the point is that ip address as proof has been knocked down.

with an open wifi it actually any machine within 150 feet (given range, and lackluster encryption standards)

so it really like saying that your get a ticket for parking your car illegally, because your car is the same color as the car parked illegally.

That the point

an ip address is not proper identification (the equilvalent of a licience plate registered to the owner)

you can blame the DMCA btw, by making it illegal to circumvent encryption, they pretty much killed the advancement of encryption key, of course hacking tools didn't stop improving (and neither did processing power) so the encryption keys that would have stopped a brute force attack 10 years ago do shit against the current tools.

[Barry-xlovecam]

28 : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-p2p-users.ars
29 : http://www.copyrightdefenseagency.com/
30 : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...1#comments-bar
35 : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...s-from-sap.ars

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

but the point is that ip address as proof has been knocked down.

with an open wifi it actually any machine within 150 feet (given range, and lackluster encryption standards)

so it really like saying that your get a ticket for parking your car illegally, because your car is the same color as the car parked illegally.

That the point

an ip address is not proper identification (the equilvalent of a licience plate registered to the owner)

you can blame the DMCA btw, by making it illegal to circumvent encryption, they pretty much killed the advancement of encryption key, of course hacking tools didn't stop improving (and neither did processing power) so the encryption keys that would have stopped a brute force attack 10 years ago do shit against the current tools.

Tell it to the judge ...

[Redrob]

We shouldn't go after the end users. We have enough PR problems without alienating our customers.

Most of the time I think we should go after the uploaders and hosting servers.

Just my opinion.

[Barry-xlovecam]

"[w]e should go after the uploaders and hosting servers. .."

Morally, the uploaders and hosting servers are the "enablers." Eliminate them and the casual infringer might become either a free-wanker or a porn buyer.

With bootleg full feature movies available free ? 99.9% will continue to be free-wankers.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Redrob

We shouldn't go after the end users. We have enough PR problems without alienating our customers.

Most of the time I think we should go after the uploaders and hosting servers.

Just my opinion.

the uploader and the host are the only people with a guarrenteed fair use right

uploaders are using the swarm as a backup device
and the tracker are nothing more then the provider of that service

going after the downloaders is the right action, the problem is that you should actually have proof that they are guilty, real evidence that the person who you are accusing of downloading is actually the person downloading the content.

[will76]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Who the fuck is WE?

I am in the UK.

Damn dude you can't even follow your own thread???? you started this thread and this entire thread has been about what Steve and his group have been doing in the US. You go on and fucking on about what is happening in the UK.... hence me saying, you do know that we are not in the UK.

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Whilst Lightspeed et al boast about new business models sending threatening letters to people who pay the bill for an IP address, here in the UK, things aren't looking quite so rosy.

I don't think Steve et al give a fuck what is happening in the UK.

[will76]

Originally Posted by Redrob

We shouldn't go after the end users. We have enough PR problems without alienating our customers.

Most of the time I think we should go after the uploaders and hosting servers.

Just my opinion.

it's the go after the lowest hanging fruit approach. They wont dare sue any big sites because they know those sites likely make more than they do and they don't want a full blown battle in court where they might lose.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by SteveLightspeed

DamianJ, why do you always sound like such a bitter cunt?

What a well reasoned counterpoint, Steve.

/me shakes his head