Accused Movie Pirate Sues for Defamation and Millions in Damages
 

saw this on reddit today - should be interesting

Think he will win?

Full Story

I predict failure.

Hmm.. might argue that its more useful than most art.. I tried jerking it to this.. but nothing happened
http://www.lifeunfoldsblog.com/wp-co...epainting5.jpg

He'd stand a better chance saying that using his ip to trace him is unreliable and that the tactics some of these companies are using are shady

He admitted guilt. He fails.

Lets wait and see what the judge says.

This could get nasty.

your dildo isn't useful. i'm going to steal it and argue in court it isn't a useful art

He's from Kentucky. He fucks whats in the barn or in his mom's room. Fail, fail, fail.

Hopefully the courts make an example out of him.

You all clearly under under estimate the law

Interesting.

He will need to prove he doesn't pirate content, to win. A lot harder than just pointing to a poor way to identify pirates.

freeloading thieves can fuck off

where

he seems to be denying the claim repeatedly

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100856338/counterclaim

I know this is going to be difficult for you to wrap your little mind around, but "Fantalis further asks the court to rule that porn can?t be copyrighted as it is not a ?useful art.?" is enough to convince even the most lenient that he downloaded porn, he just does not think it can be copyrighted.

Who decides what is "useful" art. I mean, Titanic got best movie of the year, but I thought it was pretty useless.

I really can see this tactic falling apart as it did over here in the UK, Not a good road to go down and the solicitor had his photo, Tel no, along with his home address and members of his family and members of his company plastered all over the net.Plus he lost his company which was pretty well respected.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...racy-suspended

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law

Reminds me somewhat of that case where some dude sues another dude for stealing his stolen logs. Hilarious. The court actually used a "first come first serve" rule. However, the general rule after that is that someone with "unclean hands" can't use the court system to vindicate his rights regarding that subject matter.

so an ultra right wing religious person who would never watch porn could make that same argument.


btw even if he was not such a religious person he could still have bought porn on dvd and made that same statement.

all without ever downloading porn ever


And still doesn't mean he downloaded it from the torrent as he was accused

he could have paid for porn thru a membership and still not admitted to the copyright infringement he was accused of.


That 3 possible ways he can still oppose porn right to be copy writable and still not "admit to the crime" he was accused of.


if porn is not copyrightable as he accuses he wins because the entire claim is nothing more than a shake down of "we will tell everyone you downloaded porn" extortion.

As many you have quoted here that the reason people settle with you not because their guilty.

You are wrong, he is guilty. Case closed.

If he did not do it he would just say he did not do it. Really easy.

he did

2. denied in its entirety, including the footnotes

3. defendent has no personal knowlege of any of the movies referred to by plaintiff.

4. denied.

5. defendant denies that the plaintiff has any cause of action against him


and so on.

But then again, so does the judge.

Reminds me of an old joke:

How does a Kentucky mom know her daughter's on the rag?

Her son's dick tastes funny...

Well, yeah. You, me and anyone else with a half dozen or so working brain cells would come to that conclusion as well.

This bozo thought he had a better strategy however :1orglaugh

Good question. Useful enough to steal but not useful enough to pay for?

did you even read the complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100856338/counterclaim

he made all those complaints too

he included the report that showed printers were getting accused of downloading (spoofing)

the rulings that defined and ip address not being a person

the business practice of money grab offer and how it designed to only make money with shot gun settlement letters.

porn is not copyright-able is just one of 1/2 a dozen arguments he is making and he has to lose on every single one of them.

Weird, this is all I see when I read Gideon's posts.......

That is why if you go after people you should do it in Australia, where truth trumps all.

Don't they still have to do that thing in Americanland, what is it? Oh yes. Get PROOF?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I nailed it. It was too tough for you to wrap your brain around. Thanks for proving it.

They have proved it, that is why it is going to a court of law . . . the formalities. If he was innocent it never would have gone this far. :2 cents:

Just to clear up a few things here:

1) The counter-claimant is from Lexington, Colorado - not Lexington, Kentucky. So, unfortunately, we'll all have to come up with some other kind of cheap joke aimed at him, since (so far as I'm aware, at least) incest is not something commonly associated with people residing in Colorado. ;-)

2) With all due respect to baddog's interpretation of the one counter-claim, no court is going to read that as an admission of guilt. No way. gideon is absolutely right on this point; the "porn isn't copyrightable" claim is made because it is potentially dispositive. If Fantalis can persuade the court that he's right on that point, every claim Malibu has made against him is rendered moot.

3) Having stated #2 above, I also think the "porn isn't copyrightable" claim has very little prospect for success. Rather than try to explain why in my own words, I recommend reading this article that Marc Randazza wrote for XBIZ a while back. It lays out some of the relevant case law that governs the question of whether porn can be copyrighted, and notes that the court would have to break with several precedents in order to reach that conclusion regarding any sexually explicit depiction that has not already been found obscene by a trier of fact. It might be possible that the judge in this case can issue a declaratory judgment that the individual Malibu work in question is obscene, but I strongly, strongly doubt any judge will go so far out on a limb as to declare all porn to be ineligible for copyright protection.

4) It's pretty likely that none of the above will matter, one way or the other, because my guess is that this case will settle, with terms confidential, just as the Liuxia Wong/Hard Drive matter did.

Wake me up when its over.

17. Defendant denies this paragraph to that it alleges copyright infringement or any other unlawful or illegal conduct by the defendant. Among all other reasons stated herein, defendant was not at home on the date and the time of the activity alleged by exhibit C.

so according to you

i wasn't even in the house at the time of the crime is admitting he committed the crime.

remember this model has accused a dead man of copyright infringement because the wifi service was still active in his apartment AFTER he died.

there is one huge problem with the entire argument of "economic censorship"

Son of sam laws prohibited the sale of the content in question

Open source proves that you can still sell your content even though it not protected by the control of copyright.

The argument being made is that you can't because explictly denying the income earning ability you can't take away monopoly control that artificially raises it above
market equilibrium pricing even though there is a proven economic model that support the industry at a lower level.


That is a serious stretch of the legally establish principles too.

say whaaaaaa?

Just been reading those articles and the "porn isn't copyrightable" will cause a lot of problems



This footnote was incidental to the Court?s order, and inserted for context and flavor. However, two San Francisco attorneys ? Aaron McClellan and Steven Yuen ? and their client Liuxia Wong, took it as an invitation to reopen the question in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Wong was identified as the owner of the IP address used to torrent one of Hard Drive?s movies in an earlier lawsuit; she received a demand letter on that basis. Wong then filed a lawsuit, asking the Court, in part, to declare that she cannot be liable for copyright infringement because, as pornography, it cannot be copyrighted. Her argument comes down to this:

?Hard Drive?s work does not promote the progress of science.?
?Hard Drive?s work does not promote the useful arts.?
?Hard Drive?s work depicts obscene material.?
?Hard Drive?s work depicts criminal acts and/or conduct.?
?Hard Drive?s work is not copyrightable.?


Wong?s attorneys? argument that pornography cannot be copyrighted rests on two flawed premises. The first, that pornography is not copyrightable because it depicts unlawful conduct, has been eliminated since the California Supreme Court held in People vs. Freeman that pornography was not prostitution and not a crime. The second, that pornography is not a ?useful art? as contemplated by the Constitution, would impose an illegal, content-based restriction on copyright protection ? one that has been consistently rejected. These contentions do not reflect the law or any sane legal theory, but only the opportunistic morality of Ms. Wong and her attorneys. If successful, it would deprive the adult industry and many others of their ability to protect their original works. What is worse is that it would usher in a new era of the government acting as a censor, by using its power to deprive disfavored content of its constitutionally mandated incentives.

http://www.xbiz.com/articles/147189/

IMHO! such understanding is proper from the jury from the movie Idiocracy (not trying to argue and wont).

the man is stating an opinion.

following your train of thought, if someone say is wrong to be gay that person necessarily got buttfucked.

1. taking away copyright doesn't censor because it doesn't take away your right to sell the stuff you created (see open source)

2. it not constitutionally mandated incentives, it a constitutionally allowed incentive. And that allowance is conditional "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"





3. if taking away copyright /voiding then open source is dead, because the entire principle of forced barter of GPL would also be unconstitutional. In which your taking away a copyright protection of something that can prove it promotes the progress of science to protect something which can't prove it.

Also think he will lose.