70 Year-Old Grandma Threatened Over BitTorrent Download

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If there is any justice in this world, copyright lawyers will rid the planet of dangerous criminals like this for good. Let this be a warning to all file sharing grannies around the world....you can't hide from justice!

As the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits continue to pile up in U.S. courts, more stories of what appear to be wrongfully accused persons hit mainstream media. A 70 year-old retired widow from San Francisco falls into this category. The grandma was recently ‘caught’ sharing porn on BitTorrent and was offered a $3,400 settlement, or the option to risk a $150,000 fine in a full court case.
Click to expand...
 
WTF was she "caught" sharing, Granny Panty Party IV or something? LOL
 
damn, I honestly want to burn down that law firm and feed that John Steele's Balls to the dogs, and share the whole vid in action over BitTorrent. :mad:
 
I was wondering what Amateurs Allure: Kim was and had to google. Hmmmmmmm. Whoever did it had good taste?
 
This is the problem we have because we do not have a LOSER PAY system.
Our whole legal system is RIGGED TO BENEFIT LAWYERS; not to protect peoples rights and property.
 
"As we’ve seen in the past, the lawyers don’t see Jane Doe’s age as an excuse, nor do they buy the claim that someone else may have used her unsecured wireless network to download files. Jane Doe has to pay up or convince the court she’s not guilty, they insist."

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Did these lawyers miss that in school?
 
Unlike other lawsuits, the aim of the copyright holders is not to take any of the defendants to court, but to get alleged infringers to pay a substantial cash settlement to make legal action go away. As has been reported in the past, many of the people suspected of sharing copyrighted material are wrongfully accused. The problem for them, however, is that fighting the case is more expensive than paying a ~$3000 settlement fee. Justice aside, settling seems to be the best option for many innocents.
Click to expand...
Why does this sound like protection racket?
 
I can't make an official statements until I see the items in questions.
 
pgaster said:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Did these lawyers miss that in school?
Click to expand...

And this is the problem... because SHE'S NOT BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME If she was, then she would be innocent until proven guilty. She's being sued for money though, which means innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
 
pgaster said:
"As we’ve seen in the past, the lawyers don’t see Jane Doe’s age as an excuse, nor do they buy the claim that someone else may have used her unsecured wireless network to download files. Jane Doe has to pay up or convince the court she’s not guilty, they insist."

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Did these lawyers miss that in school?
Click to expand...

IMO This is clearly an attempt at extortion whether she did it or not. These lawyers are basically insisting that people admit guilt before the trials even go to court. Basically insisting that she give up her constituational rights in order to avoid trouble. They threathen people with litigation, fines, public embarassment in an attempt to force them to settle out of court. But the fact of the matter is, it means nothing until it goes to court, and all the threatening letters mean jack if they cant convince a judge. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that a vast majority of these people they are suing cannot afford a lawyer nor have they the expertise to defend themselves.

The system is by no means perfect, but its not the system thats broken, its the lawyers.
 
Lawyer joke time ...

You have two terrorists and a lawyer in front of you
a loaded gun
and only two bullets, what do you do?

Shoot the lawyer twice!

-----------

What's the difference between a dead dog lying in the street and a dead lawyer lying in the street?

The dead dog has skid marks in front of it.

/rimshot!
 
I think this comes to mind:

eatlegal.jpg


We all wish...
 
Red Falcon said:
I think this comes to mind:

eatlegal.jpg


We all wish...
Click to expand...

Loving it. And I do like the idea of sending them all to an island overrun with flesh eating animals although I would figure even the T-Rex would spit it out afterword due to poor taste.
 
whats wrong with sharing porn ? haha its same as surfing free porn sites.
 
Sorry guys, don't blame the lawyers. On average, they get 30% of any settlement. $1020 is nothing for this kind of firm, where a partner likely charges ~400/hr +, otherwise.
 
...nor do they buy the claim that someone else may have used her unsecured wireless network to download files.
Click to expand...

Yeah because, you know, not like anybody ever uses their neighbors' wireless connections...
 
Oh great the RIAA or whoever it is this time trying to bamboozle people rather than come up with better copyright protection policies! Great!
 
Modred189 said:
Sorry guys, don't blame the lawyers.
Click to expand...
Blame the don, not the capos?

If these guys can't make use of their skills and knowledge without extorting little old ladies, maybe we've got too many of them and they should find a new line of work.
 
fattypants said:
Blame the don, not the capos?

If these guys can't make use of their skills and knowledge without extorting little old ladies, maybe we've got too many of them and they should find a new line of work.
Click to expand...

Put it this way: The RIAA is going to sue. There HAS to be a lawyer in there somewhere, and it's up to the client to control the goals of the case, not the lawyer. WHo knows, maybe at the beginning of these suits, they wanted to just sue, and an attorney convinced them to make settlement offers.
 
Modred189 said:
Sorry guys, don't blame the lawyers. On average, they get 30% of any settlement. $1020 is nothing for this kind of firm, where a partner likely charges ~400/hr +, otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's $3k times like 1,000. They send these letters out in mass.

I do find that the letters are beneficial in a way as they give you quite the heads up to destroy any sensitive evidence err I mean data. Makes their case a tad harder.
 
Modred189 said:
Sorry guys, don't blame the lawyers. On average, they get 30% of any settlement. $1020 is nothing for this kind of firm, where a partner likely charges ~400/hr +, otherwise.
Click to expand...

My earlier comments relayed my extreme feelings for lawyers. I honestly don't blame lawyers. It truly is the few that represent the many especially in the headlines. But these are the exact headlines that don't really bode well for their reputation.
 
Kenworth said:
My earlier comments relayed my extreme feelings for lawyers. I honestly don't blame lawyers. It truly is the few that represent the many especially in the headlines. But these are the exact headlines that don't really bode well for their reputation.
Click to expand...

Granted. WHICH KILLS ME. I'm going into IP law. :eek:
 
Modred189 said:
Put it this way: The RIAA is going to sue. There HAS to be a lawyer in there somewhere, and it's up to the client to control the goals of the case, not the lawyer. WHo knows, maybe at the beginning of these suits, they wanted to just sue, and an attorney convinced them to make settlement offers.
Click to expand...

Oh great the RIAA or whoever it is this time trying to bamboozle people rather than come up with better copyright protection policies! Great!Oh great the RIAA or whoever it is this time trying to bamboozle people rather than come up with better copyright protection policies! Great
Click to expand...

The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association Of America. They deal with music and sounds recordings. The MPAA is the Motion Picture Association Of America. They deal with Movies and motion pictures.

This case has nothing to do with the RIAA or the MPAA. If you had read the article you would know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top