Comcast Kills Business Model of Piracy Settlement Firm

Modred189 said:
But how? How do you separate companies with legitimate rights in a product, legitimate belief they have located someone who has violated their rights to that product and wants compensation and an agreement to stop infringing?
There was an interesting article on Ars a few months ago with an interview with a small "adult movie" company, and the piracy issues they run into gutting their revenue. How do you enable that company to send out C&D letters and even compensation requests/lawsuit threats and also stop (c) trolls?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's arguing about the nessesity of regulating piracy. It's the shady companies that attempt to abuse people's ignorance of the law for profit. Google Malibu Media.
 
Pringle said:
I don't think anyone's arguing about the nessesity of regulating piracy. It's the shady companies that attempt to abuse people's ignorance of the law for profit. Google Malibu Media.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. But how do you separate the two. At the ground level, where all this happens, they look almost identical.
 
Modred189 said:
SMH...
When the court "adds on various charges or fees for the failure to pay," which are statutory in most cases, they do so via a court order. To disobey a court order is... wait for it... contempt of court: A criminal issue, not civil.
Click to expand...

Yes. A criminal issue stemming from a civil case, effectively without any action on the part of the loser in the civil suit. The fact that the courts can transform it in that fashion is rather unsettling.
 
Modred189 said:
But how do you separate the two. At the ground level, where all this happens, they look almost identical.
Click to expand...

Very easily if you read any of the coorespondence sent from these "lawyers". Seriously, Google Malibu Media, it's a fun read when you're bored.
 
But the Malibu Media cases are good examples of what happens to these jokers when they do go to court: they don't last long. Same with Righthaven.

i.e., the system is policing itself. One of the reasons why the RIAA and MPAA have given up.
 
Modred189 said:
But the Malibu Media cases are good examples of what happens to these jokers when they do go to court: they don't last long. Same with Righthaven.

i.e., the system is policing itself. One of the reasons why the RIAA and MPAA have given up.
Click to expand...

Very true, but in many many cases, these don't go to court. So grandpa writes a $2000 check because he got a letter in the mail telling me he's violated the law by downloading Saving Ryan's Privates. Those don't go reported. The ones that go to court do. These Copyright Trolls are still very much active, it's just going to take some time before cases such as this one reach media and inform poor old grandpa
 
Pringle said:
Very true, but in many many cases, these don't go to court. So grandpa writes a $2000 check because he got a letter in the mail telling me he's violated the law by downloading Saving Ryan's Privates. Those don't go reported. The ones that go to court do. These Copyright Trolls are still very much active, it's just going to take some time before cases such as this one reach media and inform poor old grandpa
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. The thing is, I am somewhat jaded, and don't have a lot of sympathy for people who roll over instead of doing a little research or calling an attorney (who will ALWAYS do a consult for free). I guess being an IP attorney (no matter what side you're on) does that to you...

But FYI, Righthaven is gone, afaik. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-name-lawyer-who-it-still-owes-money-to.shtml
 
Pringle said:
Very true, but in many many cases, these don't go to court. So grandpa writes a $2000 check because he got a letter in the mail telling me he's violated the law by downloading Saving Ryan's Privates. Those don't go reported. The ones that go to court do. These Copyright Trolls are still very much active, it's just going to take some time before cases such as this one reach media and inform poor old grandpa
Click to expand...


I know exactly how this one is. Two years ago my father received one of these letters stating if he didn't pay $2500 they would be sued for $150,000 for downloading The Hurtlocker. My dad can barely navigate to firefox and check his email let alone use P2P software and download it. After investigating, found how someone got into his wifi and was using his internet.

I don’t know how it isn't extortion, if it wasn't for me being available to talk to him and talk him out of paying it he would have and he didn't do anything.
 
pretty sure you can make it look like anyone has illegally downloaded a file, just transmit the file at their IP, yeah their router will reject it as it didn't request it but from the ISPs view the file got sent to them.
 
Nexillus said:
I know exactly how this one is. Two years ago my father received one of these letters stating if he didn't pay $2500 they would be sued for $150,000 for downloading The Hurtlocker. My dad can barely navigate to firefox and check his email let alone use P2P software and download it. After investigating, found how someone got into his wifi and was using his internet.

I don’t know how it isn't extortion, if it wasn't for me being available to talk to him and talk him out of paying it he would have and he didn't do anything.
Click to expand...
(probably for the fourth time in this thread) I'm not defending such actions. But the norm isn't a bunch of innocent people being falsely assigned fines. Does it happen? Sure. Is that okay? No. But let's face it; an overwhelming majority of the people who receive warnings, take-downs, suits, etc. ARE downloading the material, knowingly, and whether or not they agree with the law, are subject to penalties.

I'm not clear with what happened with your dad; how was it proved that he wasn't the person who acquired the content in a way that convinced whomever it was that issued him the notice?
 
teh_chem said:
I'm not clear with what happened with your dad; how was it proved that he wasn't the person who acquired the content in a way that convinced whomever it was that issued him the notice?
Click to expand...
But is that really the question that matters? When you sign up for an ISP, don't you take responsibility for everything done on your connection?
 
Modred189 said:
But is that really the question that matters? When you sign up for an ISP, don't you take responsibility for everything done on your connection?
Click to expand...
It's the question that matters to me; you don't often hear of people beating these things, I'm curious what they had to do in order to convince them that his dad wasn't the offender.
 
Pringle said:
Or is punishing ignorance acceptable?
Click to expand...

Well that's the question: in proportion, how often are innocent/ignorant people being punished compared to those who are actually liable for downloading something illegally (whether they knew it was illegal or not)?
If it's massively favoring getting the liable ones, then the answer, I think, is yes. It's impossible t get it 100% right all of the time. Just as the guilty will go unnoticed, so too with the innocent get caught up in the system. The goal is to minimize the errors, positive and negative.

That said, i suspect it is indeed rare that someone "innocent" pays.
 
The company went public last month and works with prominent partners including Warner Bros. and BMI.
Click to expand...
Two companies consumers should stop doing business with.
 
I need to find that court case I used to have where the judge said the an IP address isn't a person. I think it was that SWAT one referenced above.

Basically, if anyone or anything has access other than you (virus, others in the home, somebody hijacking your wifi, wardrivers, etc.) then you can't pinpoint one person as the user responsible. Even if you have a password, competent hackers, shoddy internet use, or plain bad luck could compromise it.
 
teh_chem said:
It's the question that matters to me; you don't often hear of people beating these things, I'm curious what they had to do in order to convince them that his dad wasn't the offender.
Click to expand...

It's very easy, actually. Believe it or not when it comes to cases that involve groups like Malibu Media, cases rarely go to court. They don't want to go to court. Because, as has been said in this thread, they know the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. And in this case, drawing a definitive line between person and IP just can't be done legally and without great expense on the company's end. So they figure the one person out of ten that actually do fall for it, are worth the other 9 that aren't as ignorant.

tldr; it's actually very easy to avoid court and any expense when dealing with a situation such as Malibu Media.
 
teh_chem said:
By that logic, all settlements are a form of extortion then. It doesn't mean that someone is better off going to court.

I'm not defending the absurdity of these situations that have only been exacerbated by the DMCA, and the absurd settlement amounts reached in civil courts for other lawsuits. But don't treat things on a universal basis. If someone is issued a notification that they were found to be downloading/uploading item X, I'm fine with the person having the option of paying a settlement amount for having conducted those actions where the amount is pretty close to the actual retail price for the item(s).

And this action by comcast does not mean it's good for the accused customers. If anything, it's worse, as people who are being sent notices are not being sent complete notices. If given the choice, I'd rather know up-front that I can pay $10 for downloading a movie, rather than being shielded that info by comcast, and getting a more severe lawsuit filed against me.

Though as someone else already pointed out in this thread, the company issuing these settlement offerings probably doesn't follow through to actual litigation, and just relies on some small percent of people just paying--and essentially collecting work-free money.

Again, my point isn't to excuse these entities. But I'd rather get a notification to pay $10 for downloading a movie than a notification to pay $20,000 for downloading a movie.
Click to expand...


Correct. All settlements are, technically, a form of extortion.

Extortion, which is not limited to the taking of property, involves the verbal or written instillation of fear that something will happen to the victim if he or she does not comply with the extortionist's will. Another key distinction is that extortion always involves a verbal or written threat, whereas robbery does not. In United States federal law, extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon.

Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion.
Click to expand...

So yes. What this company is doing *IS* extortion.

Granted, the prices they're asking are INFINTELY more reasonable than the Jamie Thomas-type awards coming out of our court systems that threaten to consign people, effectively permanently, to debt-slavery.

But that still doesn't change the fact that it's extortion.
 
The problem is that the word "extortion" has a negative connotation. Settlement of legal issues is NOT a negative thing. In fact, it is, and has always been, encouraged by the legal systems of this and other (maybe ALL other) countries. Lawsuits are long, expensive, inefficient and completely inappropriate for every situation. There's a reason why more than 90% of lawsuits settle before trial, and why an even larger amount are settled before a suit is even filed.

As I mentioned above, how do you prevent people from abusing C&D/demand letters, while still not infringing on the ability for parties to settle genuine issues out of court?
 
Chas said:
Correct. All settlements are, technically, a form of extortion.



So yes. What this company is doing *IS* extortion.

Granted, the prices they're asking are INFINTELY more reasonable than the Jamie Thomas-type awards coming out of our court systems that threaten to consign people, effectively permanently, to debt-slavery.

But that still doesn't change the fact that it's extortion.
Click to expand...
You're only arguing semantics. By that logic, breathing is bad for you because oxygen is toxic to cells. Therefore we should stop breathing too.
 
Modred189 said:
The problem is that the word "extortion" has a negative connotation. Settlement of legal issues is NOT a negative thing.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the losing side.

Actually, settlement usually IS a negative thing. For BOTH sides. Nobody got what they actually wanted.


As I mentioned above, how do you prevent people from abusing C&D/demand letters, while still not infringing on the ability for parties to settle genuine issues out of court?
Click to expand...

You make the penalties for such abuse punitively expensive.
You also move to a complete "loser pays" system with defined caps and set court schedules to prevent lawyers from racking up god's own legal fees.
 
teh_chem said:
You're only arguing semantics. By that logic, breathing is bad for you because oxygen is toxic to cells. Therefore we should stop breathing too.
Click to expand...

So, when you disagree with something, your opinion is "discussion of face".

Whereas I come in and drop a textbook definition on you and I'm "arguing semantics".

Sorry, go play that game elsewhere. :rolleyes:
 
Chas said:
So, when you disagree with something, your opinion is "discussion of face".

Whereas I come in and drop a textbook definition on you and I'm "arguing semantics".

Sorry, go play that game elsewhere. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm not the one ignoring logic when it suits my needs. Your logic would argue oxygen is bad.

Sometimes the definition of things is not binary.

Extortion is the unlawful coercion (to pay money), when the other party hasn't committed a crime or wrongful act. If you were caught red handed, being offered a settlement is not extortion. You can't logically obfuscate things by arguing that the legal system makes it too difficult for 'normal' people to fight something court, therefore their only option is to pay a settlement and then use that as your grounds for being extortion.
 
satsunada said:
I need to find that court case I used to have where the judge said the an IP address isn't a person. I think it was that SWAT one referenced above.

Basically, if anyone or anything has access other than you (virus, others in the home, somebody hijacking your wifi, wardrivers, etc.) then you can't pinpoint one person as the user responsible. Even if you have a password, competent hackers, shoddy internet use, or plain bad luck could compromise it.
Click to expand...
you have that backwards. you're responsible for what happens on your lines whether you were the perpetrator or not. if someone leeches your service you can still be held under the rationale that you didn't secure your line adequately.
 
Chas said:
Tell that to the losing side.

Actually, settlement usually IS a negative thing. For BOTH sides. Nobody got what they actually wanted.




You make the penalties for such abuse punitively expensive.
You also move to a complete "loser pays" system with defined caps and set court schedules to prevent lawyers from racking up god's own legal fees.
Click to expand...

WADR you have no idea what you're talking about. A settlement is always preferable to both sides.
Oh, and those schedules you're talking about? Already exist. And what is a defined cap?
 
teh_chem said:
Extortion is the unlawful coercion (to pay money), when the other party hasn't committed a crime or wrongful act. If you were caught red handed, being offered a settlement is not extortion. You can't logically obfuscate things by arguing that the legal system makes it too difficult for 'normal' people to fight something court, therefore their only option is to pay a settlement and then use that as your grounds for being extortion.
Click to expand...

So you think companies like these only send threats to people who are guilty, and that a trial would just be an unnecessary formality, therefore it is not extortion? We sure could save a lot of the court's time by abandoning this whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea and just letting lawyers run roughshod over the populace demanding money. Just out of curiosity, which of these legal firms do you work for?
 
mope54 said:
you have that backwards. you're responsible for what happens on your lines whether you were the perpetrator or not. if someone leeches your service you can still be held under the rationale that you didn't secure your line adequately.
Click to expand...

By that rationale, why don't they sue ISP's for not preventing their users from priating material? It could be because the ISP's have money and lawyers and thus aren't easy targets for extortion.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040443739 said:
It is a form of extortion, because people are stuck between paying a small settlement or the threat of fighting them in court. The difficulty and cost of a court battle is so much higher than the settlement cost that most people will feel forced to settle, whether they are guilty or not.

It is a terrible misuse of th elegal system, and companies like this need to burn in hell.
Click to expand...

Well thats like saying a speeding ticket is a form of extortion because if I dont pay it I can go to jail. Any time someone comes after you for money you can pull the "extortion" card. Dont lessen its meaning with exaggerations like this.
 
Super-D said:
By that rationale, why don't they sue ISP's for not preventing their users from priating material? It could be because the ISP's have money and lawyers and thus aren't easy targets for extortion.
Click to expand...

No, it's because lawmakers arent stupid and realize it's not fair to hold ISP's responsible. Why dont we hold the gov't responsible for all crimes in the US since they provide the roads for criminals to drive on :rolleyes:
 
Super-D said:
By that rationale, why don't they sue ISP's for not preventing their users from priating material? It could be because the ISP's have money and lawyers and thus aren't easy targets for extortion.
Click to expand...
ISP's are protected by a variety of laws. In the US, they are considered common couriers. They were protected from libel/slander suits in the Communications Decency Act. The DMCA excluded them from liability in copyright infringement so long as they comply with the law.
 
mope54 said:
ISP's are protected by a variety of laws. In the US, they are considered common couriers. They were protected from libel/slander suits in the Communications Decency Act. The DMCA excluded them from liability in copyright infringement so long as they comply with the law.
Click to expand...

By that logic, aren't torrent sites protected because they don't hold it? Still get attacked, don't they? So do pirate site that links to pirated materials.

Now I don't know every corner of the DMCA, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
 
Serpent said:
By that logic, aren't torrent sites protected because they don't hold it? Still get attacked, don't they? So do pirate site that links to pirated materials.

Now I don't know every corner of the DMCA, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
ISP protection from copyright infringement of their customers is not a "logic" issue hinging on who does or does not contain the content.

The DMCA specifically exempts ISP's from liability *provided* they comply with DMCA and send out takedown notices to their customers under OCILLA (Title 2 of the DMCA).
 
comcast is starting back with their shitty bandwidth caps and charging you 10 bucks per gb for 50gb over it.

350gb/month isn't a lot if you stream netflix/youtube/download steam games (just bought 3 games via steam autumn sales, ended up downloading 55GB in a single day) not counting other family members on the same connection.
 
McFry said:
Well thats like saying a speeding ticket is a form of extortion because if I dont pay it I can go to jail. Any time someone comes after you for money you can pull the "extortion" card. Dont lessen its meaning with exaggerations like this.
Click to expand...

On one level, yes. On a rational level, no. Because the police ar part of the government.

These "settlements" come from an agency that's part of no government.
 
McFry said:
It's not extortion. Rightscorp claims to act as a representative of the content makers. They are simply collecting settlements on their behalf. Everything they do to acquire said funds is handled by our societies legal system, by using you in court for example. Extortion would be if they threatened you via use of force.

Anyway I dont agree with their business model since what they are really doing is preying on peoples inability to resist charges. Regardless we all know stealing is wrong and if you are actually found guilty and only charged $10 per offense, thats pretty reasonable assuming they dont charge you with 1000 offenses. Remember, fines are meant to penalize you so you learn your lesson and dont do it again. Not cripple you with $650,000 that you cant declare bankruptcy for.
Click to expand...

Using the court system is a use of force. If you refuse to comply with the demands of the jack-booted extortionists, they send the gestapo after you.
 
damicatz said:
Using the court system is a use of force. If you refuse to comply with the demands of the jack-booted extortionists, they send the gestapo after you.
Click to expand...

Also known as:
They've IDd you as a (c) infringer and offered you a deal: Pay a little or go to court and pay a lot, unless you can prove you didn't do it, then you don't pay anything but time (because, yes, you get attorneys fees in copyright cases when you win), and maybe YOU get a payday (if you can show civil malicious prosecution).

Don't pay the settlement?

Then you go to court (hopefully via a DJ filing).

Why is this such a terrible thing all of a sudden. It's how EVERY SINGLE CIVIL SUIT in our nation works!
 
Modred189 said:
Also known as:
They've IDd you as a (c) infringer and offered you a deal: Pay a little or go to court and pay a lot, unless you can prove you didn't do it, then you don't pay anything but time (because, yes, you get attorneys fees in copyright cases when you win), and maybe YOU get a payday (if you can show civil malicious prosecution).

Don't pay the settlement?

Then you go to court (hopefully via a DJ filing).

Why is this such a terrible thing all of a sudden. It's how EVERY SINGLE CIVIL SUIT in our nation works!
Click to expand...

There are higher laws than that of the state. I cannot stress the importance of this; rights are, by definition, inalienable and if you use the state as your sole source of rights, then you don't truly have rights because every right (including things like the right to life) is subject to the revocation or change at the whims of the dictators that run the state.

There is no natural law justification for imaginary property. Someone who arranges the bits on their hard drive in a certain fashion has not violated anyone's actual rights. Arranging the bits on your hard drive in a similar fashion to the arrangement of someone else's bits doesn't make those bits disappear from their hard drive. I have seen no valid argument justifying imaginary property because every argument I've seen is based on either an emotional argument (argumentum ad passiones), appeal to authority, or entitlement (namely that there is a right to make a profit rather than a right to seek a profit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top