Judge Warns of End To File-Sharing Cash Demands

[Topweasel]

::cough:: isn't that an oxymoron?

It can be. Just saying that its obvious by the inclusion of a reduced dollar amount attached to a letter sent prior to suite being filed (with language that states that there will be no suite filed if they pay) that this has become a profit center for them instead of IP defense mechanism. In reality even if they didn't want to take these to court they should be filing suites anyways and settling even at that dollar amount out of court. The problem here and I think a lot of people miss, is that its in their best interest to have a case be filed before settling because it protects them from having the case being opened anyways.

In theory the RIAA could file a case against any of the litigants that have paid already because these extortion based payments didn't happen within the eyes of the court system and it could be just as much up to the defendants to prove that they paid the RIAA and that those payments were for the infringements that the RIAA filed the case for.

 

[IanM]

And to follow up, Steve, why do you insist on calling them 'extortion letters?

That's fine but WHY? It does not fit the definition.

Extortion is absolutely correct, and the solicitor responsible risks being struck off after his third disciplinary tribunal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extort
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion

Is it wrong for the copyright owner to provide the option of paying less now, or going to court and ending up paying more just in lawyer's fees?

In the UK they wouldn't get more, they would most likely get less because the real damages are relatively trivial and in the small claims court costs are very limited. The damages being asked for in these letters are not a reflection of the damage to the copyright holder or the costs of sending out photocopied letters. Neither do they have evidence in any case proving that a particular individual uploaded or shared the material in question.

Effectively the solicitor is trying to impose a fine on broadband subscribers, however the law is absolutely clear - only a court can impose a fine prescribed by legislation.

 

[beowulf7]

Extortion:

What you have defined is not extortion. What you have defined is the opposite: seeking compensation for wrongs committed against you, following statutorily defined means and procedures.

There are other definitions of "extortion". Here's what My WordWeb app says:
1. An exorbitant charge
2. Unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority)
3. The felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence)

And someone who has signed up for an internet connection, as part of the service agreement, takes responsibility/liability for all actions done with the connection, so an open network is no excuse.

OK, what if it was a closed network that was hacked? Regardless of an open network, if someone else is committing the "crime" (such as illegal uploading/downloading of multimedia files), he's the one who should be charged, not the lessee of that IP address.

For example, if someone breaks into someone's home, steals his gun, and then shoots people with it, who'd get charged? If someone breaks into someone's car and then uses it to bash other people or as the get-away vehicle after robbing a bank, who'd get charged with it? In all instances, it's the person who is committing the crime - not the owner.

 

[Dark12]

I want them to start bringing people to court who left their WiFi connections open and had someone leech off their connection and torrent without them knowing.
Or bring someone to court because they had a LAN party and someone was downloading from their house without them knowing.

Fuck the RIAA.

 

[Modred189]

There are other definitions of "extortion". Here's what My WordWeb app says:
1. An exorbitant charge
2. Unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority)
3. The felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence)


OK, what if it was a closed network that was hacked? Regardless of an open network, if someone else is committing the "crime" (such as illegal uploading/downloading of multimedia files), he's the one who should be charged, not the lessee of that IP address.

For example, if someone breaks into someone's home, steals his gun, and then shoots people with it, who'd get charged? If someone breaks into someone's car and then uses it to bash other people or as the get-away vehicle after robbing a bank, who'd get charged with it? In all instances, it's the person who is committing the crime - not the owner.

Here, I didn't want to do this, but here's the Black's Law definition of extortion:

extortion, n. 1. The offense committed by a public official who illegally obtains property under the color of office; esp., an official's collection of an unlawful fee. — Also termed common-law extortion.
2. The act or practice of obtaining something or compelling some action by illegal means, as by force or coercion. — Also termed statutory extortion. [Cases: Extortion and Threats 25.1. C.J.S. Threats and Unlawful Communications §§ 2–20.]

Oh man, you could not be more wrong on EACH of your accounts. I mean EVERY ONE.

Furthermore, the two hypothetical you give are unfortunate. There are standard cases learned by every first year law student that show that both the criminal and the gun owner and the car owner can be held liable under a theory of negligence by proximate cause. i.e. the owners had a duty to secure their property in such a way that they could not be used by someone else in a crime. Therefore, but for their negligence in so securing the instrumentalities of the crime, they could not have occurred. (Not to say that I agree with the state of tort law in this regard, but the law is the law).

 

[jiminator]

eh, despite anything you say all of this falls into the category of unjust, cruel and unusual punishment when compared to the crime committed. These laws need to be fixed. And as regards extortion, the term is correct if you prefix it with "legal".

 

[TheWeazmeister]

Here, I didn't want to do this, but here's the Black's Law definition of extortion:
Oh man, you could not be more wrong on EACH of your accounts. I mean EVERY ONE.

Furthermore, the two hypothetical you give are unfortunate. There are standard cases learned by every first year law student that show that both the criminal and the gun owner and the car owner can be held liable under a theory of negligence by proximate cause. i.e. the owners had a duty to secure their property in such a way that they could not be used by someone else in a crime. Therefore, but for their negligence in so securing the instrumentalities of the crime, they could not have occurred. (Not to say that I agree with the state of tort law in this regard, but the law is the law).

Herein lies the root of the problem, you again focus on the semantics and only at the very end concede that there is a problem with the state of tort law. All that the people have been complaining about in this thread has been that the letter of the law doesn't jive with them and that there needs to be change. Considering that the judge in this case is leaning towards the side of sane people in this matter I think we'll find out soon enough if this will be going up the appallet chain. When there is gross negligence on the part of legislative branch, such as there obviously is with the DMCA, the judicial branch will be forced to setup a showdown.

 

[IanM]

Here, I didn't want to do this, but here's the Black's Law definition of extortion:

This discussion may be a debate over nothing - assuming you don't really understand the definition of extortion, I'll point out that your Black's Law says "compelling some action by illegal means" and "coercion" which is applicable in the circustances. However I expect this argument is ignoring the tactics and actual content of these letters - which is certainly a breach of the codes of conduct for lawyers, hence the various disciplinary actions. Google for "Davenport Lyons" as well as "ACS Law." Members of the House of Lords in the UK have described the demand letters as blackmail, and in France a firm has been banned from practising for 6 months for doing the same thing.

It's absolutely clear that the method and wording of these demands are not normal conduct for seeking civil damages.

And as regards extortion, the term is correct if you prefix it with "legal".

Almost certainly nothing legal about it - it will be hilarious if a criminal prosecution follows a lawyer being struck off by the regularoty authority.

 

[Modred189]

eh, despite anything you say all of this falls into the category of unjust, cruel and unusual punishment when compared to the crime committed. These laws need to be fixed. And as regards extortion, the term is correct if you prefix it with "legal".

Well, the legal definition is the only one that matters given the civil-suit context, correct?

Herein lies the root of the problem, you again focus on the semantics and only at the very end concede that there is a problem with the state of tort law. All that the people have been complaining about in this thread has been that the letter of the law doesn't jive with them and that there needs to be change. Considering that the judge in this case is leaning towards the side of sane people in this matter I think we'll find out soon enough if this will be going up the appallet chain. When there is gross negligence on the part of legislative branch, such as there obviously is with the DMCA, the judicial branch will be forced to setup a showdown.

Look, my point is that everyone's ire should NOT be directed at the RIAA/MPAA/copyright holders. EVERYTHING they are doing is well within the black letter of the law. Period. If people have issues with settlement offers backed by 17 USC 101-10whatever, then be frustrated at the law, not those utilizing it.
What if you make a computer program, and someone takes the source code and sells it as their own or gives it away. Wouldn't YOU like to have the option to settle out of court as opposed to worrying about attorneys and juries?

This discussion may be a debate over nothing - assuming you don't really understand the definition of extortion, I'll point out that your Black's Law says "compelling some action by illegal means" and "coercion" which is applicable in the circustances.

Really? WHAT in the WORLD is illegal about a settlement offer?

Members of the House of Lords in the UK have described the demand letters as blackmail, and in France a firm has been banned from practising for 6 months for doing the same thing.

Completely irrelevant. Those are foreign countries whose copyright law is very different from ours and whose legal systems are, respectively, 200 and 400+ years separated.

It's absolutely clear that the method and wording of these demands are not normal conduct for seeking civil damages.

Almost certainly nothing legal about it - it will be hilarious if a criminal prosecution follows a lawyer being struck off by the regularoty authority.

Please, stop being so freakin general. Use legal terms and laws to tell me WHAT IS ILLEGAL about settlement offers?
Here is a sample after a quick (especially with instant search, FTW!) googel search:
http://www.haverford.edu/acc/docs/p...xample-riaa-settlement-letter-2007-02-28.html

 

[TheWeazmeister]

What if you make a computer program, and someone takes the source code and sells it as their own or gives it away. Wouldn't YOU like to have the option to settle out of court as opposed to worrying about attorneys and juries?

Sure, absolutely, however we are not talking about poor ol' me. The RIAA is in a position of power which they are grossly abusing, in the name "of their artists." I would like to see some artists sue the RIAA for their portion of the collected funds, and we would get some real answers to what happens to those funds that they sue for. I am sure that most will show as being used by the same attorneys that file the lawsuits to being with and none to little left over.

Threaten lawsuits, offer the "easy way out" by paying a large amount so you don't have to go court and be smacked around by our expensive attorneys who are going to rip you to shreds. It's a scare tactic, it's intimidation, nothing more, nothing less. At this moment it's legal, we'll see what the future holds.

 

[IanM]

Completely irrelevant.

The posted story reports the comments of a UK judge about the behaviour of UK solicitors who are already being disciplined by the UK regulator for unnacceptable behaviour. It's your definitions that are irrelevant. I don't need to look up any legislation or legal definitions, the UK judges and regulators have already said the demand letters amount to threats and blackmail.

What does Black's Law say about coercion? Are US lawyers allowed to send accused individuals threats that say if you don't pay X we'll take you to court for Y? I thought a standard was required - they might, without making any threats, outline "we have evidence that we believe proves you uploaded [some infinging file] and ask that you pay damages in accordance with the law."

 

[Synful Serenity]

All I know is the RIAA is misrepresenting their damages and abusing the process.
They also continue to disregard fair use and hide behind the DMCA, which I was astounded the day it was passed, and still am today that it is yet to be overturned.

To put it bluntly, let me throw millions of dollars at the United States government to lobby for an act that allows me to dictate the terms of anything I want, and when you violate that by say, not paying me $50 every time I have to read one of your emails, I'll tell you I'm entiltled to $1000 then, and then I'll get a court to award me many damages after you fail to respond to my "letters" offering to settle out of court since I'd be kind-hearted like the RIAA.

I'm also making a license agreement that you owe me $50 every time you step on my property. I'm sure the courts will honor that one well.

 

[Emission]

Why is that bad?

They're paying more than the content would have cost in the first place.

I'm sure the chances are pretty good that most people are nailed for just downloading the items, seeing how the RIAA/MPAA operates.

 

[Modred189]

Sure, absolutely, however we are not talking about poor ol' me. The RIAA is in a position of power which they are grossly abusing, in the name "of their artists." I would like to see some artists sue the RIAA for their portion of the collected funds, and we would get some real answers to what happens to those funds that they sue for. I am sure that most will show as being used by the same attorneys that file the lawsuits to being with and none to little left over.

So... the rights of the copyright holder change when they become successful or are a large corporation?
I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the US copyright act.

What does Black's Law say about coercion? Are US lawyers allowed to send accused individuals threats that say if you don't pay X we'll take you to court for Y? I thought a standard was required - they might, without making any threats, outline "we have evidence that we believe proves you uploaded [some infinging file] and ask that you pay damages in accordance with the law."

Here you go, Black's Law on coercion:
"coercion (koh-<<schwa>>r-zh<<schwa>>n), n. 1. Compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force. • An act such as signing a will is not legally valid if done under coercion. And since a valid marriage requires voluntary consent, coercion or duress is grounds for invalidating a marriage.
criminal coercion. Coercion intended to restrict another's freedom of action by: (1) threatening to commit a criminal act against that person; (2) threatening to accuse that person of having committed a criminal act; (3) threatening to expose a secret that either would subject the victim to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or would impair the victim's credit or goodwill; or (4) taking or withholding official action or causing an official to take or withhold action. "
Nope, the RIAA is not performing coercion either.
And the prima fascie case for copyright infringement is: You own the (c) and that you have some evidence (under a 'reasonableness standard, satisfied by the collection of an infringing IP and the matching of that IP to an indivisual) that person X infringed that copyright.
That's it. That's all you need to sue someone under 17 USC 101. It's up to the fact finder to decide whether the evidence is compelling or not at trial.

SO: The letters are not coercion. They are saying: WE have evidence sufficient to sue you under 17 usc 101. If you know you did it, we will not sue if you settle. If it was not you, or you wish to fight the charges, we will be filing our suit within X days. That seems fair enough to me.

All I know is the RIAA is misrepresenting their damages and abusing the process.
They also continue to disregard fair use and hide behind the DMCA, which I was astounded the day it was passed, and still am today that it is yet to be overturned.

The RIAA and the MPAA have NEVER claimed specific damages. They have ALWAYS sought statutory damages because there is NO WAY to calculate actual damages. Do some reading.

Second, for legit copyright holders, the DMCA was more than necessary. Before it, we did not know what exactly a digital copy of a song WAS in the eyes of the law. Nor did we know what digital fair use was.
Consider this:
You buy an mp3 (or these days, the rights to an mp3) online. When you download it, a copy is made at the source to the distributing server, which then makes piecemeal copies (packets) that are sent over the net where multiple copies are made on intermediary servers, where the song is sent to your computer, where a copy is made. Then, when you play it, ANOTHER copy is made when it is stored into ram. BEfore the DMCA, we did not know what the legal status of those copies were. Did each server owner need a license to make their individual copy? Was it implied (aka dangerous assumption)? Etc...
There are other examples as well.

And what fair use are you talking about? The DMCA includes it own fair use section (17 usc 117), and nothing they have ever claimed has anything to do with fair use, lol.

Read it, the whole thing, before you make random statements based on ignorance.

To put it bluntly, let me throw millions of dollars at the United States government to lobby for an act that allows me to dictate the terms of anything I want, and when you violate that by say, not paying me $50 every time I have to read one of your emails, I'll tell you I'm entiltled to $1000 then, and then I'll get a court to award me many damages after you fail to respond to my "letters" offering to settle out of court since I'd be kind-hearted like the RIAA.

I'm also making a license agreement that you owe me $50 every time you step on my property. I'm sure the courts will honor that one well.

Actually, given the recent rulings on EULAs (see my blog post here: http://law-ls.blogspot.com/2010/09/contract-vs-first-sale-eulas-and.html) that's true. But it has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with contract law.

 

[Modred189]

They're paying more than the content would have cost in the first place.

I'm sure the chances are pretty good that most people are nailed for just downloading the items, seeing how the RIAA/MPAA operates.

Nobody is sued for downloading, only uploading.

 

[rally9x]

And what fair use are you talking about? The DMCA includes it own fair use section (17 usc 117), and nothing they have ever claimed has anything to do with fair use, lol.
.

Except is obviously overly broad when it comes to "encryption". A company could use the "encryption" of shifting every letter one letter to the left and if anyone "breaks" it or tells anyone else "how to break it" or report that its been broken they can be in violation of the DMCA.

Any person who is not so caught up in semantics could smell something fishy when Sony gets the courts to agree with them that people have the right to VHS and cassette tapes are legal then a couple years later the same companies (Sony etc) gets laws for them on the otherside saying that because DVD's are digital that its totally different.

I may have a lot of issues with Apple but I think its funny that while the record and video industry was squabiling and litigating instead of innovating Apple came in and not only took a whole bunch of the money that the record and video companies could have had but also crushed companies like Sony by taking away there discman/walkman money also. Which is now leading to them taking away the Ebook reader and gaming money away from them.

You seem like you are the kind of person that became a lawyer because the only thing you ever did was argue with people so I don't think there is much point in arguing with you though. I find it silly that you seem to think you are the all known judge, jury and executioner when it comes to IP Law since in my experience even the best IP law lawyers admit that even they have no clue what people can and can't do. People shouldn't need to have counsel on retainer for everytime they want to listen to music or install some software.

 

[rally9x]

Most artists make most their money touring and if they are lucky (read smart) and they didn't sign away their merchandising rights, from the merchandise they sell at said events.

This was true before but it didn't take long of the RIAA to start taking a much larger portion of that money also. They can always use some kind of magic accounting like Hollywood and claim the artists don't deserve any money.

 

[TheWeazmeister]

So... the rights of the copyright holder change when they become successful or are a large corporation?
I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the US copyright act.

Way to attempt to twist what I said. What I said, again, since you missed it the first time, is that the RIAA is grossly abusing the powers it received by having laws passed that completely favor them, allows them to attempt to intimidate people in civil cases by threatening not only civil but criminal action against them.

You already conceded earlier that tort law on the issue of copyright in the digital age is woefully lacking, I am just taking it another step.

IMO, either amendments to the DMCA are going to be passed by Congress or it's going to get appealed to one degree or another, but believing that this boon for entities such as the RIAA is going to go unchecked is naive to say the least.

 

[TheWeazmeister]

Except is obviously overly broad when it comes to "encryption". A company could use the "encryption" of shifting every letter one letter to the left and if anyone "breaks" it or tells anyone else "how to break it" or report that its been broken they can be in violation of the DMCA.

Even the idiots in Congress figured out that "jail-braking" your phone should be legal even though companies such as Apple would have liked it to have been illegal. Showing that Apple doesn't have nearly the clout that the RIAA has in Congress. IMO, there is no difference between jail-braking a device and copying your DVDs to your NAS because if you didn't your 3 yr old kids was going to scratch up the disk and you would be forced to buy the same disc over and over. Unless you have kids, you don't know what I am talking about but trust me after buying 5 copies of Toy Story because of it getting scratched, broken, w/e ..it gets old. MPAA members argued against the right to be able to legally make a digital copy for the longest time, but even they realized how silly that was and finally allow for digital copies on newer titles, but again it doesn't cover content that I purchased with my hard earned money, that the software companies are now saying I "rent" and don't have any rights over. Eventually these laws will be changed to reflect the times we are in, and you won't see as many crazy IP lawsuits, but in the mean time, cover your a** and have an attorney on retainer

 

[Modred189]

Look, I don't think I'm getting anywhere with my point, and I think it's mostly my fault for being unclear, so here's my last lines, take or leave 'em:

- Settlement offers are legal. They are not extortion nor coercion under the law. If you want to use colloquial definitions, fine, but they are not appropriate in a conversation about the law
- The laws of the United States allow for certain statutory damages when you don't know what the actual damages are. The settlement offers by the copyright holders are lower than these statutory damage amounts. My opinion is that these are fair options for owners/infringers to take, as they present an opportunity for both parties to get out of the situation with lower costs.
- Finally, it's my opinion that if you are going to be ticked off at someone for the copyright holder's letters and suits, fine, but they are not the appropriate target. They are working within the letter of the law as it is written. Be frustrated with the law, not those that use it to protect their interests and property from selfish asshats that cannot shell out $10 for a cd and then cry to mommy when they have to pay the consequences for subsequently sharing the file.

 

[rally9x]

I'm pretty sure that everyone understands what you are saying, they are just agreeing. Next your going to tell me that the War on Drugs isn't a real war because an official declaration was never sent through congress.

If someone makes a post saying its unfair that someone who gets 5 years and prison and a 5,000 dollar find for having some pot, they are not saying that the person didn't break the law, they are saying that they feel the laws are unjust and unfair. Would you also go into a rage if someone complained about getting a speeding ticket for 56 in a 55 zone and say things like "ohh I guess police don't have the right to patrol the roads now, do you want complete anarchy?, shut up criminal"

People are saying (and pretty much everyone agrees besides you) is that what some in the entertainment industry does is basically extortion.

What would you say about the type of offers where Universities pay money so that there students aren't sued. How does that not sound like a protection racket, extortion, etc.

So far your reasoning has been that its not extortion because it isn't illegal but have yet to tell us why its not illegal. You sound like people say they have proof god exists because the bible says he does and the bible is true because its from god. People understand that cases are setteled out of court all of the time but what some recording and movie studios have done goes way beyond normal. These things are not cut and dry, black and white, the law is always a "gray area" and while its based in prior decisions the law is constantly changing in the UK and US. If things were as simple as you seem to make them we wouldn't need the legal system with judges and lawyers, we could just have a computer decide all of the cases.

You just keep going around in circles, even cats and dogs will figure out its time to lay down and be quite after chasing its tail 3 times.

 

[lumbergh]

The word "extortion" does have a specific legal meaning, but it also has (a few) meanings in general English usage. A letter that says "We know you did something bad. You can pay us a disproportionately large sum, or we can go to court and you can risk being completely ruined." sure sounds like extortion (or blackmail) to me, but then again I'm not a lawyer. I think it's fair to discuss the morality of these threats, which is entirely different from discussing the legality of them.

Also it seems like the standard of proof is too low for these accusations. Suppose someone stole your car, went on a joyride, and ended up running over someone. The police would have to prove who was behind the wheel, they couldn't just say "well, it was your car, so you're responsible". Internet access can be shared by several people, and it can also be stolen. Therefore you can't map an IP address to a single person who must be responsible for everything that occurred on that connection.

 

[Elledan]

The most interesting fact about these extortion letters sent out by the US Copyright Group and kin is that of those who have received one and not responded to it, none have been taken to court over it. This shows beyond any shade of doubt that the USCG et al are just in this for the money and couldn't care less about enforcing copyright.

The same is true in the UK and anywhere else.

 

[Synful Serenity]

The RIAA and the MPAA have NEVER claimed specific damages. They have ALWAYS sought statutory damages because there is NO WAY to calculate actual damages. Do some reading.

I have, and what I took away from it is that they would have everyone believe every download made constitutes a lost sale. Software companies are now even making the argument that selling used games are all lost sales, and would have that practice made illegal in a second if they could. Kind of like what industry lobbyists were already able to achieve through the courts. And who says they need to quote a specific figure for damages to be considered excessive?

Read it, the whole thing, before you make random statements based on ignorance.

I never suggested it was out of ignorance that all you've mostly done is regurgitate esoteric legal minutiae from LexisNexis and rigidly apply it without critical interpretation to suit your opinions, so I'm not sure what I did to earn it.

If you have actually read some of the DMCA, then you may have figured it out for yourself that as broadly worded as it was written, incorporating contributions from a significant number of people without the technical knowledge to fully comprehend the subject matter, then situations could occur exactly as I said. It did a lot more than clarify digital media under the eyes of the law. Are you trying to tell me that it was not permissible to circumvent Macrovision VHS protection in the 80s to make a backup, even though section 1201(k) now expressly forbids it? Will you argue that RealDVD did NOT lose the case against it that put it out of existence , even though it would have been allowable extending existing interpretations before DMCA? Do you still think the RIAA and MPAA are acting in good faith? Tell me how I'm ignorant for suggesting this. Quick, off the top of your head, what's the case number?? (no cheating!)

This is where you tend to miss the point - before you quote me rules, regulations, and the historical genesis of fair use doctrine, understand that it was always commonly understood that consumers were entitled to make a backup copy for personal use. I don't need to see what some legal book written in Latin says about that to know what a de facto standard is.

If you're in law school, at the rate you were going you'd have enough material in this thread for a dissertation. If you are, then you should have learned that a fundamental legal skill, besides being able to recite penal code verbatim on cue, is to consider your audience. That's paramount. This is an online forum for computer enthusiasts. I'm glad it also provides an opportunity for like-minded people to discuss topics such as this, but most of us would come to some personal realizations before we started reciting pi to 40,000 places from memory to prove a point. We're not legal scholars here, and dismissing everyone's commonsensical but logical arguments unilaterally not only doesn't make your opinions better than ours, but actually cheapens your position if you have to constantly swat a fly with a sledgehammer. I'm sorry I don't keep a volume of Corpus Juris Secundum on my coffee table.

 

[Emission]

The most interesting fact about these extortion letters sent out by the US Copyright Group and kin is that of those who have received one and not responded to it, none have been taken to court over it. This shows beyond any shade of doubt that the USCG et al are just in this for the money and couldn't care less about enforcing copyright.

The same is true in the UK and anywhere else.

QFT, interesting point.

 

[SEALTeamSix]

snip

truth++

 

[jiminator]

Like I said, legal extortion.
Look at these goodies:
http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-law-firm-torn-apart-by-leaked-emails-100925/

one of the law firms was taken down with an attack, then when it came back up via backup all the email accounts and passwords were available, so naturally they were downloaded and made available to the public. In them we see such things like this:

You are going to receive on average about £1,000.00 per 150 letters sent. This can be seen from the first tiny batch. Because we have good quality product being monitored and captures are high on the data we have, when the letters get sent out the figures therefore equate as follows:-

Phase 1: 2,500 letters, estimated revenue to you: £16,666.00
Phase 2: est. 4,000 letters, estimated revenue to: £26,666.00
Phase 3: est. 18,000 letters, estimated revenue to you: £120,000.00
That is data collated to date! I have more titles to give you, more data will be captured.

Please stay with this.

Extortion. Pure and simple.

 

[Elledan]

In every way it reminds me of the usual spam operations. Even the same rule counts: you're a fool if you respond to it.

 

[PornoSatan]

Like I said, legal extortion.
Look at these goodies:
http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-law-firm-torn-apart-by-leaked-emails-100925/

one of the law firms was taken down with an attack, then when it came back up via backup all the email accounts and passwords were available, so naturally they were downloaded and made available to the public. In them we see such things like this:


Extortion. Pure and simple.

Ohhhh, something to read tonight. Thank you sir.

 

[PornoSatan]

One thing I like to do is see if any original hosts/domains are downloading something. Theres a few interesting ones at the moment:

 

[PornoSatan]

Like I said, legal extortion.
Look at these goodies:
http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-law-firm-torn-apart-by-leaked-emails-100925/

one of the law firms was taken down with an attack, then when it came back up via backup all the email accounts and passwords were available, so naturally they were downloaded and made available to the public. In them we see such things like this:


Extortion. Pure and simple.

I've been reading through the leaked emails, and noticed some interesting trends.

1. The company is making between £41,000 ($65,000) and £85,000 ($135,000) per month at an approximately 8-15% recovery rate (ie those who actually paid up)
2. Their letters are template ridden (not a surprise)
3. Quite a few response letters from users are also template letters of denial found online (LOL!)
4. The primary defense from users is essentially "I'm on a wireless network, its possible it was hacked, someone else must have did it."
5. They say the magic number is to fine users £495 because they're more likely to pay it than £500.
6. According to their records, "Party Babes" is beating "Guns & Rough Sex" by a huge margin in infringement cases
7. Louise left Andrew Crossley (main guy from ACS:Law) for a guy named Kevin. He sent her an email telling her to "Fuck off" and "Stay out of his life", then he blocked her from emailing him back.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Maybe, but what about the fact that these people DID something to earn this?

What about the fact they tried to nail a grandmother for this cause they claimed her IP downloaded torrents which ended up not true, considering only business grade connections offer true static IP's, there system is hugely flawed for going after people.

Could you imagine for exasmple your 80 year old grandmother get a latter claiming she better pay X amount or go to court and be sued for $2mill when she probably doesn't even know what an MP3 is? forget the finacial side but the emotional and medical implications.

And, on top of that the RIAA themselves illegally using their own clients music in their own ways and not paying royalties....

 

[MrGuvernment]

I want them to start bringing people to court who left their WiFi connections open and had someone leech off their connection and torrent without them knowing.
Or bring someone to court because they had a LAN party and someone was downloading from their house without them knowing.

Fuck the RIAA.

Your responsible for your network, grow some balls and man up or don't let people onto your network or learn to use the equipment you knowingly purchased.

i know for many the world of the internet is still new, but i see no excuse why someone who is planning to buy a wireless router, or has the technical know how to run a lan party, cant do some research on how to protect themselves.

I do think that ALL wireless router makes by default should disable the wireless until the user sets it up and also make it difficult for them to run an unsecured network, make it so you have to go through a few menu options, agree to something like "by choosing this option anyone can use your internet service for their own needs, legal and illegal" sure this would close %99 of open joe blow wireless networks.

 

[bacon]

Yea most users don't know the difference between the router and modem. There are at least seven open networks from our neighbors at our beach house, I could get every one of them one of these letters.

 

[jiminator]

eh, these whole arguments are stupid.
I can browse wireless networks and often see one or two available depending on signal strength.
No doubt they *should* protect their systems but if I use one to download mp3s should these people be liable?
There also is nothing special being done here. I could probably go into every neighborhood and do the same.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Yes, they left their network open....again i wish people would stop blaming someone else for their mistakes / lazyness / ignorance, any links i have bought lately comes with a disk that says "run me first" and it runs you through creating a secure wireless network.

I will say router makers should take some responsibility and create a more strict set up on their routers, but they wont because they want to make people plug something in and go and be done with it, but with that if someone cant even follow a cd wizard to do so... i doubt it would change it.

 

[Synful Serenity]

Your responsible for your network, grow some balls and man up or don't let people onto your network or learn to use the equipment you knowingly purchased.

I agree, but not entirely. Main thing to me, even if you assume that people don't have an excuse to not make any effort to protect their networks, is that it still takes action from an offender to commit breaking into your network. I think a case could be made that as long as you took reasonable measures, then you should be in the clear. Someone could take the following common security measures:

1. Disable SSID - Doesn't matter, it gets transmitted and is readable anyway.
2. MAC Filter - Can be spoofed.
3. WEP - Takes seconds to bypass.
4. WPA - Better, but can still be defeated.
5. WPA2 - Much better, but can still be susceptible to easy passwords.

If someone went through all this but still happened to get broken into, or had an older router that doesn't even support WPA2, I don't think that they should be liable. There's a reasonable expectation that people will be law-abiding. This is why I can buy knives and hazardous substances like insecticide and harsh cleaners because the expectation is I will use them for legitimate purposes and not to harm others. If I poisoned someone with Drano or stabbed someone with a steak knife from Kohl's, are they responsible? More so, what if I broke into their store at 2am and stole those items instead, are they responsible?

If I keep my doors locked, and put bars on my windows, and get an alarm system, and a Rottweiler, but someone cuts my power, picks the lock on my door, tazes the dog, and then breaks into my gun safe and gets the trigger lock off, runs out, and shoots someone, who's at fault? Now how about all they do is just use my computer to hack into a bank and transfer $20,000 to their account, who's at fault? Now imagine the same scenario, only this time I left my door wide open and all they had to do was walk on in, who's at fault? It can get tricky!

 

[Elledan]

I still think that 'wireless security' is a really funny term. The only real wireless security can be accomplished by outlawing wireless networks altogether.

Should people at least use WPA2 and disable DHCP on the WLAN? Yes, most definitely. But it will never happen while half the population has an IQ of <100 and a significant portion of the remaining half still calls the monitor the PC and the tower next to it a 'hard disk'. Are we going to regulate possession of computer and network equipment next? Personally I'm more concerned with the viruses and trojans these people seem to gather and spread. We wouldn't have the spam problem if people actually were computer savvy.

 

[beowulf7]

Wireless issues aside, but on a related note, is there precedence where someone broke into another person's house, stole his gun, did some illegal things with it (i.e., shooting around), and the gun owner, even after having proven it wasn't him that used his gun, still got in trouble?

I have a relative whose car was stolen and was used for a joyride. The cops found it a day later, pretty much wrecked. My relative was not responsible for the damage the thieves caused with his car. And of course he got insurance $ for it since he had full coverage on it.

 

[DeathPrincess]

What if you make a computer program, and someone takes the source code and sells it as their own or gives it away. Wouldn't YOU like to have the option to settle out of court as opposed to worrying about attorneys and juries?

Thats not what is happening.

If you made a computer program and copyrighted it. Now I went out and found people breaching your copyright, and collected money off them. Oh and kept it for myself. Could you see a problem with that?