Woman Fights Porn Companies' Anti-Piracy Suits

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Raise your hand if you thought that headline said the woman was fighting the "porn companies' anti-piracy SLUTS. :D

A Kentucky woman, Jennifer Barker, is suing the five companies that targeted her and is seeking class-action status to hold the companies accountable for harassing calls for settlements. The five companies, out of California and London, have filed more than 500 lawsuits in 17 states against John and Jane Does in recent years.
 

Reimu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
1,626
... all in your head, Steve. All in your head...

(shakes fist at RL)
 

Reimu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
1,626
Btw, why are people so concerned about others knowing that they've watched porn anyway... if even masturbation isn't that frowned upon, how is porn watching (a mean to the end of masturbation) any worse...
 

JoeUser

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,919
Leave it to the porn industry to do some shady ass shit and then, basically, black mailing people into paying "settlements" or risk exposure.

Not to mention the fact that a single downloaded porn is no where near $1000-5000 lost let alone the whack ass $150,000 figure.

Oh...and amateur porn all the way! :)
 

Reimu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
1,626
Leave it to the porn industry to do some shady ass shit and then, basically, black mailing people into paying "settlements" or risk exposure.

Not to mention the fact that a single downloaded porn is no where near $1000-5000 lost let alone the whack ass $150,000 figure.

Oh...and amateur porn all the way! :)
In before 3 guys 1 hammer and 1 lunatic 1 ice pick. That's NO WAY.
 

weebling1

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
2,233
no..... but I wonder what an Anti-piracy suit looks like?

24808970-450x450-0-0_Mattel+Batman+Deluxe+Figure+Tech+Armor+Batman.jpg
 

dandirk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
1,835
...while a third found copying such a film contrary to her "religious, moral, ethical and personal views."

Yup cause we all know, if you say you are religious then you are automatically an sexual saint:eek:
 

faugusztin

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
2,668
Leave it to the porn industry to do some shady ass shit and then, basically, black mailing people into paying "settlements" or risk exposure.

Do you realize they are doing it after others did it (successfully) ? Remember the Hurt Locker case(s) ?
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
When Gotvald received a notice that he defaulted and lost a copyright lawsuit, he didn't know what it meant and hadn't ever heard of the company suing him, Raw Films, or the film he was accused of downloading, "Raw Rescue."

The f... did they serve the John Doe IP# or something?

Frequently, the film companies band together and seek a waiver of court fees for the lawsuits, minimizing their costs and making any money collected from the calls strictly profit.

That is the problem. There should be no waiving of court fees. Make this type of bulk lawsuit stuff more expensive and a higher risk/gamble. It'll cut down on a lot of the "we lack evidence but pay us" type of lawsuits.
 

dandirk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
1,835
The f... did they serve the John Doe IP# or something?



That is the problem. There should be no waiving of court fees. Make this type of bulk lawsuit stuff more expensive and a higher risk/gamble. It'll cut down on a lot of the "we lack evidence but pay us" type of lawsuits.

+1 here
 

FrEaKy

[H] Movie and TV Show Review Guy
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
13,858
Sheesh this is ridiculous, why do companies have to be so anal about this stuff, its not like these people specifically penetrated their servers and stole a buncha shit that way, I mean cum on! Don't be such a dick abutt it.
 

Master [H]

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
2,629
I get that, despite whatever good or service a company/person produces, they want to be compesated for it. No arguement here...however, we already have see that an IP address does not necessarily equal one person. At best, it's going after a house for payment and trying to shackle the owner, regardless of if he lives there (think landlords). It's quite silly.

I thought the RIAA/MPAA extortion/trials were starting to show this equation as well.
Either way, it's a scam.

"We'd like payment for our products."
"I've never ordered anything from you."
"This address shows you have."
"I just moved here yesterday."
 
Top