Well they're at it
Well they're at it, how about the defendants get the use of terms like "piracy" barred from use in cases instead of unauthorized copying.
Adult content company Malibu Media has asked a court to ban the terms "copyright troll" and "pornographer" in an upcoming trial that revolves around the fact that the company repeatedly demands thousands of dollars from people that have downloaded its pornographic content. Allowing the terms would be "unfairly prejudicial and …
On the surface of it, they have a point - terms like "copyright troll" have no useful legal meaning. Either the actions are problematic or they are not.
But, as you rightly point out, the door swings both ways and terms like "piracy" and "theft" are frequently used by these content companies. Indeed, they have been so successfully pushing this language that they have politicians spouting the same loaded terms.
After years of doing this, getting our media and law-makers using these terms as though they are accurate and self-evident, they now find themselves on the other end.
In justifying their lawsuits and petitions to governments, these companies use those evocative terms, calling the offence "theft" and the action "piracy". That strong language is deliberately used to prejudice the judges (and law makers) into disfavouring the defendants - if you manage to equate unauthorised viewing of copyright content with "theft" then you have made part of the case already before even discussing the ins-and-outs of any specific instance.
Terming some company a "copyright troll" is just the same and is problematic for the same reason. It's just amusing that they are getting a taste of their own medicine.
"Well they're at it, how about the defendants get the use of terms like "piracy" barred from use in cases instead of unauthorized copying."
In order to avoid unnecessary prejudice in the current legal procedings, prosecuting lawyers have asked the court to rule that the phrase 'scummy robbing lawyer wankers' should be banned, and replaced by 'top floating wealth redistributing purveyors of legalistic wisdom with onanistic predispositions'...
I would assume downloading isn't something they have a problem with, it is uploading what you downloaded from them that causes them to lawyer up.
That's not the way I'm reading it. It looks to me like they're attacking people who download their stuff from third-party websites. Because technically, it is illegal to simply download.
You'll remember that the music industry also used to sue random Joes for like $15'000 for every single song they downloaded, as an attempt to scare the public away from randomly downloading from the Internet. The music industry has stopped with the aggressive scare tactics, not because downloading has become legal, but because of the backlash in public opinion.
Perhaps someone else can advise if they produce any stuff over and above what is generally available elsewhere that is worth having a frig/wank over.
A colleague has advised me that X-Art publishes noticeably higher quality material than the run-of-the-mill filth, with decent production values and content which could legitimately be described as erotic in the normal sense of the word.
You might not want to take his word for it though. He may have shares in the company.
There's a difference between "referring to" and "describing". This motion wouldn't prevent the words from being introduced in the courtroom, provided they're not used as a reference for the plaintiff.
So, "Copyright troll's motion is bollocks" - not allowed.
But "Plaintiff is a copyright troll" - fair comment, allowed.
Makes me wonder what, precisely, goes on in these courtrooms...
looks like a duck and walks like a duck...it's duck. If it makes lots of threats and files lots of lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement, it's a copyright troll.
Here all along, I thought porn was a big moneymaker.. I guess it's lawsuits and/or threats that build the bottom line.
Here all along, I thought porn was a big moneymaker..
It's a question of supply and demand. Nowadays the supply in the internet is nearly unlimited and the demand has peaked out. Means there is less and less money to make.
So they built up a nice little side business. I remember last year or so I read about a similar case in Germany where a porn producer sued in pretty much the same fashion. Turned out they even uploaded their own "productions" to trackers and seeded them. (That's how they got the IP numbers). Did anyone check where Malibu Media got their IP numbers from? Do they perhaps actively seed their own "material"?
Anyway - just wait until TPP and TTIP are being introduced. Then all the American IP trolls will be let loose on the rest of the word. We are all doomed - but I'm repeating myself.
It's Friday, let's have a beer!
There are plenty of ducks out there, but only a mallard quacks.
Are you sure? The author of this apparently well-informed article about Aylesbury ducks evidently thinks they quack.
"Could you please explain to the court how you managed to identify the defendant as the downloader of Jiggy Jiggy"
"Well, we seeded Jiggy Jiggy and collated a list of all the ip addresses that downloaded the torrent. We then approached the ISP's who own these ip addresses and demanded the details of their clients who these addresses pertained to."
"Mmm. Yes, So you, yourselves made Jiggy Jiggy available to download?"
"Err, Yes, we did"
"And you don't see any conflict in actually being the ones encouraging, by your admission, illegal activity?"
"Not at all, it is our property and we'll do as we like"
"Ok, well lets move onto my next point. That of identifying the defendant by name"
"Yes, we have his details from his isp"
"You do, do you? Let me give you a rather apt example of why you're wrong. You see, I have recently been informed that you have been issued with sixteen speeding tickets in two different states and while we're speaking you are being pursued down the highway by interstate police"
"Clearly, you are wrong"
"No, your car registration was cloned and fitted to another vehicle in the next state, while your own car was later stolen and is now careering mindlessly down the road"
"Is that true?"
"Sadly. No. It is an allegory of how an ip address can be cloned or otherwise used without the true owners consent and therefore fails to link my client with your smutty business. Your honour, my client has nothing to answer for, as the prosecution has failed to identify, beyond all doubt, that he was the one committing the crime"
"Case dismissed."
it's game over for Malibu Media's one-company money-making anti-piracy campaign.
Nope, it is not - unless they get a consent decree and a decision to refund a significant majority of settlements to date. That however is not happening because the suit does not have a class action status. So at most they are getting a "cost of doing business" fine.
They were doing pretty much the same thing, if I recall although they never actually brought a case to court and that's what ultimately cost them their business model.
I even got a letter from them once. Hilariously, it complained I'd downloaded something I hadn't. I threw it, and the other one they later sent straight into the bin.
These sort of shakedowns happened even before the Internet.
I recall one scam where a set of enterprising lads offered an article for sale in "one of those" mags at half the usual price. Naturally, they got loads of orders but they didn't send any product. Instead, they waited a week, then sent a letter back with a statement that the product was so popular they ran out of stock, and they enclosed a refund check. From what I heard from the copper who told me, they cleared quite a lot of money and there was nothing the police could do - they were only caught later because they got greedy on another scam.
You see, the refund cheque was issued in the name of the "huge rubber dildo company inc" (which they had genuinely been able to set up), so they were banking, if you like, on the embarrassment factor and yes, that worked.
No Internet involved..
So, did Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels steal the story for their plot or did the scam happen after someone saw Lock Stock?
It is quite a common concept to use someone's, err, proclivities against them so I think Lock Stock writers had quite a few scenarios to choose from.
The 1990s New Labour sleaze campaign against the Tories was the same thing : make sure you control the investigation so you can remove the fools in your own party from sight and presto, plenty publicity of the most salacious kind. I guess that's where they learned the value of privacy invasions which gave rise to the whole surveillance and CCTV era. Here too it was simple detective work which provided the data, not any Internet hack.
The Internet has not enabled that many new types of fraud to emerge, only that they can now be committed from a distance from countries that give you no hope of catching the culprits because the local economies may actually depend on them..
Don't know if this is true or not...
Australian Police have been unable to recommend a prosecution for the following scam:
A company takes out a newspaper advertisement claiming to be able to supply imported hard core pornographic videos. As their prices seem reasonable, people place orders and make payments via check.
After several weeks, the company writes back explaining that under the present law they are unable to supply the materials and do not wish to be prosecuted. So they return their customers' money in the form of a company check.
However, due to the name of the company, few people will present these checks to their banks.
The name of the company: "The Anal Sex and Fetish Perversion Company"
Article misses that Malibu have also asked court to ingore defense's expert from explaining Wi-Fi Hacking - because you know, pesky reality gets in the way of their prosecution argument.
As for piracy and theft, US Supreme have already banned their use in Hotfile's ongoing case, so there might be a precedent to argue there.
I wonder, did their principals attend the same law school as those reputable guardians of private profits known as Prenda Law???? (for those who haven't heard of Prenda Law: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/06/smackdown_smutseeding_copyright_troll_blasted_from_the_bench_again/ )
It smells like they may have shared the same classroom.
But if they're not purveyors of fine pornography, how can they fine people for pirating the pornography they don't purvey?
Malibu Media has no legal standing to sue for pirating material they do not have any rights to. And if they are suing over titles like "Anal Armageddon II, The Second Cumming", then I think it's fair to call them pornographers.
Oh, and if they were seeding their own work on Torrent, it means they intended for and approved of others distributing their work for free. You can't sue over work you made publicly available yourself, and putting your work on Torrent carries with it certain (legally enforceable) expectations.