Paris Hilton Sex Tape Sharers Wanted For Pirate Russian Roulette

[Aussie Rebel]

Way to go XPays

Paris Hilton Sex Tape Sharers Wanted For Pirate Russian Roulette

The copyright owners of the Paris Hilton sex tape ?One Night in Paris? filed a lawsuit in January against 843 individuals they accused of sharing the now-infamous movie via BitTorrent. Their lawyer has now been told that he may engage in ?immediate discovery? in order to find out the identities of the John Doe defendants. Are you worried that your name might be on the list? How about a $500 game of lawsuit Russian roulette? Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

one night in parisThe Paris Hilton sex tape, One Night in Paris, became the subject of a new round of pay-up-or-else lawsuits this year. Owners XPays Inc. tracked hundreds of individuals sharing the ?movie? on BitTorrent and eventually sued 843 John Does at the District Court of Central California in January.

XPays told the Court that they had ?spent a substantial amount of time, money and effort to produce, market and distribute? the tape, and that their profits from Paris Hilton?s horizontal endeavors are now on the wane due to infringements on file-sharing networks.

Fast forward to this month and XPays attorney Michael Fattorosi has just won an expedited discovery from U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero.

?Plaintiff may engage in immediate discovery in this matter, including the issuing of subpoenas to cable operators and Internet Service Providers to produce any and all documents and/or information sufficient to identify the DOE defendants,? wrote Otero.

The ISPs involved in the case were given 7 days to notify subscribers that XPays were seeking to identify them. In turn, those subscribers were given 21 days from notification date in order to contest the subpoena.

However, according to documents sent by XPays to TorrentFreak last evening, the company is prepared to play a little file-sharing Russian roulette with people who are concerned they could be named in the lawsuit.

?XPays is pleased by the ruling of the Court that we can subpoena the names and addresses of those persons that illegally obtained our content. However, we are also very mindful of people?s privacy and would like to offer amnesty to anyone that would like to voluntarily come forward to resolve their case anonymously and with confidentiality. XPays is not pursuing this lawsuit with the hopes of embarrassing anyone or causing them any amount of shame. We merely want to protect our content,? the email reads.

?At this time anyone who has downloaded a free copy of the HotelHeiress.com Paris Hilton Sex Video aka One Night in Paris, can resolve this matter for $500. XPays believes this to be a very fair offer and one that is a substantial discount from any that will be offered in the future,? the email concludes.

It is worth pointing out that while XPays refers to people ?illegally obtaining? content, and in the second paragraph people who have ?downloaded a free copy?, the lawsuit they have filed is not related to these issues ? it concerns the uploading or distribution of the ?movie? in question. Many more people will have downloaded the movie than uploaded it, so this ?error? by XPays conveniently helps to draw in more takers.

In addition to implying this is a downloading rather than an uploading amnesty, XPays has also put no geographic limitation on those who they are asking to participate in their scheme. This is interesting because XPays told the court that all of the 843 Does are residents of California. Perhaps, then, those outside California might be less inclined to settle. That brings the number of potential amnesty-seekers down a great deal.

That said, when compared to the cost of defending a lawsuit, $500 is a very small amount indeed and it is a very safe bet that XPays knows that. In fact, you can bet cold hard cash on their strategy being based on this risk-based calculation.

But like all those running these schemes, XPays is hoping that their nerve is stronger than those they target in this game of lawsuit roulette, that people won?t spin the barrel in the fear that the ?click? becomes a ?bang?.

However, XPays are asking for $500 in order for people to opt out of game they may not even be involved in and they currently only have 843 bullets in their barrel aimed loosely at thousands of file-sharers. Furthermore, if the ISPs had 7 days to let the Does know they are being targeted, the 843 should be finding out who they are round about now. At this point, $500 might sound like a safe-ish option to them but why should it sound attractive to anyone else? More lawsuits to come? Only XPays knows that.

So, do you feel lucky?

source: http://torrentfreak.com/paris-hilton...ulette-110312/

[DBS.US]

That's why you order you internet/cable service online with a fake name. The internet /cable services don't care what name you use, they just want the money.

[XPays]

should be interesting

[DaddyHalbucks]

Go git 'em!

[seeandsee]

somebody will pay the full price

[candyflip]

Say I'm on the list but I own a few actual copies of the DVD.

How would something like that play out? I typically buy my DVDs and Blurays, but keep them in the package and download copies from the web to my Media Server.

In all these torrent suits against ip addresses and not actual people that have been discussed here, I've often wondered this but have never raised the question.

And thinking that a $500 settlement for something that one can buy for $50 or less in the stores is fair is pretty entertaining in and of itself. Other's might get on board with this tactic if it wasn't such a straight out money grab.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

That's why you order you internet/cable service online with a fake name. The internet /cable services don't care what name you use, they just want the money.

Unless you are paying with fake credit cards from a fake house in a fake world; using
a fake name isn't going to hide you.

[MrBottomTooth]

Originally Posted by candyflip

Say I'm on the list but I own a few actual copies of the DVD.

How would something like that play out? I typically buy my DVDs and Blurays, but keep them in the package and download copies from the web to my Media Server.

In all these torrent suits against ip addresses and not actual people that have been discussed here, I've often wondered this but have never raised the question.

I believe the issue with bittorrent is that you are effectively distributing the content at the same time you are downloading it, so it doesn't really matter if you own a copy yourself.... you are still making it available to others to freely download.

[Wagerboy]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Unless you are paying with fake credit cards from a fake house in a fake world; using
a fake name isn't going to hide you.

Right they run your social sec #....lol too funny.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by candyflip

Say I'm on the list but I own a few actual copies of the DVD.

How would something like that play out? I typically buy my DVDs and Blurays, but keep them in the package and download copies from the web to my Media Server.

In all these torrent suits against ip addresses and not actual people that have been discussed here, I've often wondered this but have never raised the question.

And thinking that a $500 settlement for something that one can buy for $50 or less in the stores is fair is pretty entertaining in and of itself. Other's might get on board with this tactic if it wasn't such a straight out money grab.

that an example of using a new technology to perform a old fair use (format shifting)
clueless copyright holders are trying to prevent that

i would agree to pay the $500 only if xpay agreed to pay me back $1000 for every dollar they asked for if the court recognized my actions to be fair use.

if they truely believed that the courts would NEVER grant such an extension then they would have no problem accepting hell the MP insurance of their lawyers would cover it completely.

Originally Posted by MrBottomTooth

I believe the issue with bittorrent is that you are effectively distributing the content at the same time you are downloading it, so it doesn't really matter if you own a copy yourself.... you are still making it available to others to freely download.

re read cablevision timeshifting ruling, cacheing fair use statutes should apply
in fact given that you never give anyone a complete working copy only pieces it actually stronger.

this is another teenrevenue botch job again

with the supreme court ruling, clear examples of fair use uses (see above) and the fact that the company trying to protect their content is an "evil" pornographer this is going to turn out as bad as when teen revenue tried to argue that fair use was anti competitive.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla ......... more bla, bla, bla ............ to cheap to buy it ........ bla, bla, bla, ............ everything on the net is free ..... bla, bla, bla ....... timeshifting ... bla, bla, bla,

I translated it .....


.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I translated it .....


.

I used to think you had something to contribute, but it's pretty clear that you don't.


!

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by candyflip

I used to think you had something to contribute, but it's pretty clear that you don't.


!

Not when it comes to Guideon.


.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Not when it comes to Guideon.


.

He answered a valid question with a more than valid answer. You just chose to be a douche for the sake of being a douche.

Why shit up this thread because you don't care to hear what he has to say? What makes you think we care what you have to say?

[vdbucks]

Now if only they'd have put this much effort into making the video itself.. then it may actually be worth paying for. Not that I'm condoning the actions of the pirates, because I'm not... I just find it ironic.

[Machete_]

Originally Posted by candyflip

And thinking that a $500 settlement for something that one can buy for $50 or less in the stores is fair is pretty entertaining in and of itself.

[rowan]

I'm in two minds about this. I believe that rights should be pursued, but how do you know that the person associated with the IP address (ie, the account holder's name) is the infringer? Are you going to name John Doe Sr. because his son Johnny got horny one night?

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by candyflip

He answered a valid question with a more than valid answer. You just chose to be a douche for the sake of being a douche.

Why shit up this thread because you don't care to hear what he has to say? What makes you think we care what you have to say?

yea that's it .......


.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I translated it .....


.

you might want to read it again, there is no way shape or form you can ever claim what i said argued everything should be free

this was a case where someone BOUGHT the content, and simply used the new technology to format shift what he BOUGHT

if were half as smart as you thought you were, you would have realized the solution a long time ago.

[Agent 488]

sales are waning because it's old and it sucks.