lawyer refuses to tell court how profitable bit torrent settlements are - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

PornoMonster · 09-07-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no asking someone to pay you money BEFORE you prove they are a thief is EXTORTION

ask the lawyer if he was willing to pay $1000 for every dollar they asked for if the download was not an infringement (either because it was fair use, or because it was authorized or none of their content was downloaded -- see honeypotting which this scumbag lawyer is doing BTW) and see how many of them would agree.

Acacia Acacia Acacia Acacia Acacia

kane · 09-07-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Gideon is an idiot. But you are not even close with your analogy. To be more accurate, its not different than any other civil suit. You claim damages, demand compensation, propose a settlement meeting/mediation etc or you file the lawsuit. That's not extortion, that is the legal process.

Isn't that what is happening with these lawsuits though? They are claiming damages and demanding payment for them by proposing a settlement amount up front. If you disagree with the amount or you are innocent of the charges you can choose to go to court.

The tactics used by these lawyers to get the list of who they are going sue might be questionable and clearly the courts have some issues with them, but it doesn't seem that much different to me.

TheSquealer · 09-07-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Isn't that what is happening with these lawsuits though? They are claiming damages and demanding payment for them by proposing a settlement amount up front. If you disagree with the amount or you are innocent of the charges you can choose to go to court.

You're a smart guy. Isn't this exactly what happens with any civil suit?

I'm not defending them, i was just commenting on the analogy. Whether this is legal under UK law or some gross violation of legal procedures, legal conduct, use of the courts etc, is the actual issue. Not the simple fact of believing someone caused damages and demanding compensation for damages, alone. Thats what the civil system is about.

Without knowing every detail, the problem I am guessing is in the shotgun approach and not having good reason to believe the potential plaintiff had actually committed any wrong doing which has been found to be in violation of some other laws or procedures.

kane · 09-07-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

You're a smart guy. Isn't this exactly what happens with any civil suit?

I'm not defending them, i was just commenting on the analogy. Whether this is legal under UK law or some gross violation of legal procedures, legal conduct, use of the courts etc, is the actual issue. Not the simple fact of believing someone caused damages and demanding compensation for damages, alone. Thats what the civil system is about.

Without knowing every detail, the problem I am guessing is in the shotgun approach and not having good reason to believe the potential plaintiff had actually committed any wrong doing which has been found to be in violation of some other laws or procedures.

Ultimately that is what it boils down to. How did they come up with their list and what type of evidence do they have against those on the list to lead them to believe that they have damaged them? I guess it is going to be up to the courts to determine if this is an acceptable practice or not. So far there have been some cases that the courts clearly didn't like, but I have a feeling eventually we will see more and more of this as rulings come down and define what you can and cannot do.

TheSquealer · 09-07-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Ultimately that is what it boils down to. How did they come up with their list and what type of evidence do they have against those on the list to lead them to believe that they have damaged them? I guess it is going to be up to the courts to determine if this is an acceptable practice or not. So far there have been some cases that the courts clearly didn't like, but I have a feeling eventually we will see more and more of this as rulings come down and define what you can and cannot do.

This is what Acacia did. Assholes like Matrix Content and some affiliate programs turned over lists of webmaster contact info and basically, they blasted everyone a mass mailing letting them know they are infringing on their patents and threatening legal action or come forward and agree to generous licensing terms.

gideongallery · 09-07-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Ultimately that is what it boils down to. How did they come up with their list and what type of evidence do they have against those on the list to lead them to believe that they have damaged them? I guess it is going to be up to the courts to determine if this is an acceptable practice or not. So far there have been some cases that the courts clearly didn't like, but I have a feeling eventually we will see more and more of this as rulings come down and define what you can and cannot do.

first of all lawyers have a code of ethics that they must follow to prevent abusing the system and turning it into a form of extortion

those rules include not making/covering up ruling they know invalidate their arguments

the UK originator of this scheme got his ass handed to him

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-decima...ruling-110907/

hopefully this guy will get the same penalty.

gideongallery · 09-07-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

no it isn't. It happens in court cases across the world everyday.. It also happens preemptively everyday..

Shoplifting is a prime example. If you walk out of a store without paying , they will ask you to either pay for what you took or call the cops and have you arrested. No court case , no proof.. this is basically the same thing..

There is a massive difference between actually SEEING someone steal something

and knowing who had access to a location downloaded something.

I love how you use an example where you actually have valid proof as a justification for an accusation where you are no where close

if they got a court order , analysed the guys computers, found the file on the computer

then it would be equal to the example you gave.

That the point there are no where close when they start trial.

core_dump · 09-07-2011, 07:33 PM

I'm in no way defending thieves, however my elderly father was sent one of these notices so I'll toss in my copper:

No residential ISP that I know of has a requirement that customers operate their wireless equipment securely. Me, mine's wide the heck open and I can drag neighbors into court to testify that it's always been that way. (Whether I'd want to take the time to deal with it is a whole different issue.)

I just don't see how these people are winning suits with nothing more than an IP.

kane · 09-07-2011, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by core_dump

I'm in no way defending thieves, however my elderly father was sent one of these notices so I'll toss in my copper:

No residential ISP that I know of has a requirement that customers operate their wireless equipment securely. Me, mine's wide the heck open and I can drag neighbors into court to testify that it's always been that way. (Whether I'd want to take the time to deal with it is a whole different issue.)

I just don't see how these people are winning suits with nothing more than an IP.

This is just a guess, but I am assuming that many of the people on the list are actually guilty. There are no doubt innocent people being hit by these letters and I would guess that some are not guilty, but are paying anyway out of fear, but I think many of the people that get these letters downloaded the video(s) in question illegally, know they did it and admit they were caught.

SmokeyTheBear · 09-07-2011, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

you are not even close with your analogy.

that's why i said example not an analogy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

To be more accurate, its not different than any other civil suit.

if it were an analogy not an "example".

my "example" put it into perspective better. we all know how insurance claims work.

SmokeyTheBear · 09-07-2011, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

I love how you use an example where you actually have valid proof

same " proof " as the lawyer has in this case ..

someone might have bought the item at a different store.

Paul Markham · 09-08-2011, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barcodes

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=826136
Describes what he does and how he makes a living from it.

The thread.

Quote:

looking for a host for an egg drop server
i need to price out the cost of a egg drop server for bit torrent distribution

low bandwidth
large hard drives

will be hosting tv shows (350 mb) but only making pieces available if the swarm does not have it available (super seeding)

needs lots of hard drive space but not a lot of bandwidth.

So he time shifts the TV show or allows others to and this can't be stolen.

Gideon you're not badly effected by theft, you profiting from it.

DamianJ · 09-08-2011, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Not the simple fact of believing someone caused damages and demanding compensation for damages, alone.

The don't BELIEVE someone caused damages. They got a list of thousands of people that pay for the internet access in a place that LOOKS like someone has downloaded something illegally.

This isn't about due process. It's about quasi-blackmail.

Have you seen one of the letters they send?

DamianJ · 09-08-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by core_dump

I just don't see how these people are winning suits with nothing more than an IP.

They aren't. It's not going to trial. They are just trying to get money out of a load of people. When it does get close to trial the judges rules an IP address /= a person.

gideongallery · 09-08-2011, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

same " proof " as the lawyer has in this case ..

someone might have bought the item at a different store.

again that statement is based on you SEEING the person with the item

it not like they strip search everyone in the parking lot because someone, in the area might have stolen something.

They see you with the item first, they accuse you, and you then have a right to pull out your reciept to prove you bought it somewhere else

again for you

Quote:

if they got a court order , analysed the guys computers, found the file on the computer

then it would be equal

gideongallery · 09-08-2011, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The thread.

So he time shifts the TV show or allows others to and this can't be stolen.

Gideon you're not badly effected by theft, you profiting from it.

Quote:

but only making pieces available if the swarm does not have it available (super seeding)

Quote:

actually it more legit than hosting a stream tube site
because i am never giving anyone a working copy of the file
i am only giving missing pieces
the rest of the swarm completes the files

so the make available ruling which is currently causing so many problems should not apply

anyway it for a fair use defence group.

So i would want to get sued so that the legal precedent can be set.

and you are a moron who confuses fair use protected actions like caching with "theft"

09-07-2011, 07:33 PM	#58
core_dump Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 102	I'm in no way defending thieves, however my elderly father was sent one of these notices so I'll toss in my copper: No residential ISP that I know of has a requirement that customers operate their wireless equipment securely. Me, mine's wide the heck open and I can drag neighbors into court to testify that it's always been that way. (Whether I'd want to take the time to deal with it is a whole different issue.) I just don't see how these people are winning suits with nothing more than an IP.