Hey James S Grady!!!

[wootpr0n]

For your convenience and the convenience of anybody who received this letter or similar letters, I have some pointers.

You are lucky that you are dealing with idiots who are have no idea as to how exposed they are, and who actually believe any of the crap in your letter.

If I were to infringe on your copyright, I would do it in such a way as to not get caught.

And if I were to get a letter from you, I would stick it up your ass and that would be the end of it.

I don't know what kind of idiot lawyer you have working for you, but it sounds like he is working out of his car.

You obtained this persons contact information from a DMCA subpoena. That subpoena ONLY ENTITLES YOU TO USE THAT INFORMATION FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, not for posting it on the internet and sending cease & desist letters.

And it is highly unlikely that you should be allowed to use a DMCA subpoena. If the ISPs had any brains they would have told you to fuck off and get a real one signed by a judge.

http://wp-board.com/DennisBeard001CeaseDesist.pdf

Dennis Paul Beard
8621 Santa Clara
Dallas, TX. 75218

214-327-1819

AKA ?Zabalokis?, ?Zabalokis2?, ?dpboftx?, ?biggiesmalls?

[email protected]
[email protected]

You posted his name, address, home telephone number and e-mail address online. Are you fucking stupid? It goes without saying that this individual didn't want to be identified. So you are in violation of his privacy rights. And because you posted it on what was a pornographic website, it is leaning towards extortion. You are attempting to destroy his good character in order to obtain a settlement.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST
&
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT

Dear Mr. Beard;

It has come to my attention that you have made an unauthorized use of my copyright protected photographic works (collectively the "Works") in the preparing illegal downloads posted to RapidShare.com, WP-Board.com, and others.

I have reserved all rights in the Works and I am the sole person eligible under copyright law to use, reproduce or publish the Works. Your online posting of these Works is a violation of both civil and criminal law.

It's actually not considered criminal copyright infringement. He hasn't posted $2000 worth of your works, and his conduct isn't commercial. I mean, at most it would be whatever a months membership is worth because a user could obtain a months membership and view all of the content available in your members area. And even if we considered the No Electronic Theft Act, we don't see any private financial gain for the poster.

As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the Works as the basis for your postings nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and would be liable for statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein. An overview of copyright law is enclosed for your review.

The Internet and sites such as those listed above are far from anonymous. All of your actions are logged and tracked and recorded. Your ISP, email provider, website billing companies and the sites themselves all record your IP address, NIC, dates and times, and other details. All this information has been compiled and checked in this matter. You are guilty. You have been caught and the concept of strict liability applies. You did not have permission to reproduce and post the image sets you posted and / or distributed.
In reference to the above stated facts, and further information and beliefs, I HEREBY MAKE THE FOLLOWING DEMANDS.

1 That you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing Works, or items
derived from the Works, and that you deliver to me all unused, undistributed copies of
same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other
infringement of my rights in the future.

2 That you pay a settlement fee equal to 10% of the statutory damages you are liable for
under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq, and Section 504(c)(2) therein. Those statutory
damages under Federal law being One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00)
per infringement, with the total possible damages being over Thirty Six Million, Nine
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($36,900,000.00). The settlement fee will be ten percent
(10%) of that total, equaling Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per infringement,
resulting in a total of Three Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,900,000.00).

Now we both know that you aren't getting, nor do you deserve, anywhere near this amount of money. A quick check of the copyright office records does not list you as the holder of any copyrights. So you are not entitled to statutory damages. Remember that statutory damages do not apply unless the copyrights were registered at the time of infringement, or if the work is newly published, then within 3 months of publication.

I assume that you do not hold copyrights in the name of a corporation, since you fail to make any mention of a corporation in your letter.

Thus, you are entitled to only your actual damages and revenue from the defendant not attributed to your loss (which is nothing). And your actual damages are? Well, you will not be able to prove actual damages. That is, you will not be able to prove that the conduct of the defendant resulted in lost sales for you. Plainly, each illegal download does not necessarily result in a lost sale. Most of the people on the forum are not willing to pay for pornography. First you would have to prove that your revenue decreased, and the burden would be on you to prove that out of dozens of significant factors, none of those factors were instrumental in causing that revenue decrease.

Even if you were entitled to statutory damages, it is most likely that the judge would award you the minimum amount ($750), and not the amount that you seem to seek from this individual ($15,000). These days, it can be argued that, absent aggravating factors, any amount more than 10x the retail value of the work is unconstitutional.

3 That the above settlement fee of Three Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars
($3,900,000.00) be paid by certified funds made payable to James S. Grady at 40 W.
Littleton Blvd #210, Littleton, CO. 80120 no later than the 30th day of June, 2009.

If I have not received an affirmative response from you by the 30th day of June, 2009 at 5:00pm Eastern Time indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I SHALL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS AGAINST YOU:

A I shall file a Federal Copyright action (suit) seeking statutory damages of no less than
Thirty Six Million, Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($36,900,000.00) and further redress
in all manners the Court shall deem due and proper under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq,
and Section 504(c)(2) therein, and for all attorney?s fee, fines, and costs related to said
action.

B I shall have you served with the suit at your home or business, whichever is convenient to the process server.

C I shall move the court for an injunction preventing you from further distribution of the
Works.

You will not be able to obtain an injunction ex parte. You are not going to show up and just get an injunction.

D I shall request that the Federal Bureau of Investigation research your criminal activities
and allow them full access to my research & records, and those of the private
investigators I have used in this matter.

The FBI doesn't give a shit. They will tell you to stick it up your ass. Or, they will open up an investigation to see if you are in violation of 2257. And then they will ask you how you got all of these records and investigate you for hacking.

E Allow all other photographers and webmasters fully access to my research & records, and those of the private investigators I have used in this matter.

The people involved with this website need to get in there and get some sort of order that prohibits you from further disclosing any of this information. Obviously the guy was scared so he gave you access to the server.

There are two issues here. The first is a privacy policy or terms of use. Since the website is no longer up, I cannot see the privacy policy. But it probably contained some restrictions as to what the website was going to do with data that it collected from the user. And that most certainly would have restricted disclosing it to a third party such as yourself.

The second thing that a court would weigh would be the reasonable expectation of privacy. And users on forums do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Maybe not on GFY, where many people post their pictures online, but probably on the forum that you took down.

You cannot take this private information and use it as you please, especially in violation of the purpose of a DMCA subpoena.

Take notice that I have been in the photography business over 24 years.

I have never lost a copyright suit. I hate to litigate such matters, but will start the process July 1st, 2009 if other arrangements have not been made.

Yes, but have you ever won one?

If there is anything I can do to expedite your compliance with this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,
James S. Grady
40 W. Littleton Blvd #210
Littleton, CO. 80120
1-877-686-5393

CC:

James W. Cicconi, General Counsel
AT&T WORLDNET SERVICES
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921-0752

Director of Security
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
575 Morosgo Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30324

Like any of these people give a shit. Really, the General Counsel of AT&T is going to read your letter?

[wootpr0n]

Also, for the record, I had to cut some things from your letter because it was over the character limit.

But I got the entire post down to 9999 characters!

[2012]

would you mind expanding on this a little more ?

[iseeyou]

wootpr0n.

nobody here cares what a stupid want-to-be copyright pirate like you thinks. Talk to the judge yourself (if this ends in court) and stop posting your shit on gfy.

[Mr. Billy]

I think it would be an accepted concept that having his content posted for free all over the web would certainly dilute his ability to profit from it himself.

BTW I notice you guys who support the torrents and tubes do not ever keep an argument simple and focused and to the point.

In a courtroom you will not be able to run a case off track by avoiding to deal with the very specific points brought before the judge.

The case points will be raised and you will be required to argue only those.

Win or lose.

[mOrrI]

Drama .....

[Mr. Billy]

Originally Posted by mOrrI

Drama .....

On GFY even!

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by wootpr0n

For your convenience and the convenience of anybody who received this letter or similar letters, I have some pointers.

let's file your post under 'doth protest too much'. it's obvious you are at best, a webmaster running forums similar to the one Grady took down where you make money from copyright infringements and at worst you're nothing but another loser like these guys Grady is going after whose lives revolved around other losers exchanging high fives for sharing copyrighted content.

which are you? don't say neither because there's not a single person here including GFY's biggest retards who can't see through you and your thread like cellophane.

[tranza]

Do I lose something...?

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by Mutt

let's file your post under 'doth protest too much'.

yes, and methinks Wootporn mightest be the owner of pornbb.org.

How can someone actually defend copyright thieves, spouting all of these technicalities, but ignoring basic ethics -- like stealing other people's work is just not right.

[fris]

let me guess w00tporn owns a forum with copyrighter material on it, and he thought he would chime in.

also I love how pirate forum owners threaten people that report their rapidshare links, and get all irate, its comical.

[wootpr0n]

Originally Posted by Mr. Billy

I think it would be an accepted concept that having his content posted for free all over the web would certainly dilute his ability to profit from it himself.

BTW I notice you guys who support the torrents and tubes do not ever keep an argument simple and focused and to the point.

In a courtroom you will not be able to run a case off track by avoiding to deal with the very specific points brought before the judge.

The case points will be raised and you will be required to argue only those.

Win or lose.

Actually, I am neither.

I never argued that operating that forum was right. Obviously, operating that forum and encouraging users to post links to unauthorized copyrighted material could be considered contributory copyright infringement.

I was just arguing that these letters demanding payment of millions of dollars are obscene, if not illegal, and that you wouldn't have much of a case suing individuals who are posting links to material.