Now we will sue these people. Brian Casey and others have already signed agreements that they will take down their false and incorrect comments about our company, including paying our legal fees if needed.
Please look at Sears, General Motors, BMW, JC Penney and and other big companies and you see many thousands of complaints for each of them.
Does that mean each of these complaints is correct and true?
Nope. There are plenty of false complaints all over the internet. However, you rarely see a company sue over online reviews because it does absolutely NOTHING positive for the company. (Although, if I were you, I'd have picked a list of businesses without such, shall we say, "troubled" reputations.)
Give me a break, and stop beating a dead horse.
Tim, in ten years are you still going to be writing negative article about me?
Are you going to attack me the rest of my life now because I told the truth that Charles Carreon is a very good Attorney?
Unless you make things really interesting, I doubt I'll be writing negative articles about you next week. Carreon may be a "very good Attorney" in your experience, but many, many people would not agree with that assessment.
Please phone me and let's talk about it.
Or are you too much of a powerful Bully to do that?
No, thanks. Not that I wouldn't relish the chance to be told I'm wrong over the phone, but any time I take one of these "conversations" out of this venue, I end up fielding vague legal threats and strange ideas as to how I should rewrite the offending post (and RIGHT NOW DAMMIT).
So, if it's all the same to you, let's hash this out in public. I'm not a big fan of non-public communication with aggrieved parties. It limits accountability and leaves too much to subjective interpretation.
His comments were cited by prosecutors as a reason to give him a longer prison sentence.
Put him in prison longer because people seem to dislike him? How does that make any sense in context of the judicial system? "The court finds the defendant guilty as charged. In light of the general opinion that the defendant is a prick, we have added 12 months to his sentence."
Re: Hmm, almost convinced BUT I stick at "unauthorized".
Now, there IS a HUGE hole in my knowledge of the case (I don't see the answer in my skimming): was this Auernheimer the one who wrote and used the script? Or did he, as Mike alleges, just change numbers on a couple URLs and somehow got smacked with all the charges? -- Cause if the former then guilty, and if latter, HOW?
Yes, Auernheimer wrote and used the script. That (and Kerr's discussion surrounding that aspect) appears in Kerr's post at Volokh. (Also linked in post above.)
As for Mike claiming Weev only changed numbers on a couple of URLs? I can't find him stating that anywhere. This is a quote from his post on the subject:
In this case, what he did was expose a pretty blatant security hole in AT&T's servers, that allowed anyone to go in and find the emails of any AT&T iPad owner, merely by incrementing the user ID. This isn't a malicious "hack." It's barely a "hack" at all. This isn't "breaking in." This is just exploring a totally broken system. To call attention to this, weev collected information on a bunch of famous folks who had iPads and alerted the press.
Here's Kerr's perspective on Weev's script:
Further, the fact that an automated script was used to collect lots of information instead of visiting manually makes no difference to whether the visiting was an unauthorized access. See EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer, 318 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2003) (the fact that a website owner “would dislike” the use of an automated script “to construct a database” of information available from visiting the website does not render the use of the automated script an unauthorized access under the CFAA).
Kathy isn't spending money to protect sales. She's spending money to protect relationships. I believe Tim 100% that the $30K does nothing to boost sales directly. But, he's missing what that $30K is actually buying: Credibility that will give her access to a wider variety of more lucrative film s to distribute.
That could be. It's an interesting angle. Has anyone heard of anything like this happening with distributors like Amazon, Netflix or Comcast?
My only argument with this take is that she runs an independent studio and, with the exception of her own Wolfe on Demand, sells/streams through other platforms that simply take a cut of the sale/rental, rather than have anything invested in the films themselves. Thus, there's no real loss to these platforms if people DON'T buy or rent Wolfe's films. The effect of piracy on their bottom line isn't direct enough to be an issue.
(I can see Comcast demanding something like this from its "partners," but only because it seems like the sort of onerous demand Comcast would make. The company hasn't earned widespread hatred by being genial and compliant.)
Do your own 5th grade math and think about the retail price of 30k worth of DMCA notices sent. if even a fraction of them are lost sales, it's easily worth the outlay.
If the fraction only "recovers" a few hundred dollars worth of sales, is it worth it? How about $1,000? How about $10,000? At what point does spending more than you're making in return start paying off?
If she was seeing this pay off, I would imagine she'd have made a statement to that effect, like "$30K is a lot to spend, but we've seen X% sales growth and a decline in posted links." I've read multiple interviews with Wolfe and not a single one contains a statement that indicates this effort is having any impact on piracy or on her sales.
There's always the possibility that this person has NO IDEA what he's doing. He also asks for "index listings on search engines" to be removed along with "cancellation of fraudulent email accounts."
Bloggers writing about the case would be unable to do anything about the index listings and probably aren't harassing Schiffman via fraudulent email accounts, especially not legal experts like the ones named.
Perhaps John Steele is concerned he'll have a tough time nailing people for defamation after he called himself "the original copyright troll" in his interview with Forbes. Makes it a little harder to claim hurt feelings and other such "damages" when others do the same.
Re: The book description of shaun shane's book on amazon
I should publish a book entitled "A Poem Is Nothing" under my pseudonym "Shaun Shane." It would be full of all the information I've gathered on the On Press debacle. If I leave every other page blank like On Press does, it should easily be 50-60 pages, double-spaced, with large margins and plenty of pages for notes.
I'll put this dedication up front:
"Dedicated to the followers of Techdirt, whom I encourage to visit my listing on Amazon and post fake reviews. I also encourage these followers to click the "we found this helpful" button on said fake reviews, in order to game the system in an unhelpfully helpful manner.
Tim "Shaune Shane" "Capitalist Lion Tamer" Cushing"
I'll also make a limited amount of copies absolutely free (say, 3219 of them), available first-come-first-served. Just use the following code when checking out: