Should the IP address turn up as owned by John Steele then it seems without doubt that he has been running a honey pot trap with the aid of his friends.
I pondered his response and what will he say open WIFI or hacked? But how can he say this when how could sharkmp4 the cause of these infringements have known John Steele's own IP address? The odds are rare.
Even if possible how could Prenda be aware of these new torrents and begin infringement tracking within minutes of an announcement?
I am quite sure people get convicted on less evidence than this where Prenda are known liars.
I was always wondering about those uploads when all from the same user does smell like a honey pot trap. Beyond the IP though there was no other proof until now where if you do accuse someone of a crime then you do need solid proof.
Good job Delvan Neville for finding that solid proof when Ingenuity 13 were sure involved in these movie uploads. Then to have John Steele admit to this is the final nail in his coffin.
Authorized uploads means non-infringing downloads. To then accuse people of infringement then seals the honey pot where a clear case of fraud it is.
The only remaining mystery is why the Police have not yet arrested John Steele and friends and carted them off in handcuff when that is what should happen.
At least the RICO investigation will be over the Moon today when here is proof of organized crime.
The cartoon that Mark Bridger viewed is lawful under UK law because all animated porn is a victimless event no matter how extreme. So they are asking Google (our local web masochist) to censor something that is lawful.
Now had you believed they should censor such lawful porn then this case goes much further. Due to the rare risk of such porn popping up somewhere they insist that ALL lawful porn should be censored also. All porn, all sites, gone.
Well almost when they say if people want to watch such standard lawful porn they first have to register for it. So these people have no honourable intentions when it is only an attempt at mass porn censorship.
All services do take strong action against unlawful porn once informed when that is the law. Google though host no media when it is only links and why they always go beyond the law into masochistic censorship.
Well these figures are different from past figures I have seen from gross market income figures such as from iTunes, Spotify, Amazon sales and such, which then said RIAA labels got about 47% of sales while the independents got 53%. I am sure that difference is even wider by now.
These results are the same though in that the RIAA labels are smaller, indie musicians are booming, where in general the music market is very healthy.
The RIAA labels did hit the perfect storm in their earlier refusal to go digital, DRM etc, then huge indie competition who could record their own album starting from $200.
Keep in mind that the RIAA labels dropping from 880 to 190 bands was often a bloodbath of self interest. Labels closed, contracts terminated, copyrights sold on to other labels often under UMG. Now the music could be sold without having to pay the musicians anything when they now had no rights by copyright or by contract.
Life is not so bad for RIAA labels now where there is less risk in musicians who become indie famous first. They are often still the gateway keepers to TV and Radio.
I am also sure many musicians still dream to be the next Lady Gaga and to be handed a million dollar recording contract. Just a shame such fame comes built on much trickery and blood.
I am actually pro-EU myself when I understand the aspects.
I would believe though the day the UK Government actually hold a referendum that they would be pretty damned desperate and at the end of the line.
I would also believe the voters would have so much contempt for Government referendum delays that they would vote simply to cause the Government some pain. You have feared us for years so truly fear us now.
This is just a joke when the UK Government will never do a referendum on the EU. We have already been owed one for decades on if we should be in the EU and things like the Euro.
They never ask the public when they just don't want to hear the answer. Government after Government on both sides just barge on into Europe regardless.
This is nothing new when to say around 2017 means into the next Government where the entire rulebook changes and long enough for people to forget about their referendum agreement now. By 2017 they will say sure a referendum around 2021.
All this is about is the main parties trying to minimise losing voters to the UKIP in the next election. So they are simply lying to people as they have always done. Had they been serious then within 2 years and already printing the forms they would do.
"According to the Sheriff, only three deputies used batons (and then hit Silva only in approved areas -- i.e., not the head). The coroner's report mentions "signs of blunt force trauma" to the left side of Silva's head, which could possibly be explained by the kicking witnessed by onlookers. Whatever hit Silva's head (or whatever Silva's head hit), it was non-lethal -- no skull fractures or brain injury."
Clearly there is a huge discrepancy between family member observation shortly after his death and the coroner's autopsy report that clearly highlights that one of these two parties was lying.
Should that be the coroner then an independent autopsy is extremely advisable.
I would hope that the family of the deceased now seek an independent autopsy to validate or to reject these findings.
One aspect that does concern me is that in one earlier news story said one relative that visited the deceased stated that his nose had been broken. While he is not a medical expert no nose damage was stated in this report.
Also it is not just a question of if he had some heart disease but if the Police Officers involved used the correct measure of force to restrain him. Every degree of violence beyond that is one step closer to killing him.
Finally deleting evidence is a separate crime that should get the people responsible fired.
Their claim that the cell phone could have been a gun is totally bogus and they know it. You can see from their own behaviour that they had zero concerns about threat to their own lives where they just saw it as a phone and where they did not want to be recorded.
Had they really thought a gun then they would soon draw their own handguns while ordering them down on the ground spread eagle style.
So all we have here is abuse of the law to censor. You would think cops would want to teach a bunch of kids better lessons in this high technology world.
Prenda really are following the ACS:Law example these days.
Let is remember that ACS:Law in the UK was making a good £1 million to £2 million on speculative invoicing. Andrew Crossley the only lawyer involved, before his downfall, had just purchased a new car and was working on a deal to buy a new luxury house.
Most interesting is that only a few months later when he lost his Court case against suspect infringers, where Speculative Invoicing came to an end, and he was punished by the SDT, that he did declare bankruptcy. Riches to rags in a short space of time.
My point is that I am sure a wise Prenda would shift all their profit to offshore tax havens away from USA eyes and knowledge where they declare bankruptcy as the punishment come rolling in.
It is not so hard living a bankrupt life when you can just take a really long holiday to spend your millions in untraceable cash, bearer bonds, gold bars and gemstones.
Outside our little Copyright War in this technology field then public ignorance between copyright and patents seems quite high. TechDirt have of course reported on this ignorance often when it comes to news services who should know better.
Knowing the difference between laws helps to avoid confusion over the difference between murder and rape, theft and fraud, copyright and patents.
As I have said before I would have called a lawyer even if it had been nearly 3am. The only defence against overpowering authority is someone intelligent and wise on the ways of the law. Then yes to fight them in Court to make the Judge fully aware of the situation and not their one sided story.
Here today it is clarified that the law says the Police cannot use a warrant to seize a by-standers property if a news story is to be reported. Only a Subpoena can be used and that of course gives people time to do their thing.
It is also true that detaining someone in their home for hours is not on the good side of the law. Police Officers are not even allowed in your house without a warrant unless you invite them in.
So all a case of not knowing the law, not taking up their lawful rights, then allowing the Police to bully them and to abuse the law in order to delete critical evidence against them. To win there is only one choice... to be an even bigger bully and annoyance.
Well 1, 3 and 5 would be invalid when even Police Officers have Fourth Amendment rights meaning their privacy cannot be violated by the Government until there are facts to indicate that they may have been involved in a crime.
Number 2 does not seem too useful when Police Officers can lie but sure if their sanity is questioned then they can be sent off to be evaluated.
Number 4 seems a fair request and part of the job agreement but weekly seems a bit too intrusive where random checks can work better.
This whole case though is about cops not following established procedure rules, and even in breaking the law, where they will indeed be judged and fairly punished for what they have done.
I would hope to see in this case that the system works with no changes needed beyond reminding Police Officers to actually follow the law and standard procedures.