Profitable 'Pay Us Or We'll Sue You For File Sharing' Scheme About To Send 30,000 More Letters

from the and-here-we-go-again dept

Remember ACS:Law? The shakedown organization that appears to have taken over where Davenport Lyons left off (including using some of the identical documents), and who has “partnered” with DigiProtect, the company that gleefully admits that it purposely puts files on file sharing networks just to collect the IP addresses of anyone who downloads, is asking for the identifying info on 30,000 UK users. To put that in perspective, in the years long campaign by the RIAA to sue people for file sharing, they apparently requested info on about 35,000 IP addresses. Of course, when spreading such a big net, it’s no surprise that tons of innocent people get caught in it. But that’s really of little concern, since no real lawsuits have been filed. They’re just hoping a bunch of people feel that it’s easier to pay up. It’s not about stopping piracy or getting people to buy — it’s about shaking people down for as much money as possible.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: acs law, digiprotect

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Profitable 'Pay Us Or We'll Sue You For File Sharing' Scheme About To Send 30,000 More Letters”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

It's worth clicking through to the TF article

I think this part of the linked article is valuable, and that this information should be replicated in as many places as possible:

It is worth noting that ISP account holders are not liable for copyright infringement carried out on his/her connection if a) they did not carry it out themselves or b) did not authorize any infringement. If they did neither they can simply write back to ACS:Law explaining that the accusation against them has been made in error.

Furthermore, if the account holder does not know who did carry out the infringement, they should state in their reply that is the case. It is then up to ACS:Law to find the real infringer based on their evidence they hold. This is impossible for them without the account holder pointing the finger.

Stay sharp, kids.

Anonymous Coward says:

If Digiprotect has received permission from the copyright holder(s) to put material up on file sharing networks, then *BY DEFINITION* they had permission to be distributing such works, and it is no more copyright infringement for somebody to be downloading the work from them than if the copyright holder on the work had made it similarly available himself. This is tantamount to police deliberately changing the speed limit signs in an area to read more than the actual speed limit, and then fining people for going over what the actual limit is supposed to be.

Contrary to what companies like Digiprotect might think, file sharing is *NOT* against the law. Copyright infringement is… but sharing files that you have permission from the copyright holder to share isn’t copyright infringement.

Brendan (profile) says:

Call it what it is: LawSpam

Let’s do some math. I am admittedly making up the numbers.

30,000 requests x 2% bending-to-the-will x $2000 per settlement = $1,200,000
And that’s without really having to do any work.

I’d also wager that the settlement-without-question rate is much higher, given the enormous costs to fight the accusation, despite innocence or guilt.

Anonymous Coward says:

Stupid system

My Business Model…
Send out massive bulk snail mail (widely dispersed across the country as possible) claiming some copyright infringement (being really vague about the infringement on some copyright your bogus company actually does own)… and request a small amount (less than $500) or imply they will face full legal action potentially costing thousands of dollars (no need to specify which party).
If anyone contests it then drop them… claim it was your mistake and apologize for the error (hell even you even offer $5-$10 gift certificate for your error if your getting lost of people to pay up).
Most people have infringed on some copyright so some people will pay (easy to determine the threshold limit by average household income in a given postal code).

If you mail drop to 1 million homes (say at the outrageous cost of $1 million to generate the letters and pay for postage). Asking for an average of $200. Then you just need 0.5% to pay up to break even. In reality you will most likely get 10-20% pay up. At 10% you net $20,000,000.

See the problem with allowing fishing expeditions… very easy for a company to claim an error and never actually purse legal action. The current system is in favor of the company.

Anonymous Coward says:

By putting copy protected works up on a torrent site themselves, Digiprotect is deliberately misrepresenting the underlying status of any work they do this with as something that is freely available. Pot, meet kettle. Even if they obtained distribution rights from the copyright holder, absolutely nothing can give them permission to deliberately misrepresent the status of the work and then take action against people who happened to believe them.

Anonymous Coward says:

There working with in the current law sadly, first using the legal system is not extortion (yet) because you can sue anyone for any reason.

Entrapment only works if the person asking you to do something illegal is a cop in there official standing. IE a cop sees you sleeping in the back of your car, orders you to move your car, then pulls you over for drunk driving, the cop just ordered you to brake a law (drunk driving) because he knew you were drunk when he told you to do something you would not normally have done.

Thats the sad reality, you can aways remind people you can sue them in court, that is not extortion (yet).

Anonymous Coward says:

Entrapment or not, they _are_ misrepresenting the copyright holder’s interests by making it available on a public file sharing system when the copyright holder has not not given any intention that other people are supposed to be able to freely copy the work. If anybody is infringing, it’s digiprotect, even if they *DID* obtain licensing. If the intent of the copyright holder, in granting such licenses, is that other people _are_ supposed to be able to freely copy the work, then digiprotect’s claims fall completely flat because there is no actual infringement in the first place.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...