Hide Techdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie

from the porn-porn-everywhere dept

We’ve pointed out recently that porn producers seem to be rapidly jumping on the mass automated “pre-settlement” bandwagon, and it seems that’s only increasing. More and more porn producers are filing mass lawsuits, demanding people accused of sharing all sorts of porn pay up or go to court. One of the latest targeted is the porn “classic,” Debbie Does Dallas, for which 113 John Does have now been sued. Apparently, the lawyer involved is the same one who filed a bunch of these types of lawsuits a few months ago, Evan Stone. So apparently he’s joined the ranks of lawyers who are pitching this kind of “service.” Over in the UK, various politicians have been condemning these kinds of lawsuits, even calling them a scam. With thousands of these lawsuits being filed in the US now, will any US politician speak up and do something about this clear abuse of copyright law?

Filed Under: , , ,

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 “Debbie Does BitTorrent: 113 Sued For Sharing Classic Porn Movie”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
175 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Coincidence?

Lawyer Evan Stone filing mass lawsuits for downloading “Debbie Does Dallas”, which happens to be included on the “Debbie Does Dallas… Again” 2007 DVD release, which happens to star actor Evan Stone, who was born in Dallas, Texas, which happens to be 35 miles from lawyer Evan Stones business address…

Coincidences are funny πŸ™‚

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Mistake?

Meh, whatever. The movie was made in a time before rampant plastic surgery and obsessions with physical “perfection” (not a good thing – I personally don’t like woman with exposed bones, stretched faces and balloons attached to their chests). It’s a historical record at this point of attitudes toward that kind of thing (women have physical imperfections and hair beneath their waists?).

More interesting to me is the fact that despite the fact that this movie is so well known and viewed, it should be under the public domain now, at least if the copyright laws hadn’t been hijacked. Imagine getting free, non-amateur porn legally, even if it is over 30 years old…

BruceLD says:

Subject

For reasons only known to the corporations, instead of creating a new business model that adapts to technology of the new century–they create and help pass laws that try to keep their archaic and obsolete business model alive. They also make a few lawsuit bucks targeting anyone including those that may be completely innocent and unable to afford to defend themselves.

That’s right folks, this is what the corporations and lawyers wanted. This is what people that you voted for in to government got suckered in to supporting and passing in to law.

Welcome to the ACTUAL reason for the DMCA; not to protect jobs, not to protect artists, but to make executives and lawyers the wealthiest people around. Wealthier and greedier they are becoming. While most normal people would be happy with a $1M in the bank and to live off the interest for the rest of their lives, these greedy lawyers and executives aren’t content with their mega millions and sometimes even billions of dollars in their personal fortune sitting in their banks–and even having all of that is not enough.

RD says:

The Rich

In an interview Mr. Rockefeller was asked how many more dollars until your satisfied. He then answered, “Just one more dollar”.

This is what is wrong with this country (America), and the world today. No matter how much wealth or power they accumulate, its never enough, they always, ALWAYS, want more.

Greed will doom this country, possibly very soon.

average_joe says:

With thousands of these lawsuits being filed in the US now, will any US politician speak up and do something about this clear abuse of copyright law?

Don’t hold your breath. I doubt any politicians have it backwards like you do. By definition, the people who infringe on other people’s rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law. Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers.

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So, a person who illegally downloads a movie is just like someone who murders or robs a bank? Please.

Irrelevant. You said “By definition, the people who infringe on other people’s rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law”. The same definition should apply to all laws. Or do they teach you in law school that copyright laws are all-important while other laws are OK to break?

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

As usual, I don’t get your point. Yes, in general, a person who breaks a law abuses that law. I can’t even begin to imagine why you would ask, “Or do they teach you in law school that copyright laws are all-important while other laws are OK to break?” I have no idea what you mean. Try making more sense next time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

You might want to try answering the original question. Not answering it makes you look like you have a reading comprehension problem.

My question to you is…If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?

That question had nothing to do with your answer of:
I’m not a party in this case,

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

I said that I will not pay someone’s legal fees because I am not a party to that case. How is that avoiding the question? Why would I pay the legal fees in a case to which I am not a party? You’re not making sense to me. Explain it to me like I’m a little child, and I shall endeavor to answer it to your satisfaction. πŸ˜‰

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

I said that I will not pay someone’s legal fees because I am not a party to that case.

Which is a non-substantive answer to the question you were asked.

That question was:
My question to you is…If you discover that someone you are suing is innocent, will you pay all of their legal fees?

Explain it to me like I’m a little child,

Oh well in that case:

Quiet. Little children are to be seen and not heard.

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Average_joe shown to fail the 8th grade education standard:

Oh, I see. I’m the one doing the suing.

Did I have good reason initially to think they weren’t innocent? Why did I sue them in the first place? How did I later find out that they were innocent?

I’d need to know more to answer your question.

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I don’t really follow you. Either the defendant is found liable or they are found not liable.

If the defendant is found liable, the plaintiff can ask the court to award them attorney’s fees. If the defendant is found not liable, the defendant can ask the court to award them attorney’s fees.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Innocent, until proven guilty?
Or Guilty, until proven innocent?

It’s up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s guilt (beyond a shadow of a doubt), not the defendants task to prove their innocence.

But admittedly, this is from my understand of the law of the land, and years of watching crime documentaries and dramatizations. IANAL and all that.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Read the complaint in any of these cases. Believe it or not, the plaintiffs lay out their case in the complaint. People can then read these complaints and see what the plaintiff is alleging. Amazing!”

Yes, as I suspected the evidence is a list of IP addresses. Why that is considered prima facie evidence is anyone’s guess. If that is evidence then this IOU I just typed is evidence that someone owes me money.

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Nope. Wrong again. It’s not anyone’s guess what is considered prima facie evidence. Case law spells it out clearly. The complaint alleges prima facie evidence, and that is sufficient at this point of the proceedings.

Read a bunch of case law and then we’ll talk more. Until then, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve read 7 cases about copyright infringement just today for pleasure reading. I read case law every day. I read case law for class. I read case law for work. And in my spare time, guess what, I read case law. Maybe that’s why I’m at the top of my class.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“Nope. Wrong again. It’s not anyone’s guess what is considered prima facie evidence. Case law spells it out clearly. The complaint alleges prima facie evidence, and that is sufficient at this point of the proceedings.”

Just because it is alleged does not make it so. Having said that, I hold little hope that the court will throw this out like it should. I am not contesting the fact that they can do this, I am saying that they should not do this, ideally because the court would spank them for wasting time (wishful thinking, I know).

“Read a bunch of case law and then we’ll talk more. Until then, you have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Honestly, I wouldn’t claim to know more about law than you. Pretty much everything I’ve brought up here is based on you saying stuff that just doesn’t make sense with a basic knowledge of English. That you appear to have some odd ideas about certain legal concepts is possibly also your communications skills at fault.

“I’ve read 7 cases about copyright infringement just today for pleasure reading. I read case law every day. I read case law for class. I read case law for work. And in my spare time, guess what, I read case law. Maybe that’s why I’m at the top of my class.”

I am glad that you appear to enjoy your work so much. Few people enjoy their work enough to be able to stand it in their spare time. Personally I prefer martial arts as a hobby, it makes a nice contrast to sitting at a desk trying to help people all day.

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

If I’ve miscommunicated something, I apologize. I’m also sorry if I’m short with you. People jump on everything I say, and usually without any knowledge of what they’re talking about. It gets old.

I do love what I do very much. I’m researching the legality of reverse engineering software at the moment–got a presentation to make at school tomorrow. Interesting stuff.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“If I’ve miscommunicated something, I apologize. I’m also sorry if I’m short with you. People jump on everything I say, and usually without any knowledge of what they’re talking about. It gets old.”

I’m short with people all the time, though I try to make sure that I’m only reflecting the attitude of those I’m talking to. Being 100% polite when others are taking the piss is a sure way to get them to ignore you.

I tend to focus on how people are communicating because that is a universal constant and often seems to me the biggest barrier to two sides of an argument reaching a consensus (even if it is a disagreement). The great thing about language skills (or reasoning skills) is being able to butt in on subjects that you don’t necessarily know anything about. Most of my time on here is spent not trying to convince people that they are wrong, but that what they said isn’t what they meant. I don’t mind disagreeing with people, I’d just like them to know why I disagree with them as that tends to be the first step towards them changing their own minds.

“I do love what I do very much. I’m researching the legality of reverse engineering software at the moment–got a presentation to make at school tomorrow. Interesting stuff.”

Presentations are one of the reasons that I’m glad I dropped out of school. I find it easier to write than talk.

alternatives() says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

>There is no evidence that I know of in this case that any of the people accused are innocent.

Such a low bar. What you know. And what is known about a case that hasn’t had its 1st trial.

Too bad that other cases HAVE shown various accused as being innocent.

Too bad for your position that one is supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.

I wonder if Mike can be compelled to turn over your identifying info so that if you ever did apply for the job as a judge your lack of understanding of the idea of ‘innocence until PROVEN guilty’. I wonder how that discovery would have to be phrased?

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The complaints in these cases lay out prima facie evidence that the defendants infringed on the plaintiff’s copyright. This prima facie evidence is enough to initiate a lawsuit. That’s what we know.

What cases are you talking about where a defendant has been shown to be innocent? What are the facts?

More importantly, what does that have to do with this case? Have any of the defendants here been shown to be innocent? I don’t see how since we’re not at that point in the proceedings yet.

People are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing about these cases says otherwise. Prima facie evidence is just one side of things. We haven’t heard the other side yet. Maybe they are innocent, or maybe they’re not. We don’t know yet.

I do understand innocent until proven guilty. I’m not sure you do.

alternatives() says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

> What cases are you talking about where a defendant has been shown to be innocent? What are the facts?

So you want a list and case history?
Hrmmmm. Lets see if providing you that would “matter”?

>More importantly, what does that have to do with this case?

Oh. So you admit that you don’t actually CARE about what you just asked for.

Again folks – if you want the likes of Average_joe to be un-employable as a copyright attorney – stop consuming copywritten material under oppressive licenses. No money, no problems. Kill copyright by choking off the money.

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I don’t really need a list. Of course people sometimes are able to prove their innocence, and sometimes they cannot. After plaintiffs present their case-in-chief, defendants get to present their defense. That’s how it works.

My point was that in this specific case, there has only been the complaint filed. No one has mounted a defense. You cannot say innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.

Stop consuming all you want. Get everyone who reads your words to follow along. I couldn’t care less.

alternatives() says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You cannot say innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.

And yet in
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100902/11385710880#c909
People are innocent until proven guilty

If your statement ‘People are innocent until proven guilty’ is true one has to say ‘innocent people were accused in this case since no one has defended themselves yet.’

alternatives() says:

Re: Re: Re:7 average_joe won't admit she/he's wrong:

Seems to be a habit of yours – when you are on the loosing side of the argument you claim you do not understand or claim it doesn’t matter.

I asked you a specific question as to your behavior. You can choose to answer it or not.

You might wish to grow a backbone and answer the question to show the others who read the posts that you are an honest human being.

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:8 average_joe won't admit she/he's wrong:

Just yesterday, I fully admitted that I was wrong in the “Hurt Locker” thread and I thanked the person who pointed out my error. I am obsessed with getting things right, and I welcome it when people point out my flaws. I can’t imagine being any other way.

What specific question would you like me to answer? I will answer it gladly. If my answer proves to be wrong, I will gladly admit it is so.

Not sure why you think I’m so nefarious…

abc gum says:

Re: Re:

There you go again, assuming guilt before the accused is given their day in court.

This type of rights enforcement is not going to end well. If you think the car warranty telemarketing scam was big, just wait for the upcoming you infringed scams. There will be huge collateral damage and the retort by apologists like yourself will be – too bad, so sad. The rights holders will not care about the results of their indiscretions because they are getting their rightful millions which they are owed.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I do not assume they are “guilty.” I’ve never said any such thing. I believe that the complaint alleges sufficient reasons to bring a suit against the defendants. Two different things.”

You said: “By definition, the people who infringe on other people’s rights under copyright laws are the abusers of the law. Only in some silly alternate universe are the victims the abusers.”

If that isn’t an assumption then I might assume we’re in the silly alternate universe anyway.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’m afraid you aren’t going to make a very good lawyer. Avoiding the issues and questions with childish displays such as this will just annoy the judges you go before.

Copyright infringement is never an automatic abuse. Abuse must be proven in court. There are exceptions written into the law that you must be aware of.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“I don’t really follow you here.”

I’ll simplify it then. You implied that those sued are guilty of infringement. On the safe presumption that you have no evidence of this, we can conclude that you assumed they are guilty.

“I don’t find you compelling, vivaelamor.”

I am very grateful that you would publicly state this.

average_joe says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I implied no such thing. There is prima facie evidence that those being sued are infringers of the work in question. Read the complaint to see this evidence. You might want to do some homework on what constitutes prima facie evidence of infringement while you’re there, so you know what to look for in the complaint. Whether or not they in fact infringed remains to be seen.

I perfectly well understand the difference. Got anything that’s actually interesting to debate about?

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“I implied no such thing. There is prima facie evidence that those being sued are infringers of the work in question. Read the complaint to see this evidence. You might want to do some homework on what constitutes prima facie evidence of infringement while you’re there, so you know what to look for in the complaint. Whether or not they in fact infringed remains to be seen.”

Yes, you implied that they are guilty when you referred to them as infringers. When I said evidence I meant proof. Now I’m mixing the two up, glad I’m not a lawyer. If you didn’t mean to imply that then fair enough, but again you keep acting as if what you said means something completely different to how the rest of the English speaking world might interpret it. The fact that they are presenting their evidence as prima facie doesn’t give you cause to imply that the accused are infringers. I hope you’re not a defence lawyer if you don’t get the whole innocent until proven guilty premise.

“I perfectly well understand the difference. Got anything that’s actually interesting to debate about?”

I’m patiently waiting for you to get past the language barrier so that we can progress.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“Life’s too short to go back and read what I posted just to make you happy. If I called them infringers when I should have said alleged infringers, then I apologize. You may have found a flaw in one of my posts. Good for you.”

This from the guy who brought up something I said days or weeks ago? Still, your contrition moves me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Lawyers.... Is it any wonder?

Anyone else notice the number of commercials on television that basically say

“If you’ve ever taken > and you’ve been diagnosed with >, then you may be elligible for compensation.”

Lawyers are chasing more ambulances, filing more law suits, and convincing more people and businesses of ‘entitlement’. Why? Because they need money. The market is flooded with lawyers who’ve spent their entire lives following the Law industry, and they don’t know anything else.

Is the sheer number of those being sued any wonder??? I wonder in how many cases where it’s actually the people rather than their lawyers having a strong influence on them to get “sue happy”…

herodotus (profile) says:

“Are you really assuming that in the future I’m going to do something you find despicable, and then holding it against me now? That seems really, really desperate. Don’t you think?”

Well you do spend an awful lot of time defending despicable practices. It’s not really a huge cognitive leap to assume that you might engage in such practices in the future.

You see, you might be completely right about how the law works. The problem is that many people think that the law in these and many other cases does more harm than good. That the legal system generally has been distorted into something that serves the best interests, not of the public, but of lawyers and law enforcement.

The law is distorted all of the time. Just read some Radley Balko articles over at Reason.com to see how cops abuse the law with knock and announce drug raids executed at 4 AM. Every single one of the raids he discusses involve harmless low level drug offenders whose houses are broken into by SWAT teams, whose dogs are shot on sight, whose children our terrorized, all to get half an ounce of marijuana.

Now you will find many citizens who are outraged by these raids, but if you ask many police officers, they will tell you that this is how the war on drugs has to be fought, and that if people don’t want to be terrorized by police then they shouldn’t buy marijuana (which is, after all, illegal). They will also tell you that these raids are standard operating procedure.

Now here’s the deal: you kind of come off like one of these cops.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it’s true. If you want to avoid this, you might want to look at the way you write things and try to add a bit more balance to them.

But of course, you think that your views are balanced, don’t you?

Sigh….

vicarious infringer says:

i agree with Mike

I agree with Mike, this twit ‘average_joe’ is confusing legal and infringing in all of his posts, obviously he does not know the difference. Nor does he understand innocent until proven guilty, just because some retarded greedy lawyer group ‘says’ you infringed, your guilty? Besides, proof of infringement is for DISTRIBUTION, not downloading. Assuming because someone downloaded a copyrighted item that they automatically uploaded it to someone else is just flat out reality distortion by money blinded corporations/executives/copyright holders. You are also confusing my constitutional rights that are suspended for copyright PRIVILEGE, a government based monopoly. Copyright has no privilege to suspend my right to knowledge, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Culture IS more important than copyright, and don’t go and spew your garbage about how copyright created culture. That is about as truthful as one download = one lost sale.

I see this kind of trolling on all the boards concerning copyright, seems the **AA hire ‘tards like joe here to debunk reality intended to steer the sheeple back to buying plastic discs using totalitarian fear of justice.

‘If a substantial amount of people break a particular law, then there is something wrong with the law’
– Abraham Lincoln

average_joe says:

Re: i agree with Mike

I’m a twit and a tard? Grow up, little child. Of course I understand the difference between “legal and infringing.” Give me a break. Of course I understand “innocent until proven guilty.” Find one post where I confuse the two. You can’t because you’re wrong. You do not have a constitutional right to infringe on other people’s copyrights. They have a constitutional right to not have their rights infringed. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

How much IP jurisprudence have you read? I’m guessing you have read absolutely none. Do some homework and come back when you’re ready to debate like a big boy. Run off, little child.

vicarious infringer says:

well..

well, mr ‘I gotta have proof’. In every other one of your posts, you interchange infringing and illegal, and obvious job of misdirection, similar to your moniker. I have been profiling ppl on the internet for 15 years genius, and it only took reading 4 of your posts to come to a conclusion. Even your quick retort was an obvious interdiction to countermand any potential harm I might cause by posting truth, about your agenda and motives. Mike has to be nice about it, because it is his board, however, I do not have that constraint. As for being little, or a child. Of course that would be your assumption, according to you, no one is as smart.

Jurisprudence, did you have to spell check that one?

Here, just to feed your internal fire.. I happen to be a double doctorate, late 40s, and currently work as a software architect for a major corporation. And I have been infringing on copyright for 15 years now, and love it.

I have been following this issue for the entire time, consider that my homework.

Spew some more, this is fun πŸ™‚

vicarious infringer says:

no

no, you are wrong. Proof. Proof is required alleging infringement, which of course is a civil infraction, and thereby NOTHING illegal about it. Albeit the proof bar is much lower in civil proceedings than in criminal matters, however, there still is the requirement of proof. And allegedly doing anything is not a violation of copyright, proof of that allegation is. My point is that you do not even understand the definition of infringement, according to your post.

Did I spell it out like a good little child this time for you?

So, what about my distribution topic? Don’t want to address this one?

average_joe says:

Re: no

Infringement is a tort. Infringement is illegal. Infringement is a civil wrong. Not sure what your point is.

In these infringement suits, there is prima facie evidence that the defendant in question infringed on the copyright of the plaintiff. Read a complaint in any of the cases for an explanation of what proof the plaintiff is alleging.

I completely understand the definition of infringement. I’m not sure why you think I don’t.

I answered your distribution question already. See my response above. If I didn’t answer your question, then explain to me what it is you’re asking. I’m happy to address any of your questions.

herodotus (profile) says:

“A person who breaks a law is both a lawbreaker and an abuser of that law. Means the same thing. I posted the definition above.”

OK, but there is a problem here, in that the phrase ‘abuse of the law’ is meant by people around here to be something distinct from ‘breaking the law’.

Karl’s example was pretty good, actually, but let’s use another one. A black person who buys cocaine is a lawbreaker. A white person who sells cocaine is a lawbreaker. A policeman who apprehends these people in the middle of a transaction, but who ‘throws the book’ at the black person while letting the white person off with a warning is abusing the law.

What the cop does in this example is, perhaps, legal. But it is clearly an example of racism practiced by someone who is supposed to act with strict regard to the letter of the law. This is the sort of thing that people are calling ‘abuse’ of the law. And it can really only apply in this sense to someone, either an officer of the law, or an officer of the court, who has some kind of legal authority.

Is there some term of art that you have acquired in your legal education that has the sense that ‘abuse’ does in this example? If there is, you would do the community a service by telling us what it is.

If there is no such term, could you suggest one other than ‘abuse’?

average_joe says:

Re: Re:

I quoted the Black’s Legal Dictionary definition of “abuse” above. In the strict meaning of the word, one who breaks a law abuses it. Yes, it has another meaning as you have indicated. I don’t find these “debates” over the meaning of a single word very interesting. Let’s talk about something with some meat on it.

herodotus (profile) says:

“I quoted the Black’s Legal Dictionary definition of “abuse” above. In the strict meaning of the word, one who breaks a law abuses it. Yes, it has another meaning as you have indicated. I don’t find these “debates” over the meaning of a single word very interesting. Let’s talk about something with some meat on it.”

If you look at what I wrote above, you will find that I was asking a question, not debating.

You keep talking around this point, so I will put it in the plainest terms possible: sometimes cops and lawyers do bad things and get away with them. They get away with them because their positions as cops and lawyers give them authority and expertise that allow them to game the system in their favor. In my last few posts here I have given you numerous examples of exactly what I am talking about.

I don’t care whether you call it “abuse” or “puddin tain” or “that’s why I am going to law school dumass”, just so long as you acknowledge the fact that this stuff happens.

herodotus (profile) says:

“Is that what you wanted me to acknowledge? Seems rather obvious to me.”

sigh….

Is there a whole section of legal pedagogy called ‘obfuscation and prevarication’? Because you are really great at doing these exact things.

What you left out was: they get away with doing these bad things because “their positions as cops and lawyers give them authority and expertise that allow them to game the system in their favor”.

Other bad people don’t have this advantage.

And so, when you write:

“There is a prima facie case against the defendants. If they put up no defense, then default judgment will be entered against them. The burden shifts to them to prove their innocence. Prima facie evidence has shifted the burden.”

You are ignoring the fact that proving their innocence could cost them a lot of money, and that it might easily cost them less to settle.

It is really easy to believe that the people issuing these lawsuits know exactly this, and are counting on it as part of their business model. And if one does believe this, than it is a pretty clear case of the abuse (or puddintain, or whatever you want to call it) of the legal system by people who know how to game the system in their favor.

average_joe says:

Re: Re:

OK, then. Some people in this world are bad people. Some of those bad people are cops and lawyers. Some of those bad cops and lawyers get away with it. Some of these bad cops and lawyers get away with it because they know how to game the system.

Feel better?

I’m not ignoring that settling can be cheaper than proving one’s innocence. In fact, I’ve repeatedly said that settling might be the best alternative because of that fact. Of course, a defendant who’s been proven innocent can ask the court to make the plaintiff pay their legal fees, so maybe it doesn’t cost them a thing monetarily. Maybe not though.

It’s also possible that people are filing these suits because they honestly think the defendants infringed on their rights, and they have proof to that effect. Enough proof to file a suit anyway. In fact, that’s what these plaintiffs swear to in their complaints, under penalty of law.

“puddintain”?? That’s awesome! πŸ˜‰

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Prince Charming: You! You can’t lie! So tell me puppet… where… is… he?
Pinocchio: Uh. Hmm, well, uh, I don’t know where he’s not
Prince Charming: You’re telling me you don’t know where he is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming: So you do know where he is!
Pinocchio: On the contrary. I’m possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio: …do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was
Pinocchio: That’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn’t.

duffmeister (profile) says:

dear average joe

This was to be posted on the other thread, I am putting it here where you were “wronged.”

Only a lawyer could quibble over such a statement being a lie. It is obviously an expression of emotion.

I am also disgusted by those that use a system that is highly broken to make a profit. I say anyone considering this as a viable option is just a profit monger that has no respect for the purpose of law or the rights and property of others. You have demonstrated already you have no respect for others so it seems I am not that far from the mark.

I try to make others aware of issues in IP law in my job as a computer professional, consultant and contractor. I am also active politically to help educate everyone on the harms these laws and loop holes have created for us all. I am trying to make the world better for us all, even you. This is where the disgust stems from, as you exploit the problems rather than see a problem and try to fix it. It speaks of a weak character that you would deem short term personal gain of more importance than cultural gain for society.

Look at stories in the public domain such as “Alice in Wonderland.” Money can be made quite readily and easily from this based on the merit of what you add, and how you interpret the work, not in what you can squeeze out of the public.

We are living in a time when our own culture is locked up and not available to us. When has this ever happened in history?

This story is a case where not one person was harmed in any way at all. In fact I imagine that the file sharing actually increased the exposure this work had. A smart business person might try to sell to this audience rather than litigate. This does prove there is still a demand for the work.

Part of the issue is that “the long tail” of economics is less true on the internet than the old school brick and mortar mentality. You can make a successful business operating on what other deem “unworthy” to offer in their store. this is made possible by the open nature of the internet, the ease of file sharing, and the cheapness of storage relative to the value of the commodity.

I’d think a better business model than to sue others for infringement would be to try and license “abandoned” yet still protected content and sell it to provide some money to both your interests and those that produced the works.

I am not against people making profit, I am quite for it, but it needs to also respect the rights of the public. Abusing a system for personal gain should be reviled when there are legitimate and effective means to make a profit. Why not try to help everyone, and at the same time make a profit, rather than exploit what you know is broken.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

If movie makers can sue these alleged copyright infringement on potential loss of sales, why can’t I sue the movie makers for stealing money out of my pocket by making awful movies?
If I pay 10-15 bucks for a cinema ticket for a (at max) 3 hours, I expect to be entertained, if instead I get bored to tears with inane dialog or sub-par acting or bad story-telling, where do I go with my complaints?
The cinema? Hardly, it’s not their fault the movie was crap, and they barely make any money anyway, besides the food from the concession stand (which is generally overpriced but still decent food, level quality, you know what to expect)
No, I want to be able to sue the movie maker for wasting my time and for costing me my hard-earned money.
But those lawsuits would get thrown out of court for their frivolity they are.

But movie studios, music labels and book publishers can sue people based on a POTENTIAL loss of income, with a list of numbers (IP-addresses are just that, numbers), which according to them infringed on their copyright. A law which was supposed to work to protect distributors from other distributors.

Anonymous Coward says:

average_joe, the best thing you ever did for this site was fucking off. Which you managed to finally do. It’s either that or you’re that much harder to trigger than blue/MyNameHere, so I suppose that’s kind of an achievement.

Also the glorious Paul Hansmeier, savior of copyright enforcement, got 14 years in the slammer.

Something for you to look forward to.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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 Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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