We’re exercising our freedom and taking off the 3rd to celebrate the 4th. See you Monday!Hide

Anon E. Mous’s Techdirt Profile

shuffle

About Anon E. Mous




Anon E. Mous’s Comments comment rss

  • May 12th, 2015 @ 4:06pm

    (untitled comment)

    Rightscorp knew of the ruling in the District of Columbia before either of these cases took place and knew that in that ruling the court forbid the RIAA to get a subpoena for ISP subscriber information.

    Rightscorp Robert Steele has flat out said that Rightscorp disagreed with the District Of Columbia's ruling and they have flaunted ever since then to be able to get ISP subscriber information to entail their settlement/extortion letters for cash.

    Does anyone really believe that Rightscorp is going to stop sending out letters and that they are actually going to go to court with evidence submitted to get a court to grant them ISP subscriber information? I doubt it.

    It would cost Rightscorp a minimum $300.00 in filing fees, and then they have to submit evidence to get a court to approve that.

    Rightscorp's business model is to do this cheaply to obtain cheap and fast settlements, no way are they going to start hiring lawyers and submitting evidence, that would kill them off and they are already in deep red ink.

    Look for the clowns from Rightscorp to continue on with the extortion/settlelment business as usual, court ruling be damned

  • Apr 27th, 2015 @ 5:40pm

    (untitled comment)

    I have said this before and I will say it again :

    It never has been about protection of ones copyrighted work, it is revenue generation under the guise of copyright enforcement. Plain and simple

  • Apr 17th, 2015 @ 10:18am

    (untitled comment)

    If you ever wondered how trolls abuse the DCMA act, Rightscorp and the torrent trolls are showing us just how easy abusing the DCMA for profit is.

    The fact that the way Rightscorp is getting subpoenas for ISP subscribers via the DCMA which courts have already said was illegal.

    Rightscorp has said they believe the court go it wrong, so they know they are obtaining these subpoenas for ISP subscribers information illegally, but they choose to break the law knowingly in order to trolls for cash.

    Rightscorp is no better than a collection agency, in fact that may be worse, it's like they are dialing for dollars hoping someone, anyone will agree to their shakedown collection methods and give them money to go away which of course they never do.

    Rightscorp is like that family member who you loan money to, and then a day later are back for more and more and more and even though you say "this is the last time" they still try to hit you up for a few more dollars.

    The fact that Rightscorp is manipulating the DCMA process is abusing the telecommunications act and outright misleading people just goes to show you what a scummy operation this is.

    I didnt think there was anyone who could make collection agencies look bad, but we have a new champion in Rightscorp

  • Apr 17th, 2015 @ 10:18am

    (untitled comment)

    If you ever wondered how trolls abuse the DCMA act, Rightscorp and the torrent trolls are showing us just how easy abusing the DCMA for profit is.

    The fact that the way Rightscorp is getting subpoenas for ISP subscribers via the DCMA which courts have already said was illegal.

    Rightscorp has said they believe the court go it wrong, so they know they are obtaining these subpoenas for ISP subscribers information illegally, but they choose to break the law knowingly in order to trolls for cash.

    Rightscorp is no better than a collection agency, in fact that may be worse, it's like they are dialing for dollars hoping someone, anyone will agree to their shakedown collection methods and give them money to go away which of course they never do.

    Rightscorp is like that family member who you loan money to, and then a day later are back for more and more and more and even though you say "this is the last time" they still try to hit you up for a few more dollars.

    The fact that Rightscorp is manipulating the DCMA process is abusing the telecommunications act and outright misleading people just goes to show you what a scummy operation this is.

    I didnt think there was anyone who could make collection agencies look bad, but we have a new champion in Rightscorp

  • Apr 13th, 2015 @ 4:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    These suits filed by the Prenda gang were nothing more than attempts to silence their critics and the lawyers and the blogs like FCT & DTD who were educating people about what the Prenda gang were up to and how the poor ISP subscriber who received a settlement demand from them should proceed when dealing with a threat from them.

    The mere fact that the Prenda gang has been found in violation of the various court orders and how their conduct has been sanctioned by various Judges around the country and the Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy have all been refereed to the state bars they are members of along with the IRS Criminal Division speaks volumes about the type of individuals they are and how they long ago forgot their oaths as officers of the court.

    The fact that they even filed these three suits goes to show you how they would stop at nothing to keep the porn lawsuits settlement game that they had going.

    It wasn't only Godfread and Cooper that were threatened with action, they tried to get Judges removed from their cases because they didn't like the way the rulings were going against them, the many appeals and delay tactics they employed to thwart victims of their cases and to tie up cases in endless court case too keep the settlement scheme going.

    Never mind the outright games played with companies who existed in Nevis , but yet had no offices or place here in the U.S. but yet managed to sue thousands of people, but yet no records of any tax and no evidence of where all that settlement money went and disappeared to.

    We have yet to see the end of these copyright lawsuit settlement schemes end yet, there are still countless suits going on and on and people being extorted for cash.

    Has the Prenda gang learned anything, no they haven't. Seems the only thing they have learned is the lawsuit settlement game is too much of a cash cow to walk away from, so Steele and Hansmeier are now using the Americans with Disbalities Act to wring settlements out of poor unsuspecting business owners.

    And the scary thing is that there seems to be no end by the various state bars that the Prenda gang belongs to to stop them from doing these types of lawsuits.

    Once again it is going to take defense lawyers and the public to come to together and educate the public and the courts about what these new lawsuits are really about and the lawyers behind them

  • Apr 6th, 2015 @ 4:23am

    (untitled comment)

    Watch for someone named Steele or Hansmeier to be looking for Craigslist lawyers to act as local counsel for ADA lawsuits in Vermont

  • Mar 25th, 2015 @ 2:29am

    (untitled comment)

    When you are a public official and your position of the office you hold is the top official for that department, then you should bloody well assume that your are speaking on behalf of that office and it's policies.

    The mere fact that a reporter has questions pertaining to legal matters that may be of interest to the public and asks for comment is justified.

    The fact that she provided her cell number and her office numbers to the media is her own problem, so don't act like a child when the media calls to ask you something that you don't want to answer.

    The fact she is having a temper tantrum because she doesn't want to answer some question because she fells she will get ambushed is all part and parcel of life in politics, no one gets an easy ride.

    If she didn't want to answer, why not tell them to contact the media spokesperson for her office (if they have one ) or have her office address it in a press release, but to threaten harassment charges cause she doesn't want to answer on behalf of her office since she is the top dog their so to speak is a joke.

    Obviously she isn't very familiar with abuse of power that some politicians get in trouble for , which I think is where she is headed here. If she can not handle the heat then go get a job doing something else where your not in charge and your not the person who has to answer for your department.

  • Mar 19th, 2015 @ 1:13pm

    (untitled comment)

    Why some see this as the Trolls being allowed the keys to the city so to speak, I do not see it that way.

    Yes Voltage pictures can still move ahead and try to go after Canadian ISP customers with infringement settlement deamnds, but they would have to submit to the court the letter that the ISP's would pass on to the subscriber

    The Letter that Voltage wants to have the ISP's send out needs to be looked over by a judge from the Federal Court and the wording of the letter will have to meet with the Judges approval, if it does not, then Voltage will have to go back to the drawing board and re-submit another letter for approval.

    Voltage Pictures won't be able to get away with quoting the $150,000.00 maximum penalty under U.S. copyright law that they so love to scare U.S. victims of their sham litigation with.

    The Maximum $5,000.00 penalty under Canadian copyright law could be quoted but there are a host of other variables that the Federal Court has already said will come to play that could mean Voltage will get no where near that.

    Voltage Pictures also may have a problem on their hands with any ISP subscriber who decides to fight, it won't be as easy to run away from a defendant who chooses to fight the infringement notice

    So while Voltage Pictures may hail this as a victory, we have already seen where this is hollow. When infringement notices started going out and quoting U.S. copyright law, Canadians started getting on the horn to their politicians and ISP's and complaining loudly, and I expect that trend will continue.

    So while the trolls may see this as a go ahead, I believe the Federal Court has looked at the U.S. troll cases and decided that The trolls will not get an easy ride if they plot ahead with their plans to go after Canadians for copyright infringement

  • Mar 2nd, 2015 @ 10:59am

    (untitled comment)

    This exec from Rogers is crying because private VPN's have ate into a once very profitable segment of Rogers business.

    The whole reason private VPN's are doing so well is because of their pricing of which Robbers -er Rogers hasn't been and isn't that competitive price wise compared to other VPN services.

    I am sure Robbers would love to have private VPN services booted or shut down thru legislation. It would improve Robber's own VPN service as well as their version of Netflix called Shomi.

    Yes Robbers has more than an alternative motive here, Netflix has a good chunk of the Canadian market, so much so that Robbers launched Shomi and Bell launched Crave TV to compete with Netflix.

    Everyone knows there are people who use VPN's not only for private companies to allow their employees to work from home or a job site thru VPN's and tele conferencing, and private VPN's beat Robber's on their price and home users like VPN's for privacy and to avoid some of the country restrictions you will find with services like Netflix.

    The fact that Robbers is using copyright enforcement to whine about having VPN's abolished is beyond a joke. Rogers customers service much like Comcast sucks and they continually rank low in customer service for a reason.

    Rogers is a very profitable business at the expense of their customers, but they are their own worst enemy due to their pricing and the way they treat the customer.

    This guise of using copyright to get rid of competition that hurts their bottom line and just shows you how much they don't like nor have a desire to copmpete and are stuck to the monopolistic way they used to have over their customers

  • Feb 25th, 2015 @ 4:03am

    (untitled comment)

    Yeah cause there isn't enough commercials stuffed into a show's hour or half hour time slot that is annoying so they want to stuff in more.

    And they wonder why people like Netflix and online sources where you don't have to sit thru commercials.

    If you ever wonder why The Networks and big cable were against Dish's box that allowed you to skip commercials, this is why never mind how scared they were that it might come to set top boxes for Cable and Telco customers further eroding their revenues

  • Feb 25th, 2015 @ 3:37am

    (untitled comment)

    A conviction, get ready for law enforcement officials to chime in at what a travesty enacting this will be to Law Enforcement across the state.

    I can hear Law Enforcement protesting this and saying how this will hamper their efforts to fight crime and take away what has been a very beneficial tool to get criminals off the street and taking the profits produced by illegal activities away from criminals.

    Yes Law Enforcement will be crying the blues at the loss of the ability to take your shit without a Judge hearing the evidence that an actual crime and a judgement entered had taken place that would warrant seizure and forfeiture of assets, heaven forbid that a person should have rights enshrined in the constitution and be afforded those rights

  • Feb 25th, 2015 @ 3:17am

    (untitled comment)

    well no sense in breaking tradition now.

    Facebook & Privacy shouldn't even be in the same sentence considering Facebook's whole revenue is derived from mining peoples accounts and what they post, like and share.

    It has and always been about information and who will pay for it. Their is no privacy on Facebook, just the illusion of it.

  • Feb 20th, 2015 @ 10:11am

    (untitled comment)

    "Now, he's looking to make some money by using an algorithm to hunt down "substantially similar" text across multiple websites and serve demand letters to alleged copyright infringers. His new business is called Plfer"

    I think when he named this company, he missed an "i" in the name, shouldn't it be Pilfer, since that is what he is trying to do? Pilfer money from people.

  • Feb 10th, 2015 @ 2:34pm

    (untitled comment)

    Harry Schneider, IMDb’s lawyer, walked Hoang through her tax returns. Without coming out and saying it, he highlighted that Hoang didn’t make very much money from acting, and that she deducted a fair amount of expenses for the amount of money she made. For example, her acting income in 2010 was between $1000 and $2000, but she deducted amounts for hair and makeup ($987), shoes ($318.86) and miscellaneous expenses ($523). The implication was that Hoang's acting was more of a hobby and less of a serious occupation.


    --

    And that is the death of her damages claim right there

  • Feb 10th, 2015 @ 1:04pm

    (untitled comment)

    Why do I have a feeling someone over at the DOJ is frantically trying to get this Cody Coll an offer letter to join the DOJ as soon as his studies are done.

  • Feb 9th, 2015 @ 3:40pm

    (untitled comment)

    Amazing how the U.S. Government's DOJ will flout even a judges ruling to get what they want. First Judge does his job and tells the DOJ point blank your request is to broad, ain't going to happen.

    Does the DOJ narrow their scope to follow the law? Nope, they just play spin the wheel and go to a different judge in a different jurisdiction to get what they want.

    It's painfully obvious how out of control law enforcement connected to the U.S. Government is and the tactics they will use to deceive the court and those who they are trying to get information from, all while misleading the courts and outright lying to Judges.

    And once again this is why if your a defendant, you will be hard pressed to get a fair trial when the DOJ outright leaves out things in disclosure and misleads the court to effect their case.

    Long gone are the days when you are innocent until proven guilty, now it's your guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

  • Feb 5th, 2015 @ 9:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    " In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the government. Defendants do not have to prove their innocence. Instead, the government must provide evidence to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt. "

    Yes this is what is supposed to take place, but it hasn't been like this for a long long time now. Now it's your guilty until you can prove your innocent.

    We have the U.S. Government and State prosecutors who routinely hide and fail to disclose how evidence was obtained, fail to provide full disclosure to defendants and their counsel, and Law Enforcement who right out mislead the court to get warrants for searches and surveillance.

    Their is no right to a fair trial anymore, the Government obliterated that years ago. Judge Rakoff knows this is becoming more prevalent and didn't like that the committee he was on to ignore what the DOJ didn't want coming to light.

    That just proves what most of us already know is that the deck is stacked against your from the start. It's amazing how people's rights are being eroded further and further.

  • Feb 4th, 2015 @ 5:44am

    Re:

    Oh great thanks! Now Chris Dodd is going to be on the next flight out to the Kuerig plant to brainstorm with their product development team to figure out how to get this functionality into DVD Screeners

  • Feb 4th, 2015 @ 5:39am

    (untitled comment)

    When the wife and I were shopping she mentioned the new Keurig machines were on sale and thought we should upgrade. I told her about how Keurig is using DRM on this new machine.

    She said to me what's DRM? So I explained to her what DRM is and does and why Keurig is using it.

    Once I explained to her that her favorite cup's would not work in the machine because of DRM, the idea of upgrading our current machine went out the window.

  • Feb 4th, 2015 @ 1:41am

    (untitled comment)

    Someone wants to do the right thing for once, and that's a good thing, it's too bad others will only see this type of cooperation as a threat to the protection of having their revenue stream threatened.

    Let's hope this is the start of a growing trend.

More comments from Anon E. Mous >>