Torrent Users Fight Back

eonlabs writes "Torrent users being blamed for illegally downloading Far Cry are fighting back. In a 96-page lawsuit, the lawyers at Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver are being accused of: 'extortion, fraudulent omissions, mail fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud and abuse, racketeering, fraud upon the court, abuse of process, fraud on the Copyright Office, copyright misuse, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection violations.'"

Comments

My favorite part

[Abstrackt]

From TFA: "In short, Shirokov's lawsuit is accusing Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver of knowingly breaching copyright law to make money."

Re:My favorite part

[robot256]

You're welcome to make yourself a martyr, but some of us would rather hold to account those who abuse even the broken laws we have. Maybe we can prove that the people who promote and enforce the copyright laws have no intention of following them themselves, a clear sign of an unjust law. (I'm looking at you, Congress-whose-federal-pay-never-gets-frozen.)

Re:My favorite part

[md65536]

Let me rephrase - like an ACTUAL pirate, not a curious teen or aging grandma.

We obviously need new terminology. By labeling people who let's say "back up" data as "pirates", the word "pirate" has come to mean something harmless, even cool. Yet the word is still used in the traditional sense to describe people who attack at sea, and destroy rather than create, and kill viciously, and actually take something away from people.

The pirate analogy is a bad one for copying data. The jesus analogy works better I think... he made some copies of fish and bread and distributed it free of charge.

People who copy data should henceforth be referred to as "miracle workers." Now try to paint them in the same exaggeratedly bad light with that name.

Re:My favorite part

[hedwards]

You're right, we need to find a new name for those sea going guys, people might think they're doing something serious and antisocial.

Re:My favorite part

[Xtifr]

We obviously need new terminology.

Should we go through the dictionary and find all the words that have more than one meaning and try to do something about them? Good luck with that! While we're at it, maybe we can force people to stop referring to unsolicited commercial email as "spam", since that name is already used for the Hawaiian State Bird^W^W^Wtinned meat product.

The term "pirate" as used to refer to large scale copyright violators dates back way before the Internet. It's thoroughly established usage. And I oppose changing it, because it would make the bandana, eye-patch and plushy parrot I often wear when sitting at my computer into non-sequiturs. :)

Of course, your Jesus analogy also fails, because Jesus made those loafs and fishes he gave away. The analogy to Jesus would be best reserved for those groups that give their own work away, like the Grateful Dead, Radiohead, the FSF or the Blender Foundation.

Re:My favorite part

[Score Whore]

The pirate analogy is a bad one for copying data.

You're four hundred years too late to be complaining about this usage of that word.

Re:My favorite part

[LittleBigScript]

Not if you are passing near the Gulf of Aden. Piracy isn't just a historical novelty conjured up for making movies staring Johnny Depp.

Piracy involves acts of robbery by parties not acting on the behalf of any government. By that definition Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver are the pirates.

So many charges

[SoundGuyNoise]

Don't forget mopery!

May it be the first of many

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us raise our glasses in toast to these people and hope that they will be successful, and that their success will cause more to follow in their footsteps.

Re:May it be the first of many

[TooMuchToDo]

Raise our glasses? How can we help fund efforts against the USCG? I've got my checkbook ready.

Re:May it be the first of many

[hedwards]

Honestly, in the long term the best way is probably just buying items from businesses they don't represent. Just about anything else just gives them ammunition for decrying teh evil pirates.

Intellecticon

[Compaqt]

Similar to how the Constructicons combined to form Devastator, imaginary property lawyers are combining with the mob^H^H^H RIAA, and Obama's Intellectual Property Rights Task Force to form $0.

This won't go anywhere

[bigsexyjoe]

Sure the law might be on their side, but we aren't ruled by laws, we are ruled by men. While the "law" might say one thing, the judges adhere to a sort of spirit of the law. And the spirit of the law is that big corporations and corporate are implicitly responsible, good and therefore in the right. When they don't like what a young person does that young person is in the wrong. It's just that simple.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[masmullin]

We're not evil.

Speak for yourself.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[skywire]

Take a deep breath, and go back and read the parent post. Nowhere did he even hint that all corporations are evil. He merely alleged that certain parties presume that all corporations are good. Then apologize.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[hldn]

Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.

"Young people" who leech off of the creative people whose work they want are in no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so.

what a bunch of whiny bullshit.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[bigsexyjoe]

It is incredibly ironic that I stated that court cases are largely judged by who the parties are, and you argued it by saying I don't have a right to make my point based on who I am and what you imagine my accomplishments are. You are illustrating the kind of thinking that I am referring to and I thank you for that.

Furthermore, I wasn't complaining about being on the receiving end of anything; I am an uninvolved third party in this dispute. You are complaining about "young people" and making a sweeping generalization that they buy expensive coffee.

You are simply not talking about the laws that this legal case involves. You are instead saying that young people in disputes with businesses deserve to be "spanked." And shouldn't "complain" (which in this case means exercise their legal rights based on the laws as they are written).

Re:This won't go anywhere

[drinkypoo]

All publicly traded corporations are beholden to the shareholders, and legally required to protect their interests above all others. That makes them do evil things. You know them by their actions.

All businesses that are not cooperatives are taking advantage of their employees and are thus inherently evil. But that's even more a matter of opinion.

New Hollywood business model

[digitaldc]

1) Release low-budget, badly-written & directed crappy movie to the public
2) Give it time to be distributed illegally on the internet
3) Find those who have supposedly shared it
4) Sue everybody, but count on only some people paying to settle out of court and collect fines
5) PROFIT!

Re:New Hollywood business model

[digitaldc]

Even if you already bought the BetaMax, VHS, DVD, HDDVD, BluRay media before?

Fraud fraud fraud

[Eudial]

That's a lot of fraud. I can see how this must have happened:

Man: Well, what've you got?

Prosecutor: Well, there's extortion and blackmail; extortion racketeering and blackmail; blackmail and fraud; extortion and fraud; racketeering extortion blackmail and fraud; extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud; fraud indecent exposure fraud fraud criminal negligence and fraud; fraud misuse of police property fraud fraud racketeering fraud extortion and spam;

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud...

Prosecutor: ...fraud fraud fraud criminal negligence and fraud; fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud traffic violation fraud fraud fraud...

Vikings: fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud!

Prosecutor: ...or international terror conspiracy to overthrow the government with an insurgent army funded with drug trafficking and armed robbery and fraud.

Wife: Have you got anything without fraud?

Prosecutor: Well, there's fraud indecent exposure extortion and fraud, that's not got much fraud in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY fraud!

Man: Why can't she have racketeering extortion blackmail and fraud?

Wife: THAT'S got fraud in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much fraud in it as fraud extortion traffic ticket and fraud, has it?

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

Wife: Could you do the extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud without the fraud then?

Prosecutor: Urgghh!

Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like fraud!

Vikings: Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Prosecutor: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Prosecutor: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud without the fraud.

Wife: I don't like fraud!

Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your fraud. I love it. I'm having fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud extortion fraud fraud fraud and fraud!

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud. Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Waitress: Shut up!! Extortion is off.

Man: Well could I have her fraud instead of the extortion then?

Waitress: You mean fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Fraud fraud fraud fraud. Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud! Fraud fra-a-a-a-a-ud fraud fra-a-a-a-a-ud fraud. Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Fraud fraud fraud fraud!

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[robot256]

Remind me, which Monty Python this referencing?

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[GodfatherofSoul]

Someone mod parent down -1 Geek FAIL.

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[sconeu]

Someone send parent poster a sarcasm detector.

(yeah, I know... it's a *real* useful invention)

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[robot256]

Er, I don't think that would work very well, since the question was serious at the time. I remembered the sketch but somehow could not remember the word he replaced with "fraud". But now that I found the right line to google, I don't need the embarrassment of an answer.

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[gottabeme]

And so we are reminded: things are not always what they seem.

Nice list of charges...

[Zocalo]

...but such a shame that it pretty much adds up to an admission of guilt. Anyone who had genuinely not downloaded the movie would surely have included slander and/or libel in that list.

Re:Nice list of charges...

[nomadic]

You have qualified immunity for statements made in legal proceedings (or in actions leading up to possible legal proceedings) such as demand letters. Furthermore, in order to slander/libel someone you need to make the statement in the presence of another person. If I send you a letter saying you're an idiot, that's not libel unless I show the letter to other people.

I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info

[Khyber]

Without it, I'd have not been able to get my people in on this so fast.

We wanted to go with a Federal RICO suit but instead decided a larger levee of smaller charges would be far more effective.

Now sit back and watch the show, people. USCG is about to get their ass torn up like EA, and I'm only providing financial support this round, I'm not even named in the suit.

Re:I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info

[nomadic]

I would not get too optimistic; Courts frequently don't like shotgun pleadings and this complaint certainly qualifies. And some of the claims seem a little dubious.

Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Bigjeff5]

I'm rooting for the guy, but he has made a serious blunder.

USCG registered Far Cry's copyright on behalf of the German studio that owns it in January 2010. Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009. That would be copyright fraud, and would completely invalidate all of USCG's lawsuits, and could possibly land them jail time. However, Far Cry was released in April 2009 in the Netherlands. The US release was, in fact, November 2009.

The case basically unhinges after that, and the only argument he really has left is that the majority of law-suits by USCG were for either issued before November 2009 (limiting maximum penalty to actual damages - or about $25), or were for infringement occurring before November 2009. In both cases a $1500 settlement threat could be considered coercion. That would mean the racketeering claim might still stand, but I'm not sure anything else would. I don't think an offer to settle for $1500 even though the maximum penalty is about $25 is illegal, and I don't believe insinuating a $300k per item penalty is illegal, since I believe what is stated in the settlement offer is factually correct (there have been $300k+ judgments before, but in these types of cases the statutory damages have limits to about $7k, if I remember correctly). The combination and the fact that they send these letters to people they know cannot afford representation, combined with the fact that they have never, ever sued anyone who rejected their offer, should make the racketeering case a decent option.

He is also attempting to push the issue that these mass-multidefendant lawsuits are frivolous and waste the court's time - the exact charge USCG leveled against the lawyer selling DIY motions to dismiss kits. That might be fruitful too (it's the one I really want him to win).

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[oojimaflib]

From the complaint:

45. An application for a registration of copyright in a published work requires a statement of the date of first publication; the nation of first publication should also be given. Specifically, under the Copyright Office’s guidelines an application covering a work first published outside the United States should state the date of first publication there, and should be accompanied by a copy or phonorecord of the foreign edition as first published.

IANAL, but whoever wrote the motion is, and they seem to think that it's the date of first publication of any (presumably Berne) treaty country that counts.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[MooseTick]

"Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009."

I'm pretty sure you don't have to register something to be protected by copyright in the US.

Toast cheapskate pirates with terrible taste?

[judeancodersfront]

Pirating is inexcusable in our age of cheap media. Pirating a Uwe Boll movie is like shoplifting a Girls Gone Wild video. You deserve to have the book thrown at you for being a born asshead.

Re:This will go well....

[Keeper Of Keys]

You got something against gay recursive lawyers?

They forgot slander

[EnsilZah]

for insinuating they willingly watched Far Cry.

Re:This will go well....

[sexconker]

You got something against gay recursive lawyers?

It's lawyers all the way down.

Piracy is not the answer

[judeancodersfront]

Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.

Netflix streaming is only $8 per month and turns people on to smaller producers.

Hollywood and other big producers make the bulk of their funds from theater and retail blu-ray/dvd sales. The profits from Netflix are pennies on the dollar in comparison. Support Netflix, not piracy.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Troggie87]

Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.

Lets be careful about using the word unethical. Illegal certainly, and for arguably good reason. Ethics is another thing entirely. Simply being "the law" doesn't lend much (if any) ethical weight to an idea.

Re:You must have started drinking already

[gorzek]

After I experience a bas taste I immediately seek out some bas relief.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[clone52431]

That would be an excellent way to get a conviction for obstruction of justice. Which is a felony, I might add.

I mean... if they order you not to destroy any evidence, and you deliberately do...

Much better movie parody (shorter!!!)

[mangu]

Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Fraud, murder, arson, and fraud.
Hedley Lamarr: You said fraud twice.
Applicant: I like fraud.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[hedwards]

Bad idea, you get caught doing that or they even suspect you've done that and you're in real trouble. Not sure what precisely it comes under but you're definitely going to be in more trouble than just owning up to it and paying the fine they offer you.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[Unkyjar]

But...if you're not under a criminal investigation is it obstruction of justice? I mean, they're a law firm yes, but can they order you to do, or not to do things without a court order?