Slashdot Mirror
Judge Ends Massive Porn Lawsuit
eldavojohn writes "A recent offensive of porn producers using copyright law against many anonymous P2P users has been terminated by a West Virginian judge. Initially, Ken Ford of Adult Copyright Company planned out nine lawsuits against some 22,000 file sharers, starting with 7,000-person and 9,000-person suits in the first wave. Unimpressed, the judge reduced everything down to one lawsuit against one file sharer, telling the Adult Copyright Company that they are to prosecute each individual separately, as the accused neither participated in the same transaction nor collaborated in these offenses. So, if you're looking to hit 22,000 people with such a lawsuit, the $350 court filing fee will require an investment of $7.7 million ($1.8 million for the individuals listed so far). Ars points out the hilarious fact that 'Ford has sued enough people that lawyers are taking out ads on his company name,' providing an image of an advertisement for such a search. This is separate from a similar showdown in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois."
Do we get a bad car analogy down the line?
Clearly he didn't want to finish...
I was looking forward to _this_ gangbang.
The fact is that the real downfall of the porn industry isn't illegal file sharers, it's the fact that there appear to be a growing number of amateur exhibitionists willing to do filthy things to each other for discount prices, or in some cases for free. Mom and pop (and various other combinations) porn films are kicking the crap out of "mainstream" porn, because the Internet, that great leveler, has given this new wave of pornographers a cheap and universal distribution mechanism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Didn't they have to begin filing against each individual infringer ?
UPS Sucks
So, what would the internet version of an 'ambulance chaser' be, considering how easy it is to attach ads to search terms?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Seems somewhat biased the riaa and other lawyer heavy companies can send out millions of lawsuits but when it comes to the porn companies it's different. What does that do for all the other mass lawsuits that have been or will be sent to other downloaders ?
Yes, but this case is about porn, and therefore more newsworthy.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
They already did. This judge's decision was based on a prior decision that went against the RIAA doing the same thing.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
This ruling should be used as a club against the MPAA/RIAA information gathering suits.
Does this set a precedent making it harder for the 'Dunlapp, Grub and Weaver' lawsuits?
The RIAA/MPAA, and their advocates are going to be pissed....
Eventually something's going to break. The reality is such:
1) 10,000 people can "steal" your digital goods easily
2) You can't currently sue more than one person at a time if they didn't collude
3) It's too expensive to sue 10,000 people separately
4) It's not really the ISPs fault so you can't sue them either
So what DOES someone do who has bankrolled their digital creation and would like to recoup their investment, even make a profit, only to find that it's spread amongst 10,000 people without a penny returned. My thinking: make one copy cost what you hope to earn. So if you make a little software program and it takes you 30 hours at, say, $60/hour...charge $1800 for it. That way, when someone "steals" it, you can sue that single person and get your money back.
Yes, that's a dumb idea. But really, money is going to start failing in terms of something that is essentially eternally renewable. What would clothes be worth if we could 100% recycle them into fresh ones? You have that going on now with software, movies, etc. It's a tricky spot we're in.
Wouldn't it be funny if the pornsters and the RIAA wound up teaming up?
Might get a bit tricky with all the "protect the children" stuff - but hey - money is money.
Check your premises.
Seems somewhat biased the riaa and other lawyer heavy companies can send out millions of lawsuits but when it comes to the porn companies it's different.
Laws will be handled differently by different jurisdictions. In this case, it's not a matter of who has more lawyers; it's a matter of where the filing occurred.
Is it possible that defense lawyers could make an argument that copyright law doesn't constitutionally cover Batman XXX because it doesn't advance arts and sciences?
(I'm not referring to their 1st amendment protection, but rather ability to prevent copying and distribution.)
It's true that it seems that that argument would be going into "viewpoint discrimination" territory, but I would think that's only in reference to banning expression, not restricting its distribution.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Perhaps this may end the RIAA's offense of suing hundreds of people at once?
I think the differences between the two industries are too great. One is a disgusting, sleazy and exploitive, and the other sells images of people having sex.
Also seems like it's judicial roulette whenever a group files a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against a large number of people. On rare occasion, the bullet is in the barrel and the judge is willing to apply the law and make the mass filing party jump through the same procedural hoops everyone else has to or apply actual common-sense protections to the defendants.
Judging by the success of niche markets like BBWs and amateurs, I'd say that you're only half right. Yes, lots of people, maybe even the majority, like the sort of Barbie-and-Ken porn, but there seems to be a rather substantial fraction of the porn-viewing population that likes less-idealized body types having sexual relations on-camera.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
share that
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
It really depends on taste. For instance, I think that proportions are very important. If the breasts are out of proportion to the rest of the body the person becomes rather unattractive to me. If I see someone who isn't exceptionally tall with a D cup I'm going to find that repulsive rather than erotic.
Likewise people who are too thin. I admit I like slender people but that's a lower limit, not the ideal spot. Also, there's a reason why a German magazine has admitted they photoshop models to look heavier - the anorexic look isn't universally appealing.
Plus, "thin is good" isn't hardwired into our brain. We do have "universal" preferences but those are a cultural thing. If we stop pushing ultra-thin large-breasted models exclusively then our generation probbly won't change but future ones won't grow up expecting it to be the sole definition of beauty.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I don't think the "heroin" look had much to do with sex at all, to be honest with you. I have yet to talk to any heterosexual male who thought a 90lb woman was attractive. I think, as far as the fashion industry goes, the female figure they promote has more to do with how women judge women.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think, as far as the fashion industry goes, the female figure they promote has more to do with how women judge women.
Half right. It has more to do with how gay men judge women- voluptuous is out, male-like (no hips, no boobs) is in. The best way to achieve that look on women is to turn them into skeletons.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
So what DOES someone do who has bankrolled their digital creation and would like to recoup their investment, even make a profit, only to find that it's spread amongst 10,000 people without a penny returned.
Invent a different business model. Reality is like this, not everything that's valuable will bring you a profit.
I think a good analogy for this is oxygen. There are many companies selling bottled oxygen, which is a valuable gas for medical and industrial purposes. Those companies get their oxygen from the atmosphere and they don't pay anyone for that.
On the other side are farmers whose plants ingest carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen as part of their life cycle. Those farmers are giving away for free something that gas companies sell.
If there existed some kind of absolute justice like the *AA want, the farmers should get paid for the oxygen their plants release in the atmosphere, but there is no practical way of doing it.
Ford has sued enough people that lawyers are taking out ads on his company name,' providing an image of an advertisement for such a search.
What the hell does that mean? The words are english, but...
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
90lb ~= 40kg. I had a girlfriend who was 45kg and I found her to be about the perfect weight. Of course, she was also only 150cm (5ft) tall ... 180cm (6ft) and 40kg ... urgh!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In other words, what you're saying is that what gay men - or at least, the gay men running the fashion industry - are into is a body type that looks like a prepubescent boy.
Do go on...
The MAFIAA tried this tactic during the early days of their little war against the pirates, and the judges swatted them down hard.
This bunch never caught the precedence and got smacked for it. Money wasted.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Most prepubescent boys don't look that malnourished. Maybe it's more something like "if I don't find these women sexy, why should anyone else?". Or maybe fashion designers' tastes are just completely out of sync with those of most other people.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
...starting with 7,000-person and 9,000-person suits in the first wave...
From the article:
Ford's initial lawsuits were releatively small... by late October that he began filing against 7,000 and then 9,000 individuals at once.
From the summary:
the $350 court filing fee will require an investment of $7.7 million ($1.8 million for the individuals listed so far)
Individuals listed? What listing of individuals? From the article:
For the cases severed yesterday, this would amount to $1.8 million...
An "offensive" of porn producers? Is that the collective noun?
Flock of sheep
Wizard of owls
Murder of crows
Offensive of porn producers
Well, I learn something new every day.
They're out of sync with what most heterosexual men want to see. The way I see women jabber over the latest copy of Vogue and the other fashion industry covert advertising rags, I can only assume that women look at these poster-women for eating disorders anonymous and find themselves attracted to that image. Me, well, I confess, I like women a little on the plump side, not seventy or eight pounds overweight, but still, not even skinny, and especially not looking like they're on a Christian Children's Charity infomercial. Let's put it this way, my ideal female is Renée Zellweger in the Bridget Jone's Diary.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Example, fairly well renown institution in Norway.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
someone who isn't exceptionally tall with a D cup
Dolly Parton. I love her singing but think she'd gone too far with breast implants especially as she's barely 5 foot tall.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I've never understood the use of this phrase. For me "porn" only applies if there's sex (either with a partner or self).
So you get to define "porn"? At least one dictionary defines porn as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". That was from Macmillan, Macmillan also defines soft porn, as "movies, magazines, photographs, etc. that show sexual images but not sexual acts".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Movie making does not have to be expensive.
Movies involve actors, directors, writers, artists, set builders, cinematographers, musicians, etc, etc.
So do plays but they aren't all that expensive. Actually movies should be cheaper, they can be filmed once then played over and over. But plays on stage have to be performed every tyme they're shown. To show a movie just copy the media or download it then display on a projector. The stage, projector, and other things can be used for other movies. A play though, the stage has to be erected at each location with either the props transported between locations or made at each location.
But even a low-budget movie like Moon cost $5 million.
That's low budget? Then the Blair Witch Project had no budget. It cost "$22,000 to make and made back $240.5 million, a ratio of $1 spent for every $10,931 made."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A report from the BI Norwegian School of Management has found that those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't.
(emphasis mine)
So are you saying that you think piracy is here to stay along with people paying for music? Or the opposite?
At least somebody in the legal profession can clearly see what the internet was built for!
That's what I said.
but if you don't have studio (or some other well-heeled backer) money behind you it's a serious investment for an individual or two to make.
But it does not have to be a serious financial investment. The "EOS 5D Mark II can record up to 4GB per clip or record up to a maximum continuous video capture time of 29 minutes and 59 seconds, whichever comes first. This means you can get about 12 minutes HD video or 24 minutes of SD video on a 4GB memory card." Amazon lists the price at $2700. I don't recall what camera it is but there used to be an ad on TV for a digital camera, the camera was used to make the ad. While software can be expensive relatively, it doesn't have to be. Amazon lists Final Cut Studio, Apple's video editing suite, for just over $800. For free there's CinePaint which is open source. It started out as FilmGIMP when the author added 16 bit colour depths but the developers of GIMP did not accept it. A number of movies were made that used CinePaint. That about page lists some, such as the "Harry Potter" movies, Sean Connery's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", and Tom Cruise's "Last Samurai".
I haven't done it yet but I want to start a business as a photographer and I may do some videography as well.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?