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."

Comments

So, given the name of the representative...

[alfredos]

Do we get a bad car analogy down the line?

Re:So, given the name of the representative...

[skuzzlebutt]

So, it's like this: Tommy Lee is driving the BangBus down the interstate, picking up every hooker and frat boy he sees. They can't all fit and do their business, as it's a 1994 Ford Aerostar and not, like, an Econoline or a cargo unit. After a couple of near-crashes and a blown shock (no pun intended), he tells all of them to get out, except for a guy in a white wig and black robe, and a girl wearing nothing but ten packages of PostIt notes stuck to her body. She is coming home from the courthouse, where she is filing for divorce from her cheating bastard of a husband, and really needs the hundred dollar bill that Ray LaHood, US Secretary of Transportation and part-time porn director, is waving in her face. Like any reasonable girl you find on the roadside, is willing to work for it. Ray is just there to make sure that they are all safe.

And that is how the steam engine changed modern warfare. Questions?

Pulling out early?

[drumcat]

Clearly he didn't want to finish...

Stiff Competition

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Stiff Competition

[Anonymous Coward]

some skinny skank screaming and moaning while some dude/gal slaps her vag with vibrating dong

I would like to subscribe to your news letter.

Now then, can you start again? Only this time say it a little slower...

And for the record, you had me at "skinny skank screaming..."

Re:Stiff Competition

[Moryath]

Actually, one might argue that there is a real social problem in female body image (and judging from the proliferation of drugs intended to increase penis size, male as well) in western society.

It could further be argued that much of this has to do with both the "soft porn" of the fashion industry, and the exaggerated bodies of "hard core" porn as well.

To have realistic body portrayals - perhaps not the morbidly obese, unless you're someone with a fetish for that, but not "Olive Oyl and Brutus" caricature-bodies either - regain the mainstream spotlight might not be such a bad thing.

Re:Stiff Competition

[commodore64_love]

Out of shape???

I humbly suggest you adjust your search parameters to include the words "teen" and ("mirror" -or- "dorm sex"). You'll see humans in peak physical condition and better than the Penthouse crap with man-made boobs and fake moans.

Re:Stiff Competition

[MightyMartian]

I agree. I think porn involving more realistic people, rather than the foot-long dong and silicon-sculptured types might at least go some distance towards getting rid of some pretty ludicrous stereotypes.

Re:Stiff Competition

[commodore64_love]

Anon. Coward writes:
>>>in addition to being one of the dumbest people on the planet, you're also a pedophile

No. That would mean I loved pre-adolescent children and I don't. Ick. Sick. Disgusting. "Ephebophile" is the word you're looking for (i.e. 18-22) (aka college aged) which also happens to be the main age group published by Playboy and other mags*. So to act if their is something wrong with that only displays your own Puritan close-mindedness and nudity phobia.

*
* Except the Danish "Seventeen" which is self-descriptive.

Re:Stiff Competition

[corbettw]

they don't all have boob jobs and tramp stamps.

Are you implying that only porn stars have those things? If that's the case, then my wife and most of her friends are all porn stars.

Re:Stiff Competition

[Jesus_666]

18-22 is ephebophilia? I doubt that. Ephebophilia covers only adolescents and I don't think you can call people aged 20+ adolescents. 18-19 can be argued as ephebophilia but 20-22 is, well, a preference for young adults.

But yeah, anyone who thinks that "teen" porn involves anyone under 18 is too busy knee-jerking to actually investigate the matter they're clamoring about.

Re:Stiff Competition

[Belial6]

We certainly DO have a body image problem. The problem isn't just with the magazines and movies though. It is also with the government and doctors. It is perticularly bad for men. It is bad enough that even if I got down to 0% body fat, the government, medical, and insurance industries would still call me fat. Well, "overweight" to be exact, but that's the same thing. My lean body mass puts me into the overweight category. Now, I do have a little extra fat on my body. Not enough to hide my stomach muscles mind you, but I am no work out guy either. This means that I am classified as 'obese', even though I am in far better shape and healthier than many of the Olive Oyls who are called healthy.

Now, I am smart enough to be able to know that the government is wrong, the insurance industry is wrong, and yes, even my doctor is wrong. Imagine how hard it is for the general public though. It must be horrible to have a doctor telling you that you are fat, when it is physically impossible for you to ever reach what they call normal. Heck, no wonder we have little girls with eating disorders when on the one hand they are getting bashed for being anorexic, and on the other hand, their doctors are telling them that they are fat at the same time.

On a side note, Brutus would be considered grossly obese by today's standards.

Re:Stiff Competition

[Xaositecte]

I have some shocking things to tell you about what your wife and her friends did in college...

Re:Stiff Competition

[Beerdood]

Please don't ever use the phrase "Mom and pop porn films" again. I can't unsee the thought that came to my head after reading those words, no matter how hard I try.

Re:Stiff Competition

[Smauler]

BMI is an awful way to judge obesity, especially for tall people. Anyone who's tall, and not skinny as fuck will drop into overweight at least. I used to be 2 metres, 100kg... 100/2^2 = 25 BMI (yup, that's how BMI is calculated - I just used to have very convenient statistics), which is the borderline for overweight. This was when I was 18-21 or so... well toned, not muscular at all hardly - no weights, all the sports I did were aerobic rather than muscle gaining. Now, I'm about 20kg heavier, some of that is fat, but I also do a physical job that has increased my muscle mass... I'd guess 50/50. I personally couldn't hit 100kg again, unless I lose some muscle.

The thing is though, I know I'm carrying around a bit of excess fat now. Lots of people that claim BMI is useless are making excuses - just because the system is flawed, doesn't mean you're not too fat.

Re:Stiff Competition

[drsmithy]

To have realistic body portrayals - perhaps not the morbidly obese, unless you're someone with a fetish for that, but not "Olive Oyl and Brutus" caricature-bodies either - regain the mainstream spotlight might not be such a bad thing.

Three things:

First and foremost, if you can't find porn that matches your idea of a "realistic body portrayal", then you're simply not looking. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that every taste within the bounds of legality - is catered for in spades.

Secondly, porn is supposed to be a fantasy setting. As such, you'd generally expect it to have only a tenuous connection with reality, just like no-one creates a car racing game where you trundle around town in a minivan picking up your kids from school and dropping them off at soccer.

Finally, the problems with body image in the world don't come from porn - which despite growing accessibility, it still a niche form of content - it comes from mainstream media. There are few magazines more damaging to women's body image expectations than magazines targeted directly at them. Women in Playboy or even things like Ralph look positively normal compared to the average model posing in Cosmo or the lingerie section of a Macy's catalog.

So Hollywood can do it but not the porn people ?

[bobjr94]

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 ?

Re:Isn't this the same thing that happend to the *

[natehoy]

Yes, but this case is about porn, and therefore more newsworthy.

Improper Joinder

[sabt-pestnu]

This ruling should be used as a club against the MPAA/RIAA information gathering suits.

Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[lymond01]

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.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[zeroshade]

It's not a tricky spot at all. For example with music, Artists make more money now than they have in a long while. This is due, partially to piracy, to the downfall of physical CD purchases and the increase in live performances. The point is that the piracy has acted as free advertising for them.

Have some artists not done as well, perhaps due to piracy, most likely. But it's economics. If people like your music, they will pay you money to continue to make it. Whether they are giving you money for live performances, merchandise, or even donations, you'll get money. The people who want to hear more will support you.

If your music is crappy, more people will have heard of you and that means more people will have heard the music and less will buy it.

It's supply and demand. The songs have an infinite supply but merchandise, live performances, and experiences do not. The songs have become the free advertising that lead the consumers to the other things. The situation for movies has become similar.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[Jason Levine]

And this is where music artists and porn stars are alike. Both are getting screwed. At least the porn stars have a decent shot at enjoying it.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[AJWM]

It's starting to happen with midlist authors too. Self- or indie pubbed books on Amazon or Smashwords may not sell as many copies as a mass-market paperback from a New York publisher, but the royalty difference (70% vs 10%, say) can more than make up for that. Freebies (to an extent) are advertising, which just helps. (Look at what the Baen Free Library has done for those authors.)

The difference between all that and movies is for the most part that movie making is still a high-budget operation. Writing books or writing and performing songs are small operations, taking one or a few people. Movies involve actors, directors, writers, artists, set builders, cinematographers, musicians, etc, etc. Less so for animation, of course, and modern tools make it easier for a small crew to do a professional-looking job with fewer resources. But even a low-budget movie like Moon cost $5 million. Primer, a great indie SF film, was shot using a single camera, cheap film stock (expired or short ends -- and yes, today it would probably be done direct to digital), not much in the way of sets or props (and much of what they did use was scrounged), etc, etc and cost $7000 to shoot. It doesn't cost anywhere near that to write and publish (epub or POD) a novel. (No idea what studio costs for recording might be; obviously cheaper done in a garage with good amateur gear.) Mind, that $7K was just shooting cost. To convert the film to 35mm stock (for Sundance, etc) cost $28,000. And again, with the advent of digital projection, that will go away to some degree.

To compare, movie-making today is still in the era that publishing was when writers had to use manual typewriters. Too many people and too much expensive equipment involved (who owns their own Linotype? or soundstage?) for individual-level players to have much influence. But that's changing.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[bl968]

But the reality is that content producers will continue to produce content, because not everyone will download it illegally.

It's like in news, I would love for the corporate media to put their content behind a paywall. It would be the best gift they could give my small news web site.

Then you have the fact that the vast majority of content can trace its roots to other peoples works from the past, Just look at the music in early Disney cartoons, did they use classical music out of a desire to instill a love of classical music in children, or did they instead use it because it was free. The availability of free content creates a boom in new content, new culture.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[Jugalator]

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.

Since this is about porn, I guess amateur porn will keep killing the industry. And I'm not complaining.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[Jason Levine]

I don't think it's a tricky spot. Don't think of "Piracy" as one big block, but as two distinct chunks.

On one hand you have your Pirate-Anything-No-Matter-What pirates. If you lowered your prices to a penny per song and included a free gold nugget with each purchase, these pirates would still be uploading and downloading songs from P2P. Don't consider these people your customers or lost sales in any way. If you removed their ability to pirate your works, chances are they wouldn't have pried open their wallets to pay for the merchandise.

The other group, are people who pirate due to price, availability or convenience. For these people, think of piracy as a competing product. If you offer your product for a reasonable price with appropriate availability and convenience to purchase, piracy will drop. If you overcharge, restrict availability or make your customer jump through hurdles before they can buy, then piracy will climb.

If 10,000 people are pirating your works, you shouldn't be asking "How can I best sue them into oblivion", you should be asking "What can I do to win back most of those pirates?"

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[icebraining]

Artisis are making the same as they always have.

The actual numbers disagree.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[vux984]

Lets attack the root of the problem:

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.

If an electrician spends 30 hours wiring a building at, say, $60/hour... he charges $1800 and then goes home. He doesn't get another nickle every time someone flicks a switch. What makes your 30 hours of work worth a potentially infinite amount of money, while his caps out at $1800?

Where the electrician differs from someone writing the program is that he's got a contract in place for $1800 bucks. He doesn't have to wire the building, and then hope someone shows up to pay him something.

But perhaps the software developer can learn from the electrician... raise the 1800$ first from future users (whether you find 1000 of them to pay $1.80... or 100 of them who want it badly enough to pay $18, then write and release the software, and then it doesn't matter how many copies get made.

And then offer to support the software, or build additional features for $. And live off that.

The point is that in a world where anyone and everyone can make copies for free, you can't have a business model where you charge for copies. Its not going to work. Your role in the new economy is producing the original... you have to figure out how to get paid enough for doing that to motivate you to do it.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[bwayne314]

Umm according to your link, the artists are actually making MORE now:

The decline in Recorded Revenue (To artists) from 2004-2008 is 152,500-111,750=40,750 thousand pound decrease.
The increase in Live Revenue (To artists) from 2004-2008 is 650,880-382,320= 268,560 thousand pounds.

This yields a net increase of 227,810,000 pounds to artist revenue from 2004 to 2008.

Yea Labels are making less money (still as much as the artists though), but fuck them, the internet has turned them into a vestigial leech. In a world where "David After Dentist" can land millions of hits for free, a talented individual can/should stand alone.

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[mijelh]

And that's EXACTLY his point

Re:Massive Copyright Infringements and the Law

[Solandri]

Wedding photographers already went through this. They used to charge a nominal amount or nothing for shooting the wedding, but would charge you big bucks to order prints of the photos. Naturally, when scanners and photo printers became cheap, people would just scan the prints they had already bought (or sometimes even scan the ordering contact sheets), and print out their own copies.

Today, wedding photographers charge big bucks to shoot your wedding. But the prints are usually free or at-cost. Some of them will even give you the raw files (digital "negatives") of the shoot so you can process the photos on your own in the future if you wish.

When reality meets an outdated business model, there's a lot of inertia on the side of reality.

A landmark for music lawsuits?

[Drakkenmensch]

Perhaps this may end the RIAA's offense of suing hundreds of people at once?

Re:somerradicaldude

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:economics

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:economics

[MightyMartian]

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.

Who said life is fair?

[mangu]

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.

Huh?

[thethibs]

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...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the article, it has examples. I had the same initial reaction. The Google Adword ads read something to the effect of "Being Sued by Ken Ford? Call us for your defense!!!!!"

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It means so many people are getting sued by him, that his name/company is being looked up often by people being sued by him. Defense attorneys have realized that fact and have posted their own ads on search engines for when people look him up.

Re:A recent offensive of porn producers?

[nanospook]

I think it's obvious... It's an "Orgy of Porn Producers".. *rolling eyes*