Slashdot Mirror


New Prenda Law Shell Corp Threatening to Tell Your Neighbors You Pirated Porn

It appears that Prenda Law, freshly defeated, has formed a new shell company named the "Anti-Piracy Law Group," and has resumed sending threatening letters to supposed porn pirates. But this time, they've expanded their threats (from a letter (PDF) sent to Fight Copyright Trolls): "The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house. In the coming days we will contact these individuals to investigate whether they have any knowledge of the acts described in my client’s prior letter" Naturally, the letter also notes that the recipient can avoid having the list of videos they supposedly copied sent to their neighbors and family if they settle for a few thousand bucks...

173 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. I am not ashamed to admit I watch porn.

    2. Watching porn is something I do with the windows open so my asshole shithead neighbor across the street's wife can watch.

    3. Yeah you asshole. Your wife likes to watch me stroke.

    4. I am not ashamed to admit I watch porn.

    -- Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

    1. Re:Haha, let them. by MiKM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

      I thought you said you weren't ashamed to admit that you watched porn.

    2. Re:Haha, let them. by second_coming · · Score: 1

      haha

    3. Re:Haha, let them. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm not ashamed to admit it*, but I also wouldn't like a list of exactly what I enjoy watching posted to my friends and family, or my employer for that matter.

      * Yesterday I saw Star Trek, one part of which I'd say was soft porn.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Haha, let them. by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not ashamed of my sexuality. I don't pirate porn, largely because the majority of it is fake and really poor quality (I'm not in the target audience), but let them tell my neighbours. They'll get hit with a defamation lawsuit pretty quickly.

      And my neighbours have been able to wrap their heads around the fact that I'm a tree-hugging dirt-worshipping lesbian hippie who goes to festivals where witchcraft is practiced from time to time, I think they won't have any problem understanding that I may look at porn occasionally too.

    5. Re:Haha, let them. by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 2

      I think he meant that in a tongue in cheek fashion, though what that tongue is doing, we can only guess...

    6. Re:Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      * Yesterday I saw Star Trek, one part of which I'd say was soft porn.

      Ooooh, is that the one where Kirk and Spock finally kiss? That one is awesome. ;-)

    7. Re: Haha, let them. by garcia · · Score: 2

      Woooooosh

    8. Re:Haha, let them. by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Funny

      majority of it is fake

      Wait, what!?!? It's fake? Crap. I guess I probably should go back to pirating movies and TV shows since those are real then.

    9. Re:Haha, let them. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah I usually don't share my fetish for tranny midget shieser porn until the second date.

    10. Re:Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's too much lens flare to tell for sure what they were doing in that one moment. The director is such a tease!

    11. Re:Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dont pirate porn because watching it more than once feels too much like a relationship.

    12. Re:Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

      I thought you said you weren't ashamed to admit that you watched porn.

      The wooshing just took off the upper 1/8 inch of my head. And +5 insightful at that. What was insightful? That he didn't even recognize a joke, and you didn't even rise to his level?

      God almighty. You people vote, too, and probably full of yourself with your penetrative analysis capability.

    13. Re:Haha, let them. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      "3. Yeah you asshole. Your wife likes to watch me stroke."
      you haven't seen his neighbor's wife

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Haha, let them. by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Funny

      "....lesbian...."

      "...not ashamed to rub one out to porn with the shades up..."

      Where do you live, again?

      We may have solved some of the porn-piracy problem right there.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Haha, let them. by BRGeek · · Score: 1

      Or what cheek it's doing it in.

    16. Re:Haha, let them. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you and the mods just wooshed...

    17. Re:Haha, let them. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I'm not ashamed of my sexuality. I don't pirate porn, largely because the majority of it is fake and really poor quality (I'm not in the target audience), but let them tell my neighbours. They'll get hit with a defamation lawsuit pretty quickly.

      On what grounds? They're going to contact your neighbors to say that they detected a download of midget goat porn from your cable modem, and ask if they were the ones downloading midget goat porn as opposed to another person accessing your WiFi, such as you. If they actually did detect the download (which even the scummiest sleazebag lawyer in the world is still going to do so as to have the barest excuse for threatening litigation), then there's nothing that they'll say that is untrue or defamatory.

    18. Re:Haha, let them. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't pirate porn, largely because the majority of it is fake

      You mean he wasn't a real plumber?

      Though that explains why he did such a poor job fixing things I suppose.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:Haha, let them. by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > I am not ashamed to admit I watch porn.

      Just FYI . . . for those following along with the Prenda fiasco, the Prenda pr0n is all gay pr0n. Yes. Seriously.

      People who are merely accused by Prenda risk having their relatives told that you watch gay pr0n, so that your relatives would stone you to death, even if the Prenda accusation turns out to be untrue.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    20. Re:Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      * Yesterday I saw Star Trek, one part of which I'd say was soft porn.

      Bestiality is soft porn? Those green alien women Kirk bangs aren't human, you know.

    21. Re: Haha, let them. by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Watching the Prenda pr0n means you downloaded it and thus committed copyright infringement. The only way to obtain Prenda gay pr0n is to download it, as Prenda's clients do not offer their gay pr0n for sail. The fact that Prenda sends you a settlement letter doesn't mean you are guilty, it is merely an accusation based on a slipshod "investigation". Of course, if you don't pay, all your family and neighbors will be contacted for further "investigation" to ask them if they know anything about you downloading the gay pr0n of Prenda Law's clients.

      The six figures he's talking about comes from the statutory damages for copyright infringement. (Not that you're guilty, but just merely accused. But hey, isn't it just cheaper to settle for a few thousand bucks rather than spend much more fighting it in court, and potentially losing, meaning a judgement against you for six figures?) Plus you don't want your family and neighbors finding out you may watch gay pr0n and thus they stone you to death.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    22. Re:Haha, let them. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I'm not ashamed of my sexuality. I don't pirate porn, largely because the majority of it is fake and really poor quality (I'm not in the target audience), but let them tell my neighbours. They'll get hit with a defamation lawsuit pretty quickly.

      And my neighbours have been able to wrap their heads around the fact that I'm a tree-hugging dirt-worshipping lesbian hippie who goes to festivals where witchcraft is practiced from time to time, I think they won't have any problem understanding that I may look at porn occasionally too.

      Dirt worshipping?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    23. Re:Haha, let them. by worf_mo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but he doesn't want to cause his neighbor's wife any trouble.

    24. Re:Haha, let them. by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" has a blatant upskirt scene involving Majel Barrett. Then there's the whole stalactite-phallus later in the same episode.

    25. Re:Haha, let them. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Was it the one where Kirk attempts to beat up Lurch with a giant penis shaped rock?
      Go ahead, google it.

    26. Re:Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So porn is fake, but you practice witchcraft. Okay.

    27. Re:Haha, let them. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      1. I am not ashamed to admit I watch porn.

      -- Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

      You contradict yourself nicely, there. I, on the other hand, am not ashamed of admitting that I've been known to consume porn in various form and of various genres, including video and still pictures, gay men, lesbian women, straight people of either sex, asians, blacks, whites, BDSM, anal, vaginal, oral, DP, ladyboys, transsexuals, hentai, big breasts, small breasts and oh, so much more. These days I've mostly lost my interest in sex, but alas, I don't really care if my neighbours or family found out about the kinds of stuff I've consumed. It's not like they don't do the exact same thing themselves.

    28. Re:Haha, let them. by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Obviously not in the US, otherwise she'd have been branded a sex offender and hauled off to prison at some point when a kid happened to glance through her window... oh, wait, lesbian, um, err... the cops would probably be too busy getting their own rocks off ... or maybe ... er, I can't decide.

    29. Re:Haha, let them. by davester666 · · Score: 2

      How exactly do you hide that from the tranny midgets you date, when you only take them to TacoBell?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    30. Re:Haha, let them. by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      If it is torrent, then they could say that they detected download only if the file was fully downloaded, and that it is stored on his hard disk.
      No file, no case, and hence false claims.

    31. Re:Haha, let them. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I don't pirate porn, largely because the majority of it is fake

      You mean he wasn't a real plumber?

      Though that explains why he did such a poor job fixing things I suppose.

      "Oh No! That's not what happens in the Last Castle! Stay away from Princess Peach you filthy poo plunger!"
      Childhood. In. Ruins.

    32. Re:Haha, let them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean that guy wasn't really there to fix the plumbing?

    33. Re:Haha, let them. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Bestiality is soft porn? Those green alien women Kirk bangs aren't human, you know.

      They're not beasts, either, though. Seems like "bestiality" isn't really a term developed with sexually compatible sentients in mind. What about sex with an artificially intelligent sexbot? Bestiality? I don't think so. Both would be consensual, informed... Seems like eventually, at least if these things arise in other than fictional venues, we'll have to expand our outlooks a bit. Even in fiction, you need a way to look at it that makes sense. Bestiality doesn't qualify.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    34. Re:Haha, let them. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Tell them "This has never happened to me before." of course.

    35. Re:Haha, let them. by bdwebb · · Score: 1

      And who said Chivalry is dead? Granted there are a lot of assholes out there just throwing around their BDSM fetish porn all willy-nilly, but I would say most are like you and me and keep that shit under wraps until at least the second date.

    36. Re:Haha, let them. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I thought you said you weren't ashamed to admit that you watched porn.

      He/she/it/they are not afraid to admit to watching porn. He/she/it/they are ashamed to admit he/she/it/they post of slashdot.
      Obviously.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    37. Re:Haha, let them. by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Tread carefully. Porn is one thing, but imagine the shame if the MPAA told your neighbours you pirated Avatar.

    38. Re:Haha, let them. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      * Yesterday I saw Star Trek, one part of which I'd say was soft porn.

      My wife started watching through all of The Next Generations on Netflix as she didn't watch that many of them as a kid. The first half dozen episodes of the first season really make you think the whole show has a soft core porn focus. I think it was only episode 2 where everyone gets drunk and Cmdr Data gets it on with the chief of security. Now that we are into the second season she has noticed the focus on sex has lessened somewhat.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    39. Re:Haha, let them. by Meski · · Score: 1

      Rishathra?

    40. Re:Haha, let them. by Meski · · Score: 1

      To fix his plumbing, in a euphemistic way, I guess.

  2. As long as they're honest about what kind. by pecosdave · · Score: 2

    They can know I watch it, just as long as they aren't telling everyone I watch the wrong type.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:As long as they're honest about what kind. by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      They can know I watch it, just as long as they aren't telling everyone I watch the wrong type.

      another brony?

    2. Re:As long as they're honest about what kind. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      another brony?

      You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with brony porn. Doth Chrisq protest too much?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. Black mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is black mail, and illegal.

    =]

    1. Re:Black mail by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It really is blackmail. This is a threat with menances in order to get someone to comply with the sender, and it is not a reasonable way of enforcing the request. If they simply send out the letters, while questionable in other ways it is not blackmail. These threats however are genuine straight up blackmail. I'm not sure whether this is criminal or civil offence in the US, but in the UK you'd be in a lot of trouble for this.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Black mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but your porn is black male.

    3. Re:Black mail by smash · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the part where it was a corporation bribing an individual.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    4. Re:Black mail by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is in fact illegal in the US as well.

      Although "blackmail" is such an ugly word. I prefer "extortion" - the X makes it sound cool.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Black mail by Creepy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blackmail is criminal in the US, as is slander and defamation of character (and heck, I'm probably missing 100 similar charges for the country where using the internet is a felony by some interpretations of law). Even in the best case, this will scare people that don't know better than to pirate by proxy (anonymous proxies, coffee shops, etc), and even then, being nearly impossible to prove (without a search warrant and raid) will result in every single person involved suing them. This is going to backfire on them like a backward facing shotgun.

    6. Re:Black mail by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose they are counting on the recipient not going to the police over these letters. Part of Blackmail is that if youvwent to the police to defend yourself, you might get in trouble you don't want. As police don't enforce copyright law (like they don't enforce cheating on your wife) I don't think they would actually have to INVESTIGATE that you committed or didn't commit the act to enforce the attempt to extort money.

      As these were certainly sent through the USPS it becomes a POSTAL crime as well. I guess the rest of the Prenda's team wanted to visit jail too. The problem with Blackmail is that you eventually send one of these to another, richer person in the middle of a messy divorce having a worse day than you... And they hire somebody to "deliver your payment". In a non-refundable manner. Makes a good episode of Castle.

    7. Re:Black mail by budgenator · · Score: 2

      It's not blackmail because they are basicaly saying ,"Your neghbor's IP address was illiegally filesharing the following copyrighted porn titles, were you doing it through his unsecured WiFi router?" and therfore conducting an investigation. If the resident Adult male excepts their terms then there is no reason to conduct the above investigation. I'm not defending, just explaining.

      I hope these dirtbags are smart enough to only target people from out of town and use a Post Office box for the checks because sooner or later they're going to hit a real whacko who'll figure it's easier to just kill them than to pay the tribute.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Black mail by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      So, it's not blackmail if I say "give me $5000, or I'll ask your wife to help my investigation into who the person (who looks like you) with the hooker is in these photos."? I can't think of any blackmail scheme that couldn't be "explained" with the "investigating" excuse. The dead giveaway to what this really is is the fee to "drop the investigation" --- they aren't "collecting evidence" to actually file claims in a court of law; they're going for intimidation/extortion.

    9. Re:Black mail by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wonder if the right response is "Dear Sir, I can confirm it was nobody in my household who downloaded the content in question. Feel free to investigate my neighbors. Be careful how you word your accusations when making your investigation as we will sue for libel if, as a result of your investigation, any of our neighbors are under the impression we were responsible for the download."

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Black mail by Baton+Rogue · · Score: 1

      So, it's not blackmail if I say "give me $5000, or I'll ask your wife to help my investigation into who the person (who looks like you) with the hooker is in these photos."?

      "I'm investigating on behalf of my client for the non-payment for the consulting services rendered by one of his employees. That employee is pictured here, wearing the miniskirt and fishnet stockings. The payment owed to my client was $5000. If you make this payment to my client, then I will drop this investigation."

    11. Re:Black mail by Laxori666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a backward facing shotgun backfires, wouldn't you hit your target?

    12. Re:Black mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps XXXtortion?

    13. Re:Black mail by stanlyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have to correct you: NEVER ever make written statements like this, confessing your guilt or innocence. It may sound strange, but after this letter you could go in jail for false claims (and no, there is no need to prove that you actually pirated the "movie").
      In other words, i would rewrite the letter to something like this:
      "Dear Sir, Feel free to investigate my neighbors. Be careful how you word your accusations when making your investigation as we will sue for libel if, as a result of your investigation, any of our neighbors are under the impression we were responsible for the download."

    14. Re:Black mail by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Sure looks like extortion to me. It looks like enough to take to a jury, even.

    15. Re:Black mail by rijrunner · · Score: 2

      The real kicker is that this was sent *after* Duffy was referred to the US Attorney's Office on possible RICO violations.

          Blackmail is often the tactic used in racketeering operations to acquire money. I really don't like these guys and they have made zero effort to establish the identity of the downloader.. which is the issue here..

          The real question here is whether this falls into line of reasonable conduct and due diligence. I can see Duffy's defense to blackmail claims. If the IP address is not enough to establish the identity of the person who did the download, then yes.. the interviews with neighbors is, in fact, an appropriate action to take prior to filing a lawsuit.

          There have been a lot of legal responses in their previous lawsuits saying that they lacked sufficient evidence of the specific person who did the downloads. Exactly what steps would people think are reasonable to establish the identity of the downloader? I suspect that they do overlap with the steps outlined in that letter.
         

    16. Re:Black mail by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It's a defence though. I'm sure a competent lawyer would be able to make mincemeat out of it. It's pretty obvious that this sort of accusation would embarrass the accused file sharer. There's no need to name the person and you'd have to question why they worded their letter in a manner that sounds so much like a threat to embarrass them. I'm sure an actual lawyer could come up with other points.

      I'm not a lawyer but my layman observation is that a lot of the time law is based on subjective judgements,and a lot more biased than a philosophical ideal would suggest.

    17. Re:Black mail by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      The trick here is that they don't have to prove that you downloaded a pirated movie, but that you downloaded something.....anything...which is obviously true :D
      Translated, you did LIE. The rest is history.

  4. Good luck with that by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 2

    Because when these guys fail to prove that the defendant's computer is the one they claim, any lawyer worth his or her degree will slap them with a defamation lawsuit.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just read the letter in the linked article. Reeks of troll. Typical Nigerian-type content: they refer to material stolen from their client, without naming either. Not who that client (presumably copyright holder) might be; nor what content was allegedly stolen. I'm seeing similar vaguely worded e-mails time and again - and most of them are Nigerian scams. They are also intentionally vague, trying to have the reader fill in the gaps (which people automatically do), and make the reader feel as if it's targeting them while it's really a standard letter sent to hundreds if not thousands of people.

      If I'd receive such a letter, I'd probably just toss it in the trash, like I do with similar e-mails. They'd at least have to identify the alleged stolen content, and with that, who their client would be.

      Or would it be possible to file a complaint with police, and have them initiate a criminal investigation? May be hard in practice for a single letter but if more people are targeted they may act on it.

    2. Re:Good luck with that by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Because when these guys fail to prove that the defendant's computer is the one they claim, any lawyer worth his or her degree will slap them with a defamation lawsuit.

      Fail.

      They aren't out to prove anything. They're sending out random letters in the hope that there's a few people out there that are stupid enough to pay up.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Good luck with that by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Because when these guys fail to prove that the defendant's computer is the one they claim, any lawyer worth his or her degree will slap them with a defamation lawsuit.

      I think that this is their 'clever' twist on exactly that problem. In their prior iteration, one of the things that they were slapped down for was their utterly crap 'computer forensics' procedure, which wasn't even close to adequate for identifying the actual party behind the alleged piracy.

      So, making a virtue of that incompetence, their letter now says that, just to be extra sure and stuff, they'll be doing a more thorough investigation that just so happens to involve asking everyone you know "We think that person X downloaded 'Deviant Donkey Dicks V. 2'; but it might have been you. Do you think it was him?"

      I can't believe that this wouldn't fall under the realm of 'trivially extortion'; but it's a cute little twist.

    4. Re:Good luck with that by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > any lawyer worth his or her degree will slap them with a defamation lawsuit.

      Assuming your family doesn't stone you to death first. Remember, the pr0n from Prenda Law's clients is gay pr0n. Since Prenda has accused your IP address based on their slipshod investigation, then you must be guilty.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:Good luck with that by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      If I'd receive such a letter, I'd probably just toss it in the trash, like I do with similar e-mails.

      I got a letter a bit like this about a year ago. It was sent regular post, no tracking number, no signature required. Thus no proof I ever received it. I tossed it in the trash. Same thing about a month later. Same response from me. Never heard from them again.
      I would not recommend this if you have to sign for the letter, Even if there is a tracking number so they can see it was delivered to your house, there is still no proof you got the letter. Toss it.
      Basically, most are bullies trying to make a fast buck. Ignore them and they will most likely go away.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  5. Wow by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    This is a new low

    1. Re:Wow by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2

      This may very likely get them shot. Someone who's life they've ruined may very well become completely unbalanced and do what we all would secretly love to see happen...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:Wow by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Secretly?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Wow by Schmorgluck · · Score: 2

      Secretly?

      I mean, I'm fundamentally against death penalty and I have a wide range of arguments for that, but if someone ended up shooting the Prenda guys my reaction would be somewhat similar to how I felt about Osama Bin Laden being shot down by CIA operatives: I wouldn't think "Justice Has Been Done" by any stretch, but I wouldn't shed a tear either.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
  6. Explaining it to a judge by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    If you can't explain it with a straight face to a judge it shouldn't go in writing. This is a simple rule of conducting business that applies to many, many things. Perhaps Prenda never heard of this basic rule of courtroom survival?

  7. They've shot themselves in the foot legally by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house

    So you just say it must have been a neighbour or visitor, ask them to add all the visitors to neighbours' houses, the post man, delivery men, etc. and let them get on with it. If they go to court quote their own words - it could have been any of these!

    1. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      "The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house

      So you just say it must have been a neighbour or visitor, ask them to add all the visitors to neighbours' houses, the post man, delivery men, etc. and let them get on with it. If they go to court quote their own words - it could have been any of these!

      besides, they claim to represent the people who produced the porno in the first place! so are they suggesting watching their material is something to be ashamed of or not..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You have to look at it from Prenda's perspective. They think you are guilty and just holding out on them, so this threat is a cheap way to make you pay up and avoid going to court. They have had some bad experiences in court before so generally want to avoid going back there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by Hentes · · Score: 1

      You assume they want to go to court.

    4. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      No, I believe you inferred that. They are suggesting that "piracy" or copyright theft or whatever you want to call it is illegal, and that they found one that just happened near you, and now they want to bring the perpetrators to justice.

      They just want to be paid! I'm trying to imagine the content that you could produce, and see pirated, i order to sue over it that would make this case more defensible, but I can't. We should just do away with copyright already. From now on, the only way to get paid for porno is by the cameraman who offers you 500 euro while he's giving you a ride to your friend's house. He'll have no way to recoup, other than taking money from investors who convinced him to release the footage on Bittorrent.

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    5. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      You assume they want to go to court.

      No I assume that when I give them a long list of people who I have seen in the neighbourhood and insist that I want to assist in the crusade for justice, and how I expect it was that google camera car they will drop it.

    6. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      They don't want to go to court, though, they just want the money. They're betting that people would rather pay the go-away fee than risk being outed as a porn watcher to their neighbours. After all, even if you're innocent, the court case would cost you a fair bit of time and money, and the neighbours will have different standards of proof than a court.

      But you have a piece of paper saying that it could have been them!

    7. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should just do away with copyright already. From now on, the only way to get paid for porno is by the cameraman who offers you 500 euro while he's giving you a ride to your friend's house. He'll have no way to recoup, other than taking money from investors who convinced him to release the footage on Bittorrent.

      Hot Legal Teens Fucking on a BMW. Brought to you by BMW.
       
      Product placement would be an easy way to fund free porn. And really, how much more Pavlovian can you get than to have someone masturbate while looking at your product?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    8. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      They have had some bad experiences in court before so generally want to avoid going back there.

      BUT.. on this one, I gotta funny feeling that the court (or the uniformed parts of it, the parts with guns/handcuffs/mace/tasers) may be coming TO THEM... If so, it couldn't happen to a more appropriate bunch of "people".....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    9. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That...is the smartest thing I have ever heard.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      I was intending tongue-in-cheek. I can see that folks need to get paid, where I have a hard time is imagining a scalable response to copyright infringement that looks like anything other than what Prenda^2 is cited as doing here in this article.

      If you tell them what copyrights you own, that they're accused of copying, they could delete it (or hide it better and continue sharing against your wishes.) They could cease only that infringement, contact all of the parties who received illegal copies and force them to delete, and now you've accomplished your goal, but at what cost? You probably won't win in court. It's hard to prove. Moneybags clearly win occasionally because they have moneybags and can buy the verdict.

      If you accuse them directly on substantive evidence, without considering it could have been a neighbor, a passer-by, a result of having an insecurely configured network, you're guilty of not knowing how the internet works.

      If you sell the rights to the lawyer so they can pursue the infringers however they see fit (something I've read that you actually have to do to make the interaction with the lawyer repeatably economically viable and legal at the same time, since only the owner of the copyright can pursue infringers), you've also sold your exclusive monopoly protection and now you don't own the copyright anymore, can't sell copies, can't sub-license.

      I believe in free sharing but I'm convinced every time this comes up on Slashdot, there is just no winning for the copyright holders in this particular court of public opinion. Don't create anything. It's the only way to satisfy everyone here.

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    11. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by houghi · · Score: 1

      Product placement would be an easy way to fund free porn. And really, how much more Pavlovian can you get than to have someone masturbate while looking at your product?

      That idea is a marketeers wet dream cum through.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Obviously it was the butler in the library with the wifi enabled phone.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    13. Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Not to mention anybody who may have passed by the house.

  8. well by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1, Informative

    Who cares unless you live in Utah or in a monastery?

    However the Utah thing is relevant as they watch more porn per capita than anywhere else in the U.S....

    1. Re:well by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      Who cares unless you live in Utah or in a monastery?

      However the Utah thing is relevant as they watch more porn per capita than anywhere else in the U.S....

      I thought you were kidding, but it's true.

    2. Re:well by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure about the monastery route either.

      Porn piracy tracked to computers in Vatican City

  9. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These guys might find themselves getting some pretty major smackdown from a court beyond what has already happened.

    This is straight up extortion, and at this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone slap them with RICO charges or something.

    They don't have any evidence which can stand up in court, so they're resorting to smearing you in front of your family on the assertion that you must have violated a copyright they don't own.

    If ever lawyers needed some sanctions from the court, it's these guys. Epic douchebags.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      They didn't say they were going to give your name out. They just told you they'd be contacting your friends, family, and neighbors. Some percent of those people will have pirated porn, and some percent of those people will confess. I get form letters all the time. Most of them are offering pre-approved low interest, high limit credit cards. I'm sure they put about as much research into both forms of letter before mailing.

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    2. Re:Wow ... by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Only way to stop them is to lock them up or disbar them.
      After the last defeat, it was pretty obvious nothing would change so long as they were allowed to practice law. They just made a new firm and voila, same old tricks.

    3. Re:Wow ... by emho24 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only way to stop them is to lock them up or disbar them.

      Why "or"?

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    4. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't say they were going to give your name out.

      They certainly implied it since they're saying they will contact your friends and family and neighbors to see if they have any knowledge of this "alleged activity" (which they don't actually state anything about what is alleged).

      So the threat certainly reads to me like they're suggesting they might be naming you in the process of saying "hey, do you know anything about this porn this guy is alleged to have downloaded".

      From what I can see of that letter, it's thinly veiled threats, an extortion attempt, and no details at all on what is alleged to have been downloaded. I don't see how this is anything other than the same old illegal tactics which got them into so much trouble in the first place.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Wow ... by Yebyen · · Score: 2

      Yes. I could see how you'd read it that way. I think that is the part that makes it the difference between extortion and blackmail or simply fishing.

      You would likely have to find yourself in the courtroom first before arguing that they threatened you or defamed your character to others by name, and that would only work if they actually named you personally, which is totally moot since they will obviously avoid going to court at all costs just like the last Prenda Law. They would most likely argue in that court: they were going to send the same confidential fishing letter to everyone who might be involved until they were satisfied that they had found the right target (evident that they have found him now since they have brought that person to court... ha)

      And when they did exactly that, nobody's letter would name anybody else, that everyone's letter would look exactly the same, sparse on details, veiled accusations with no substance (since everyone is someone else's neighbor, right?) and anyone claiming they threatened to defame them was guilty of some other criminal act we haven't even yet considered.

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    6. Re:Wow ... by Izuzan · · Score: 1

      they didn't say they WEREN'T going to give your name out either. unless someone says they wont do something, you can pretty much bet they will do it.

    7. Re:Wow ... by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      Try passing that as a basis for extortion suit in court. "They didn't say they weren't going to extort me."

      You will get laughed out. You might be right, but until they start defaming you, nothing in that letter suggests anything other than "we are currently engaged in a mailing campaign, we are sending out these letters, you've got one... be afraid, we're coming for your neighbors too."

      Hide your kids, hide your wife.

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    8. Re:Wow ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      can you be a legally practicing lawyer while in jail?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:Wow ... by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      I got my degree at Slashdot University. Why don't you tell me what part I've got wrong instead of trolling?

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
  10. Libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

    http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

    Oh, this will be fun.

    CAPTCHA: malice

    1. Re:Libel by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      What exactly have they "published"?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What exactly have they "published"?

      Umm... seriously?

      Publish
      v. to make public to at least one other person by any means.

      http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1688

  11. They Learned From SCO by some+old+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure they are perfectly aware that their claims are groundless and probably illegal. They're also aware that their lifespan is shrinking rapidly.

    I think what they're doing is seeing how many poor schmucks they can scare into settling for a few quick bucks before the whole scheme implodes.

    Clearly, SCO's "Linux Licensing" was a model modus operandi for trolls everywhere.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:They Learned From SCO by schlachter · · Score: 2

      They're going to do this to the wrong guy and end up with a hit squad coming after them. At least I hope so.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  12. Go ahead a$$hats by rtkluttz · · Score: 1

    I run a computer repair shop out of my house with open wifi and am also in an area with no DSL or Cable modem options. I'm bringing a cable connection in from a mile away with 900Mhz equipment and then re-share that over wifi to my cluster of neighbors. Everyone that comes to my place has a device that connects and I get PC's to work on that have bittorrent downloads in mid-download. They can kiss it.

    --
    Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
  13. Isn't this pretty much... by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. Re:Isn't this pretty much... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      My thought was malicious prosecution

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:Isn't this pretty much... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      ...the definition of extortion? For example:

      http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

      http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905.11

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=518-527

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

      No, unfortunately. For simplicity (though the analysis is the same), let's take the federal one at the end:

      18 USC 875(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

      Well, that one clearly doesn't apply.

      (b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

      Again, no threat of injury or kidnapping, so not there.

      (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

      No again, for the same reason.

      (d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

      So, here's the one - threat to injure the reputation of the addressee with intent to extort money. However, remember that defamation must be false. For example, say you borrow my car while drunk and damage the bumper. If I send you a letter threatening to sue you for it if you don't pay for the repair, it would damage your reputation for your neighbors to know you were a drunk driver... but I'm not committing extortion or threatening to injure your reputation, because there's nothing defamatory in my statement: it's true.

      Assuming in this case that they did detect a download of midget goat porn from the recipient's cable modem (because while the scummiest lawyer in the world may twist the truth and skirt the edge of an outright lie to a court, in this case, it's relatively trivial to monitor a bittorrent swarm, and then the letter has at least the barest sliver of truth as an excuse), then the letter isn't extortion or defamatory: they did detect the download, and they'll inquire of your neighbors whether they jumped on your access point to download midget goat porn or whether it someone else, like you.

      So, yeah, it's sleazy, and they're still going to have the problems noted by the judge in the Prenda case, but it's not technically extortion.

    3. Re:Isn't this pretty much... by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, remember that defamation must be false.

      No, it doesn't, to be extortion (note the absence of any such qualification in the law you've quoted). Truth is a defense for slander/libel: if I want to publish in the newspaper that my neighbor watches goat porn, then I can avoid libel charges by proving it true. But if I ask my neighbor for money first to not publish their porn habits, then I'm extorting them --- independent of whether publishing would be slander/libel.

  14. What is the point of extortion laws then? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

    If private companies and groups can threaten stuff this heavy-handed, what is the point of extortion and creditor laws then? My creditors can't threaten to call my neighbors, but this group can?

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:What is the point of extortion laws then? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      But, they're not calling your neighbors to shame you. Heavens to Betsy, no they'd never do that! But, if they don't find out it was you doin' all the doin' it downloads, well, they'll just HAVE to call you neighbor, see if maybe it was them who downloaded Backdoor Sluts 9 over your wifi. After all, the criminals who wronged their client need to be found...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  15. As always, customer comes first by feedayeen · · Score: 1

    The best way to create customers is to tell them that they are dirty, disgusting perverts and that if their family and friends knew what they where doing they'd be disowned.

    Wait, if this is the world they want to pretend we live in, why would I ever buy a physical copy when it can be easily discovered. A password protected file of all my torrents is so much safer.

    1. Re:As always, customer comes first by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      The best way to create customers is to tell them that they are dirty, disgusting perverts and that if their family and friends knew what they where doing they'd be disowned.

      They're not trying to create customers, they're trying to find people who are willing to cough up the extortion money instead of being named and shamed.

      Do you think these guys have a product they're trying to sell? Their business model is shaking down people for settlement money.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:As always, customer comes first by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      The best way to create customers is to tell them that they are dirty, disgusting perverts and that if their family and friends knew what they where doing they'd be disowned.

      Isn't that effectively how at least one of the three major Abrahamic religions gets people to subscribe to their mythology in order to raise revenue in the form of tithes and offerings?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  16. Next on... BLACKMAIL by EvilXenu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Monty Python beat these guys by several decades: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrRZVCg31fE

    1. Re:Next on... BLACKMAIL by idontgno · · Score: 1

      What's--what's that, what's she's doing to his.....is that a CHICKEN up there? No, no, it's just the way she's holding the grapefruit... Whoah, ho ho...

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  17. Defamation of character, anyone? by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 2

    How can this tactic not qualify as defamation? With the huge number of screwed up lawsuits over bittorrent piracy going on, it would only be a short while before they "outed" the wrong person...and then they would be liable. What then? They apologize and hope that they don't get sued? Screw that. They start this mess, they mess with the wrong person, the first thing would be "lawyer up!" and counter file against them--and make them eat their words.

    1. Re:Defamation of character, anyone? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Seems like defamation and extortion to me, but I'm not a lawyer. If they keep this up, they won't be either.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Defamation of character, anyone? by zyzko · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately these people are experts in hiding their tracks - more skilled than the ones they are suing.

      Sure - eventually they will be barred but until that they can just make up new shell companies and name a hobo as a CEO for the price of a wine bottle - or better yet, just use someones name without their knowledge instead. One the judges get pissed, deny everything and refuse to testify, repeat and get a fee hundred thousand each round - keeps a few people employed.

      I would not be surprised at all even if the producers they claim to represent are not aware of what is done using their products - I would guess that in the industry today you have to be nice to the customer and offer options, and that is what most are doing, not name and shame (because the competition is fierce, and there are free legal alternatives).

    3. Re:Defamation of character, anyone? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Seems like defamation and extortion to me, but I'm not a lawyer. If they keep this up, they won't be either.

      In fact, if this keeps up, instead of lawyers, they will be one of two things, depending on who takes action against them first: inmates or corpses.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  18. Stick to accurate accusations by slim · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFA:

    infamous scumbag Steve “Lightspeed” Jones, a pornographer who specializes in “barely legal” genre (i.e. he recruits and films very young girls)

    (emphasis theirs)

    Now, by all means call him a scumbag on the basis of his extortion and blackmail. By all means find actual ways in which the way he produces porn is scummy.

    But the "barely" in "barely legal" means they're above the age of consent, and hence not "very young". Indeed, since he's in the US, and they're (barely) legal, they must be 18 (2 years older than the age of consent in many countries), and capable of making their own decisions.

    1. Re:Stick to accurate accusations by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The age of consent is 16 in most states in the US, but taking a photography of the 16yo it's perfectly legal to have sex is child porn and illegal.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Stick to accurate accusations by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between the age of consent and the age you can photograph someone naked.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  19. Sweet! by boristdog · · Score: 1

    Now my neighbors won't have to tell me which good new porn they have found!

    It's a time saver, really.

  20. They need the cash by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, cut the Prenda guys some slack. They really need to earn some spending money, what with their upcoming dismissal from the bar and possible RICO prosecution...

    1. Re:They need the cash by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Hey, cut the Prenda guys some slack. They really need to earn some spending money, what with their upcoming dismissal from the bar and possible RICO prosecution...

      And don't forget funeral expenses, if need be as well.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  21. RICO by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Straight from copyright troll to racketeering? Impressive!

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  22. Re:Skyclad? by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I watch porn. I enjoy adults performing a natural function. And I have no reason to pirate porn. LITERALLY a search engine away and you have streaming porn. I mean, You have to really enjoy a certain actor to go as far as pirating a video. And then, why not show that you enjoy their work by paying for it? And to those that don't think performing on screen while performing sex acts is work, I would disagree. While I personally have never done so, I can imagine it is quite uncomfortable at times. "Hey earl, Stop, stop, stop! You are doing it wrong, You see her face? She should be begging and you aren't performing like you should. Get out of the way, john, take earls place, he is terrible today." I know that would hurt on a professional and emotional level. >.>

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
  23. I refer you to the reply in Arkell vs. Pressdram by catman · · Score: 2

    Also, see figure 1.

  24. Uh... So much for free already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are SOOO many free porn sites out there already, why bother pirating it?

    To name a few:
    http://xhamster.com/
    http://easygals.com/
    http://xnxx.com/
    http://youporn.com/
    http://redtube.com/


    etc. etc. etc.

    1. Re:Uh... So much for free already... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      http://xhamster.com/

      I am genuinely afraid to go to that one.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  25. Re:Skyclad? by asylumx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No kidding! Why pirate what you can already get for free?

  26. Copyright violation vs slander. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Most juries take a dim view of porn and porn makers, their eyes glaze over and fall asleep if you try to explain the intricacies of copyright laws, but they do understand slander. They might get sued for slander and get into very hot water.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  27. This headline has it all! by OakDragon · · Score: 1

    Best of Slashdot, rolled into one line of text!

  28. Re:I refer you to the reply in Arkell vs. Pressdra by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    For those across the pond who may not be familiar with this important bit of case law, here's the reply in question:

    We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

    We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  29. Re:English Libel by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Extortion is a Good Public Cause, at least according to all Good Public Politicians in all countries throughout all human history.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  30. If we can get them to target politicians by RichMan · · Score: 1

    If we can get them to target politicians then laws against monitoring user traffic(*) will be created in no time at all.

    (*) without due authority, like a warrant, suspicion of terrorist activity, or membership in the tea party.

  31. It's 2013... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...why in HELL would anyone "pirate" porn?

    My goodness, I have a hard time understanding how stroke mags can even stay in business, much less the paywall sites. I truly can't comprehend anyone willing to break a law over something available ubiquitously for free, in fact it's hard to AVOID porn on the net.

    For those who don't know what I'm talking about, google redtube, youporn. There is not enough time in the world to exhaust their current library of free porn, much less even catch up with the volume added every day.

    --
    -Styopa
  32. I don't get it by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    Why would I care if my neighbors knew I pirate episodes of Animal Planet?

  33. It's not defamation if it's in a lawsuit by DeathGrippe · · Score: 3, Informative

    IANAL, but in a legal action I took a few years ago, in which the defendant accused me of heinous acts, I learned that statements contained within a lawsuit which would be considered defamation if published elsewhere, are not considered defamatory.

    Note, however, that if those statements are proven false they will have legal consequences within that context.

    1. Re:It's not defamation if it's in a lawsuit by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Yes... but TFA (and TFS) says that they're threatening to tell the neighbours. Marquess of Queensberry rules. Literally.... (look up Oscar Wilde, if you don't get the reference)

    2. Re:It's not defamation if it's in a lawsuit by DeathGrippe · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if "telling the neighbors" is within the context of the lawsuit, ie they subpoena the neighbors for information during discovery, they're protected.

    3. Re:It's not defamation if it's in a lawsuit by Immerman · · Score: 2

      But that would require that they actually file a lawsuit - an act for which they've already been repeatedly hammered for. Continuing to bring baseless claims would risk sanctions being brought against the lawyers participating.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:It's not defamation if it's in a lawsuit by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      And if their claim that he is watching porn happens to be false, or not proven, then they are liable for some other damages too.

  34. Wow by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Going right for Blackmail via libel now, eh?

  35. Re:extortion? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    isn't extortion illegal? we do still have some laws left in this country don't we?

    Only if you're rich or a large corporation...

  36. Re:Extortion - plain and simple by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    "Business ethics" - The new ultimate Oxymoron?

  37. Good Move Einstein by twmcneil · · Score: 1

    I thought Duffy was the one who was telling the judge "Hey, I don't know anything about what these other guys have been up to. I'm clean Your Honor, really."

    Then he signs something like this? This guy is dumber than a bag of hammers. If any of these guys had any brains, they'd be on their way to some place that has banana trees in the yard and no extradition treaty with the U.S.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
  38. Re:extortion? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

    isn't extortion illegal? we do still have some laws left in this country don't we?

    Actually we have two sets.. for the hoi-poloi, the peasants, ie: US, you & me... and another set for the elites, corporations... In our set of laws, extortion is illegal, but in the "big-boys" set of laws, its perfectly ok... I think what might have happened with Team Prenda is they thought they were covered by the "big-boys" laws, but found out they're just peasants like the rest of us.. may they rot in hell for this...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  39. Worse than a pron downloader by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    I am going to write to his neighbors and reveal that he is a LAWYER.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Worse than a pron downloader by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I am going to write to his neighbors and reveal that he is a LAWYER.

      No. We must be better than that. Don't stoop to their level.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  40. Confirming their RICO conviction? by Rastl · · Score: 1

    Maybe they really are good guys and helping the courts along by adding to their RICO-applicable offenses? In my non-legal opinion this sounds like intimidation, extortion, and a few other things that fall squarely under RICO.

    On a side note they want to send letters to everyone who ever visited you? How the heck does that work? Do they sue you to produce a list of all the visitors you have had within the last 3 years along with their contact information so they can send the letters?

  41. I would only be embarrassed if by davebarnes · · Score: 1

    they told my neighbors that I PAID for porn.
    Getting it for free would be an accolade.

    --
    Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
  42. Knowing my neighbors... by atouk · · Score: 1

    They'll probobly want to trade whatever each of us downloaded.

  43. Wait... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    The Prenda porn is only *gay* porn? So you mean I didn't have to delete all my porn collection just in case.... cries :P

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  44. I would be more scared it they threatened to ... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    to tell people I paid to download porn.

  45. Re:When is the scum going in the slammer? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right about now, I'm thinking. Up until now, everything they did was at least ostensibly legal, albeit unethical. This, however, is pretty much open and shut blackmail and extortion, both of which are federal crimes in the United States and nearly every other country in the world. In the U.S., a single letter like this is enough to qualify the sender for two separate federal charges with a maximum combined sentence of three years in federal prison, on top of various state and local charges that may also apply.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  46. Blackmailing?? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    And i thought it is illegal to blackmail in US.....silly me.

  47. Tubegalore by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    www.tubegalore.com

    Everything you could ever imagine (and some you don't want to), free and legal.

    I, of course, only watch the plain vanilla missionary porn between people of my age group.

    And I think of england while doing so.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  48. Informative? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're clearly not a lawyer. The protection from a charge of defamation offered by the law to statements made in a lawsuit do NOT apply to someone 'informing your neighbors', before, during, or even after a suit, unless the neighbor(s) in question happen to be officers of the court, police officers, (a) judge(s), or members of the jury, AND they are informed in the course of the case. In fact, if they publicize an allegation as yet unproven in a court of law and in so doing contaminate the jury pool, they could be liable to be sanctioned for that action.

    This misbehavior is going to continue unless and until someone holds these ambulatory priapisms in contempt of court for abusing the justice system. Would love to watch everyone involved get thrown in jail with the other goddamned crooks for a while. Make sure the other animals in the cage with them know they're sniveling blackmailers. Better yet, let it be known they're molesters and murderers of small children. Enjoy your stay, guys!

  49. Re:Skyclad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I watch porn. I enjoy adults performing a natural function.

    The last time I checked, taking a shit was considered a natural function, too.

    Also, just a google search away. Welcome to the future!

  50. Re:When is the scum going in the slammer? by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

    These shysters, after poking the proverbial hornets nest with a pointy stick and getting stung, are at it again? Unbelievable. I guess the lesson they learned from last time is that it's worth it. Crime does pay. There is no other explanation for this behavior.

  51. Re:Crooks by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    They are all about making money, not serving justice. People like that are gangsters, and you know what they say. "Live by the sword, die by the sword".

    Reminds me of a random NPC quote I always liked back in the days of City of Heroes.

    "Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't."

    I think that was one of the gangster thugs from The Family educating one of the thugs from either the Tsoo or the Warriors.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  52. Re:Copycat? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Where's the evidence that this really is a Prenda shell company, and not a Nigerian-style scammer pretending to be a Prenda shell company?

    Since this story has become public, then if representatives from Prenda don't step forward and say "This is not us." then that would be evidence in favor of it being the real deal. If it was just a Nigerian scammer pretending to be them, then surely they would want that to be known, since either their freedom or lives are on the line here.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  53. Re:Skyclad? by Nyder · · Score: 1

    No kidding! Why pirate what you can already get for free?

    Because the pirate sites is where I get my free porn. sheesh.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  54. Re:When is the scum going in the slammer? by mendax · · Score: 1

    Well, if not the slammer, at least get the lawyers sending out the letters disbarred. This is illegal conduct pure and simple and is an act of moral turpitude. Lawyers cannot hide behind their clients in practicing illegal behavior.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  55. Re:Skyclad? by GoogleShill · · Score: 2

    I know that would hurt on a professional and emotional level.

    I'm pretty sure the bowling pin up that girl's ass hurts on more of a physical level :)

  56. Re:I refer you to the reply in Arkell vs. Pressdra by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

    Oooh, thank you! I wouldn't have bothered to look that up, but I'd have been missing out if it weren't for your post. I'm still giggling insanely while typing this.

    --
    There's nothing like $HOME
  57. Re:When is the scum going in the slammer? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    What makes it blackmail and extortion? My neighbors already know that I occasionally pirate stuff. I'm pretty ok with this.

  58. Some people just never learn... by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    If they pull this shit on me, then:

    1) They will be counter sued for blackmail.
    2) They will be sued for slander/character assassination as I currently have no porn on my box nor have I downloaded any either legally or not legally.
    3) My neighbor is the only one with access to my wifi and she too will sue.

    Knowing my luck though, they will run out of money long before they get to me. :-(

  59. Re:When is the scum going in the slammer? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    The judge that recommended criminal charges and disbarrment against Prenda Law did not feel what they did was legal. The main issues that he had was that Prenda Law misled the court when asked direct questions about ownership and representation of the copyights.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  60. Re:When is the scum going in the slammer? by Meski · · Score: 1

    You probably wouldn't like it if they sent a ficticious list that included illegal pron. Mud sticks, even when proven false after.