LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Jumboshark is a native Russian citizen, but graduated from Boston University in 1999 :001_smile:Originally Posted by Rellik
We are the best invite forum on the internet! Here you will find free invites, free seedboxes, free bonuses, and much more. Our members know the true meaning of sharing and have created a truly global bittorent community! Our site has the most up to date information on all private trackers and our members will guide you and introduce you to this truly secretive and enlightened club. Ready to get started? Register now!
Jumboshark is a native Russian citizen, but graduated from Boston University in 1999 :001_smile:
From reading some of the linked articles it sounds like you're 100% safe from this tactic as long as you don't use public trackers. So in other words, not a big issue for anyone here I'm guessing.
Let's get one thing straight.
"US Copyright Group" is a commercial organizational in the business of selling anti-piracy "solutions"
They are not MPAA, RIAA etc. MPAA and RIAA have stated they will stop pursuing new cases against individual users. It makes sense because it is hardly cost effect. Think about how much in fees the industry groups paid just to get a verdict on Thomas or Tannenbaum that will take years to pay back.
The fact that Uwe Boll is one of the directors (and I use that word lightly) here speaks volumes. This isn't a tactic likely to see widespread adoption
Okay. Not sure why that was a key point but I am with you so far.
How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? The economics and cost effectiveness of the strategy being pursed by U.S Copyright group is quite different. Sue 20000 users already with 30000 more in the crosshairs. Target settlements of $500 to $1000 per user. Note economic incentives for each individual who has been sued--pay up or pay far more to defend yourself in court with the potential to get hit with a massive judgment if you lose. RIAA and MPAA were out to make a point--get caught and you could face a ruinous legal judgments. What the U.S. Copyright group is doing is quite different--a test run for massive litigation against a broad swath of the BT community to scalp $500 to $1000 a head. How does this strategy resemble the loss leader suits of the MPAA/RIAA?
Well, I suppose your crystal ball is as good as mine. However, the fact the the story was leaked to the Hollywood Reporter, the entertainment industry trade mag, at least signals the possibility that the mainstream studios are at the very least interested observers watching to see what the net result of this initial foray is. Not saying that a future massive wave of lawsuits is preordained or even likely, but I am more pessimistic than you as to what lies ahead.
Well the histrionics at display in this thread suggest that many people think that US Copyright Group are some sort of representative of the industry. If they were called Compu-Global-Hyper-Mega-Net , or say Media Sentry, maybe people wouldn't be getting all worked up over what is essentially an outdated litigation model
Its also worthwhile to note that a company making money out of the anti-piracy industry has much to gain by overstating the effectiveness and innovation of their product
The RIAA offered settlements that were not substantially more than this (~$2000). They also attempted to have the matters settled out of court, and in fact, many people did. And their actions could be described as mass-litigation -- some 30,000 people were involved.How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? The economics and cost effectiveness of the strategy being pursed by U.S Copyright group is quite different. Sue 20000 users already with 30000 more in the crosshairs. Target settlements of $500 to $1000 per user.
Well this is the basis of ANY settlement offer. If Tannenbaum had accepted his settlement he would have paid a few thousand compared to the hundred he now has to. US Copyright aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before in the history of litigation.Note economic incentives for each individual who has been sued--pay up or pay far more to defend yourself in court with the potential to get hit with a massive judgement if you lose.
You are ignoring the fact that part of that strategy involved scaring individuals into admissions of guilt and into paying settlement fees. Their goal was never to have high profile cases involving Harvard Law professors. In their ideal model, everyone would settle. More people settled than actually went to court, which I imagine would be the aim of this new venture as well. Similarly, the whole thing becomes more problematic if individuals choose not to settle. In fact, this scheme falls apart if too many people choose not to settle. The for-profit motivation assumes that litigation is kept to a minimum. The overall strategy might be different but the tactics are basically the same.RIAA and MPAA were out to make a point--get caught and you could face a ruinous legal judgments. What the U.S. Copyright group is doing is quite different--a test run for massive litigation against a broad swath of the BT community to scalp $500 to $1000 a head. How does this strategy resemble the loss leader suits of the MPAA/RIAA?
Of course, it is all speculation, but its no surprise the MPAA claims to be interested. Of course they would be interested in ANY developments in anti-piracy. But the MPAA should be acutely aware of problems faced by the RIAA. This includes the technological issues involved in identifying infringing users and verifying actual infringement, as well as the various problems surrounding mass litigation.Well, I suppose your crystal ball is as good as mine. However, the fact the the story was leaked to the Hollywood Reporter, the entertainment industry trade mag, at least signals the possibility that the mainstream studios are at the very least interested observers watching to see what the net result of this initial foray is. Not saying that a future massive wave of lawsuits is preordained or even likely, but I am more pessimistic than you as to what lies ahead.
I await for Nessum to announce the first class action suit against the MPAA after a number of grandmothers around America are accused of downloading "Notorious"
Mass-litigation is tried and tested. And for industry groups it has created more issues than it solved.
Why do you think the folks with bad movies are looking to litigate?
They need every penny they can get to break even on their crap-movie :001_tongue:
The prophecies speak of a legendary being. With virtue, and wisdom beyond comprehension.
Commanded by none, yet commended by the Gods. Possessing strength that would make Muhammad Ali cower.
He is the embodiment of swag, with infinitely more charm and allure than any mere mortal. He is...
The Exalted
The Greatest Tutorials Known To Man
Thanks for your reply. I have a better sense of your POV.
OK. Yes, they are not the MPAA or an appendage of the MPAA. Not so sure what makes this model outdated, however. If anything, it is an attempt to be enterprising and improve upon the previous campaign of the RIAA precisely because the U.S. Copyright Group's goal is not primarily to combat piracy or raise awareness but to monetize illegal file sharing.
Certainly. Presumably one of the lessons learned from the RIAA battle was the difficulty of proving infringement and thus USCG has every incentive to tout a technology that purports to solve that issue but in reality may not.
To me, one important distinction here was that the RIAA's primary goals were to combat the rise of digital piracy, use scare tactics to dissuade infringement and to raise awareness of the issue to a public which may not have been aware of the legal ramifications of their actions. It was never meant to be a profit center unlike USCG's approach. I would not think that USCG intends to take cases all the way to trial to get verdicts against people who are likely judgment proof.
Not the point I was making. If you are sued for $1,000,000 and the expected settlement value is $300,000 it is not economically disadvantageous to even hire a lawyer to explore your options. These cases combine potentially ruinous judgments coupled with a settlement value far below the cost of hiring a lawyer to fight the charges. That is not a feature present in every settlement offer.
Certainly. Presumably one of the lessons learned from the RIAA battle was the difficulty of proving infringement and thus USCG has every incentive to tout a technology that purports to solve that issue but in reality may not.
Yes, but the overwhelming majority will settle given the economics of the situation and that is surely built into USCG's model. Sure, the EFF and Nessum will get involved but look at the RIAA example. It took years to get cases through trial and appeals and in the meanwhile, you have people who are stuck today with getting sued and having some unpleasant options facing them.
Yes, for those groups with different technology at issue and different goals. As I have said before, I truly do hope there is a public backlash again but am concerned that USCG and copycats could ramp up lawsuits quickly that will easily outstrip the 30,000 sued by the RIAA given the financial incentives at play that were never a part of the RIAA 's calculus.
Posting Permissions
