dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
51

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits

DataRiker to joako

Premium Member

to joako

Re: Copyright Infringement letter

Step 3 is usually a bluff from what I've read.

Attorney's know that your average person couldn't pay a high judgement even if he won, because one of 3 things:

A - The person is already in debt, and you can't give preference to one debtor over another when you have a judgment. Basically you have to wait in line with his other debt collectors.

B - The person is poor and judgment proof ( they don't have to pay even if they lose )

C - Going to trial is expensive and time consuming even for attorney's and they might lose.

Now if your a wealthy person with lots of assets and no debt then it might be different.

goody two
@comcast.net

goody two

Anon

said by DataRiker:

Step 3 is usually a bluff from what I've read.

Attorney's know that your average person couldn't pay a high judgement even if he won, because one of 3 things:

A - The person is already in debt, and you can't give preference to one debtor over another when you have a judgment. Basically you have to wait in line with his other debt collectors.

B - The person is poor and judgment proof ( they don't have to pay even if they lose )

C - Going to trial is expensive and time consuming even for attorney's and they might lose.

Now if your a wealthy person with lots of assets and no debt then it might be different.

A. It's not the matter of how much debt the defendant has -- it's the matter of how much net worth. A defendant can have hefty amount of debt but still the value of his total assets is greater - in which case judgement is worth pursuing.

B. There's no such thing as judgement proof. A person can be temporarily poor but ultimately get a good-paying job, receive an inheritance, win a lottery or even win a judgement on a different tort case. All of which can create assets from which judgement claims can be realized. But judgements are often not so much for financial reasons but as a deterrent from further damages.

C. I wouldn't bank on that as trials are expensive for defendants too, with a much, much greater impact on defendants financial resources than those of the content companies. If the infringements are infrequent or accidental, then it's not worth pursuing. But if it's still ongoing after several warnings, then that's another story.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by goody two :

said by DataRiker:

Step 3 is usually a bluff from what I've read.

Attorney's know that your average person couldn't pay a high judgement even if he won, because one of 3 things:

A - The person is already in debt, and you can't give preference to one debtor over another when you have a judgment. Basically you have to wait in line with his other debt collectors.

B - The person is poor and judgment proof ( they don't have to pay even if they lose )

C - Going to trial is expensive and time consuming even for attorney's and they might lose.

Now if your a wealthy person with lots of assets and no debt then it might be different.

A. It's not the matter of how much debt the defendant has -- it's the matter of how much net worth. A defendant can have hefty amount of debt but still the value of his total assets is greater - in which case judgement is worth pursuing.

B. There's no such thing as judgement proof. A person can be temporarily poor but ultimately get a good-paying job, receive an inheritance, win a lottery or even win a judgement on a different tort case. All of which can create assets from which judgement claims can be realized. But judgements are often not so much for financial reasons but as a deterrent from further damages.

C. I wouldn't bank on that as trials are expensive for defendants too, with a much, much greater impact on defendants financial resources than those of the content companies. If the infringements are infrequent or accidental, then it's not worth pursuing. But if it's still ongoing after several warnings, then that's another story.

Your arguments hinge on having massive assents or winning the lottery. I will let the readers judge the merits of this argument.

Also no attorney will pursue a client who is judgment proof. Attorneys don't like working for free. Maybe in your fantasy world.

I suggest you read the book "How to file for bankruptcy" by Stephen Elias one of the country's top bankruptcy attorneys.

goody two
@comcast.net

goody two

Anon

Again, my argument is about a defendants' net worth, which is assets minus liabilities. I suggest you read a book about personal finances to better understand that concept.

Getting a judgement is easy. I suggest you read an article that's on WSJ.com by a columnist, David Weidner, whose application for home equity loan was rejected because of a $60 judgement filed by a local library for an unreturned DVD rental.

»online.wsj.com/article/S ··· 282.html


DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

I will trust the advice of one of the countries top bankruptcy attorneys as given in his book,thanks.

I'm just curious, do you know the odds of winning the lottery?

goody two
@comcast.net

goody two

Anon

Warnings about copyright infringements and possible resulting judgements do not automatically result in bankruptcy.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

Never said they did.

I said lawyers don't waste time seeking judgements from people who are judgement proof ( poor people, students, ect...).

They also don't waste time seeking small judgments or astronomical judgements that result in bankruptcy.

Unless they are dealing with a wealthy victim then its a losing game and they know it.

The sad truth is, they are hoping you don't know this.

goody two
@comcast.net

goody two

Anon



I just pointed out an example of a small dollar amount judgement ($60) in the article I referenced above and the library lawyers didn't care what the financial status of the person who didn't returned the rental.

You have yet to show that filing judgement is a losing proposition. It happens quite often by all sorts of creditors and tort plaintiffs. It will have an adverse affect on personal credit scores.
Expand your moderator at work

OK
@rr.com

OK to goody two

Anon

to goody two

Re: Copyright Infringement letter

said by goody two :

I just pointed out an example of a small dollar amount judgement ($60) in the article I referenced above and the library lawyers didn't care what the financial status of the person who didn't returned the rental.

You have yet to show that filing judgement is a losing proposition. It happens quite often by all sorts of creditors and tort plaintiffs. It will have an adverse affect on personal credit scores.

I can do a google search for small judgement cases as well. So what? Lawyers are under immense pressure in any firm to generate revenue, not make questionable social points. Its just not sustainable in practice. The only way copyright trolls can make money is by end user ignorance and a quick settle.
Expand your moderator at work

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to OK

Premium Member

to OK

Re: Copyright Infringement letter

said by OK :

The only way copyright trolls can make money is by end user ignorance and a quick settle.

Well put, I guess that is really the crux of the matter.

Back to the OP, if you are indeed at the receiving end of a copyright troll, don't ever settle with them.
Expand your moderator at work
DataRiker

4 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Copyright Infringement letter

Copyright trolls get paid on what they can collect. Think about that line very carefully.

Famous copyright trolls were forced to reveal "the game". Do the names Ira Siegel and John Steele mean anything to you?

They basically pioneered the mass settlement schemes that are so common today.

goody two
@comcast.net

goody two

Anon

Now you're being contradictory. Previously, you stated that they lawyers act on their own. And now you're stating they are getting paid? By whom? The copyright owners? Now, there's a sliver of rationality here.

And the lawyers being paid based on what they can collect? No, I dare say the purpose of litigation is to stop the rampant repeated infringements, not so much financial gain.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by goody two :

No, I dare say the purpose of litigation is to stop the rampant repeated infringements, not so much financial gain.

BAM !!!

To the OP, this site is here to help you, and a relevant section"

»fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq/

"What happens next?
Based on my observations, you will most likely be dismissed without prejudice eventually. Expect more attempts to push you into settlement and threats of trial, these are largely hollow threats. One exception: if you are wealthy, trolls can dismiss you without prejudice and sue you in your jurisdiction. But if you are wealthy, you will be able to hire a good experienced IP lawyer, and you wouldn’t be reading this FAQ in the first place."
Expand your moderator at work
DataRiker

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Copyright Infringement letter

Should we keep discussing how lawyers work for the good of the earth without financial incentive?

Oh and add they really care about IP infringement from the bottom of their hearts.

Oh and add that mass settlement schemes are really to "educate" right?

goody two
@comcast.net

goody two

Anon

I'm not the one stating that lawyers work for the good of the earth. They make their living just like any other profession. Clients hire lawyers to do the legal work for them. You keep changing from they work for themselves to their being paid based on what they collect. Well, I got news for you: just about every civil lawsuits are about collecting damages or getting injunctions to prevent further damages.

Lawyers don't care about what field or industry their clients are in. They just do the legal work the clients want them to do.

In the settlement cases, I'm sure the defendants had their own lawyers to fight the lawsuits filed by lawyers on behalf of copyright owner clients. As typical in settlement cases, both sides have their valid points and further litigation would not be meaningful nor worth the additional legal costs.