Re: So what? This. I have no "neighbors", and they would be hard pressed to really get ahold of any of them, since its a bar and a grocery store. Seriously tho, if I were party to this case, I have a lawyer who would represent me pro-bono, and we could likely crush this outfit in a few motions.
Re: That is criminal
said by skeechan:While they _are_ just making an empty threat, it still walks just on the legal side as something they could get away with. Their argument will be 1) they never contacted anyone about the use and 2) would have only done so if there _was_ an indication that the the person they asked money from may have been subject to theft of service. Their spin is that they were actually telling the person, "hey, you may not be responsible and we don't want to pursue you if you are not".
The threat, being used to extort money is blackmail, ESPECIALLY if they have no intention of actually calling which means it has no valid purpose in the legal action. The only reason they are saying it is to extort. They should be going to prison.
Again, it's _100%_ PURE BS! The judge would even know that. However, without proof the judges hands are tied. Look at the legal case against this firm that was dismissed (linked in the story). The judge told them she knew they violated the law... just that there was no actual proof of this.
Re: That is criminal
said by skeechan:Certainly not a DA as the DA only presents a case to a judge or jury. Also, a DA only procecutes crimminal charges (not civil).
You don't have to prove it to a judge, just to a DA and jury.
It could be a judge or a jury. But the judge would rule on a matter of law. I'd see a judge having to rule on a motion to dismiss as the plaintiff could not show grounds for defimation.
Even that is partially correct as my attempt was to be brief.
Re: That is criminal
said by skeechan:You are reading information into their letter that is not there. Read the quoted part again and you will see that they are not threating to release information. They were very careful to not come out and say that.
No you don't. Threatening to disclose harmful information if a payment is not made is all it takes to commit the crime of blackmail. It doesn't matter if the information is true or not. It is obvious to anyone the ONLY reason that threat is in the letter is to extort a pricy settlement.
What the letter _does_ say is, that it looks like you have downloaded/stolen porn that our client owns but perhaps your network is open and your neighors were at culprits. So we will check with them to see if that is the case. If asked, the firm will just testify that they were never going to mention anything about what was downloaded... only if the neighbors were using the open network (but they actually won't ever ask). Since the neighbors were never asked or notified of anything then the law firm can make just about anything up as to what they _might_ have asked.
| |ArrayListnetbus developerPremiumReviews:
Re: an empty threat
said by Packeteers:not universally, no. I know a few ISPs that managed to do this.
2. IP geolocators are specific to a town, not any particular street address & apt#.
| |Mr MattReviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
Copyright trolls should be prosecuted under RICO act! Copyright trolls should be prosecuted under RICO act and civil court if they contact anyone other than the accused. I am amazed that copyright trolls are trying to use this form of extortion to collect money. In most states it is against the law for anyone trying to collect a debt (bill collectors) to contact anyone other than the debtor. I am sure if the copyright trolls are challenged on their methods they will claim they are doing the accused a favor by not taking them to court, which they really do not want to do.
Re: The trolls..
said by old_wiz_60: Goodness, I hope so. For someone to lose the ability to work in their chosen field, I would want the act to be heinous or criminal.
Lawyers are almost never disbarred unless they do something really heinous or criminal. The professional groups attorneys or state medicine boards almost never take real action.
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???
Porn cannot be copyrighted? I was under the assumption that because porn has no artistic value, it cannot be copyrighted(established case law). Does that not invalidate all of their copyrights, thus, does that not make it so this lawfirm is just sending out false and misleading statements in their letters? Be assured, as much as we love prenda law, this article incorrectly tries to tie Prenda Law to these idiots. Be assured that prenda and these idiots are not affiliated.
Edit: this firm is run by Paul Duffy, who is a former prenda lawyer, and has distanced himself from them, tho he seems to be running the same shenanigans, just on a different scale and such.
San Diego, CA
If they told. If they told my neighbors which porn i downloaded, i think the reaction I'd get from the neighbors would be something along the lines of "Can you send me a copy?"
| |Lone WolfReady For RetirementPremiumReviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
Re: If they told.
said by djdanska:My neighbors would say "I didn't know that was legal in Pennsylvania. Can you give me a copy?"
If they told my neighbors which porn i downloaded, i think the reaction I'd get from the neighbors would be something along the lines of "Can you send me a copy?"
| |IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremiumReviews:
I'd file criminal charges against them Mass General Law Ch 265 Sec 25; Extortion
Section 25. Whoever, verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of a crime or offence, or by a verbal or written or printed communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person or property of another, or any police officer or person having the powers of a police officer, or any officer, or employee of any licensing authority who verbally or by written or printed communication maliciously and unlawfully uses or threatens to use against another the power or authority vested in him, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage, or with intent to compel any person to do any act against his will, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than fifteen years, or in the house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord.