Fuck you Lightspeed
 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...to-defendants/

how much of that are you personally having to pay back, you blackmailing failure?

Wow when he was talking about it on GFY we did tell him what happened over here in the UK when they tried the same thing years ago which caused the Law firm to close down.

People were saying it wouldent happen in the US... It was bound to happen when you try blackmail people into giving you money

I have a lot more sympathy for over-reaching content holders than I do for thieves.

.

Oh I am laughing so hard.

So fucking hard.

I hope he has to pay back the money he blackmailed from people himself.

I did warn him.

He carried on.

Now the courts have ruled against him.

Lollington lol.

:1orglaugh missed that thread

the last post is the best part

No thats not over-reaching content holders, its a blackmailing scam to make $$ which they tried over here in the UK and got caught out too. If you are happy to blackmail people into giving you money you are no better than a thief

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

is he giving that dog an indian burn to make it chase it's own tail?

"has been accused of forging signatures on key documents and planting the porn files it sued over."

That's FUCKED up!

What does that article have to do with Steve at Lightspeed?

Were those his attorneys too?
I'm unfamiliar with this whole thing...but just reading the article I saw nothing connected to the adult industry.

What's the full story here?

Robbie yes, Steve used the that firm but OP is wrong. Judgment appears to be against the firm and not Steve personally.

robbie how are you sir....


I think they are accusing steve of blackmailing downloaders of his stuff with lawsuit if they did not cough up cash.... allegedly I think thats the story....

They represented lightspeed. Mid way through suing comcast and at&T they dropped the suit for some reason. That gave at&t and the others ammunition to make whatever vlaims they wanted anf asked for attorney fee compensation which was inflated. It was awarded due to no show.

I'm sure a lot more is going on then what appears on the surface. But one thing is certain, it has nothing to do with proof of wrong doing by Prenda Law.

That article also said *formerly* known as Prenda Law. So a ruling has just been made against a non existant entity. Lol

Damian is so stupid it hurts.

interesting:2 cents:

BOOM, that's beautiful, and very well-deserved by the "attorneys" involved.

Oh, so Steve once used that firm to go after thieves.

Makes sense.

Steve was unaffected by it and the law firm apparently did some crooked shit instead of just going after people stealing stuff.

Lawyers...almost as crooked as politicians. :(

WTF i'm laughing so hard on this :1orglaugh

Hard knock life.

Always happens when some pitbull nazi over-reactsss...

Unfortunately, most people who try to fight a cause from ressentiment, I would say 99% of them usually over-react, and THUS finish losing the battle.


Basically something like this:

A steals from B...

B goes the ILLEGAL way to try to punish A...

B gets fined, punished and gets in trouble due of going the illegal way...

everyone forgets about A...


Nuff said.

Oftentimes the legal way either doesn't work (DMCA) or isn't cost effective (fee for services lawyer).

That leaves B with one of two options:

1) Bend over and spread his cheeks.
2) Choose a *smarter* other than standard legal method.
.

If they were planting videos then it was a purely profit driven exercise using a form of extortion...

From what I can gather they got greedy and started going after the ISPs and not the end users - What a fucking stupid idea.....

They were counter sued by the cable networks because they dropped the suit mid way. The award was only attorney fees claimed by the comcast, etc. They were obviously inflated fees.

Prenda has not been ruled to have done anything but not respond to the courts. It tells me they dissolved the firm during this and are likely regrouping.

What was the firm that tried to set up the groundskeeper as the President or CEO or whatever, attempting to set him up as the scapegoat when their house of cards came tumbling down?

I seem to remember it being Prenda Law, but am not certain (plus, I believe most states prevent non-attorneys from having principle in a firm). The names Brett Gibbs and John Steele definitely ring a bell.

well said

Bizarrely though, Damian always shows up telling B how he should be grateful that A shared his material, and that any attempt by B to either protect his property from A, or punish A in anyway for the theft is not only futile, it also clearly makes you an idiot for even thinking that you can outwit the internet wizzkids. :thumbsup

Things are changing though. The massive profits that the DMCA loophole offered are starting to dry up, tube ads are getting cheaper and the likes of AK are working hard on the payment industry. ISPs in the UK are gleefully getting into the censorship business. It is very easy move to jump from protecting the kiddies to protecting the content. I am quite sure the ISPs see another revenue stream in content protection. I see an end to the free for all. Well the beginning of the end anyway.

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

come on, no one was planting videos... saying stuff was planted is the oldest defense in the book... you get caught with drugs or something else illegal in your car, and of course you will say "that shit isn't mine, someone must have planted it"... :2 cents:

in hindsight it seems dumb to sue ISPs, but if ISPs weren't willing to cooperate what other choice did they have?

a detailed analysis and a startling conclusion about one of the primary Prenda lawyers, John Steele.

lawyer Graham Syfert presents very, very detailed and compelling evidence, as put together by Delvan Neville, that many of the films that Prenda sued people over were initially uploaded by John Steele.

there's a ton of evidence that, at the very least, whoever controlled the Prenda Law domain name, also uploaded the torrent, ran a website "releasing" the movies, controlled John Steele's confirmed email account and commented on various blogs with clear insider knowledge of Prenda Law's actions.


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...evidence.shtml

Nobody, and I mean nobody, could be that stupid.

I've seen the exact same type of attacks on AK in his thread. It was always a last attempt. Why would they need to upload themselves? There is an abundance of it uploaded already, and every day.

i have no idea, i just goog'ed prenda law and came across that.

wow, so they started a website where they uploaded their own videos, tracked ips, and then tried to sue/extort those downloaders? didn't realize that's how it was setup... pretty damn sleazy...

Regardless of whether that is true or not it doesn't really matter because the damage/change has been done. We have generations of surfers who are accustomed to getting everything digital for free so even if international laws required ALL digital content to be put behind a paywall and protected (or somehow magically made everything unpirateable) it would take decades to change surfers minds, not going to happen.

The smart companies adapted and offered surfers digital content at a price they where prepared to pay and most importantly they offered a platform that was easier and more convenient than downloading files illegally.

Then we're left with the whiny fucking cry babies i.e. the majority on this forum who bitch and whine on a daily basis about Tubes, Filelockers, BitTorrent etc etc

But still charge $29.99 per month, barely update their sites, are still promoting their content the same way they did 10 years ago etc

The mentality by many on this forum is exactly the same as the mentality the adult magazines like Hustler & Penthouse had in the early 90s towards the internet.

"The internet came along and we couldn't compete"

It's not that they couldn't, they wouldn't!

I'm just sick of the complaining, if you can no longer make money from digital content then for fuck sake start marketing something you can make money from. No point complaining like a broken record because the market changed

it was common practice in germany some years ago to set up a trap, have people download the stuff by P2P, track them down and send them nasty letters

some companies had specialized on that, they offered me a deal where that company, the lawyers and me get 33% each from the money they extorted from people that downloaded content from the trap in place

i refused, many others didnt.

itunes songs are .99 cents and they still steal them. The problem is the internet brings out the true dark nature of humans because they think they are invisible on the net so to steal is ok.

That's one point of view...

Or perhaps the internet just changed what digital content was worth, the internet made sharing content a 100 times easier.

Fact is most people don't consider sharing digital content immoral or illegal, I'm not sure anything can change that POV now :disgust

I dont agree with the argument that says "you can never stop it completely so you should not try".

Laws are not made on that basis. They never have been.

Murder still exists, but you will face significant loss of liberty or death in any country in the world if you are convicted.

This also applies to those who create content and want to control where and when it is distributed. Things will change. Legislation will catch up with technology. It always has - governments like to be in control.

Just because it has not happened yet does not mean it will. Governments can control whatever they decide is important enough to apply their will to.

The US govt did not like online casinos, so they stopped 99.9% of the population from using them. The UK govt is cajoling ISPs to control content in the name of child protection. It does not take a genius to work out where content control can lead.

Govt licenses to get your URL through the censors anyone ? :helpme

Sounds like what cops here in the U.S. do all the time. It was once thought of as "entrapment" for the cops to do that.
But the Supreme Court said it was ok, and now they routinely set up drug deals right beside schools so they can get bigger prison terms for the guy who shows up to buy a bag. :(

Of course what's good for the govt. is a crime for everybody else. :pimp

Actually I believe the End Users started to fight back against the bullshit threats too as the judge in one case started to see what was going on.

Planting videos could simply mean they uploaded to a torrent site and went after the people whom d/led them. If I'm not mistaken, I think even Riaa or what ever the fuck their name is has done the same.

They did it to obtain IP addresses obviously. They then used the IP addresses to obtain identities which is why AT&T etc were brought in because they began refusing the requests. They were targeting viewers not uploaders. "Pay our ransom or we will let everyone know what porn you look at." essentially. The music industry tried it and received a serious backlash, you would think they would have learned from their mistake.

a win for common sense i say sucked in lightspeed!

Pandora's box has been opened. There is no going back. But not a single person who steals digital music would walk into a store and steal a CD or DVD. Nor would they illegally hack into a site to steal music or a movie. Well, not unless they were a criminal. The ease of delivery and the anonymous aspect of it all is what drives it.

It is what it is. You'll never beat it, but you can greatly reduce it.

So account holders on a locker site can see the IP's of who downloaded their uploaded file?

My understanding is they were the website which served up the files. They were acting as the file locker.. So yes they would have that information.


"Basically, there's a ton of evidence that, at the very least, whoever controlled the Prenda Law domain name, also uploaded the torrent, ran a website "releasing" the movies, controlled John Steele's confirmed email account and commented on various blogs with clear insider knowledge of Prenda Law's actions."

...

"That said, here's the really ironic bit: In all of the John Steele cases of copyright trolling, in which he and his partners have been accusing people of copyright infringement and hacking computers, their "evidence" tends to be a single IP address involved in a single action, which they argue is enough information to accurately identify the person and the actions they did. Here, we not only have a single IP address, but a ton of additional information, including that identical IP address showing up in multiple places, while a variety of other evidence directly links Steele to the IP address, yet he insists it's not true."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...evidence.shtml

I have no idea how they got their IP's. Anything on techdirt relating to support of the digital age (aka pirating) is completely biased and is just a blog article.

Going back to what has, and has not happened. The lawsuit simply awarded Comcast, AT&T, and the other one lost attorney fees when they were getting sued by Prenda Law. And the reason for the verdict, was very clearly stated because Prenda Law did not show up to court or answer to the courts.

So in 2 years or whatever, I suppose we will have more factual information. Until then... nothing has happened whatsoever and no reason for Damian to spin the story in a "win for the digital world" agenda.

Sadly the damage has been done, that's my point

That's another reason why sometimes people better be careful what they wish for, it's only a matter of time before some law/bill gets passed and destroys Net neutrality and with it most of our livelihoods :Oh crap

I disagree...

I think most people would steal a CD or DVD from a store if there was effectively zero chance of getting busted for doing so. That applies to theft of money, rape, murder anything really.

Perfect example, last year in the UK a bank had a faulty cash machine that was paying out double the amount entered. Within hours there where long queues of 100s of people withdrawing as much money as possible, that's theft but once people get it into their heads they can get something for free & get away with it! - good luck changing that mentality!

I do agree that not enough was done when the problem first emerged, too little too late now sadly :disgust

I believe they didn't show because they 1. got caught in their little game. 2. Got too greedy and tried to take on companies with deep litigation pockets.. If they continued on their losses might have been and may likely still be MUCH worse with countersuits.

Very likely. Couple that with most judges know how to check email, and the news only on the internet.

When i was trying to settle assets online, i was in court for pre-hearing. Judge straight up said he didnt understand a thing about the web and how it makes money.

Settlement was made without any judges shortly after, relatively speaking.