TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

$10 Music Piracy Fine: A Fair Deal Or Just Another Cheap Trick?

Following a report yesterday that an anti-piracy company has been sending out emails asking that people pay a $10 fine after allegedly being caught sharing copyright material, we decided to take a closer look. Isn’t this tiny fine a good idea? Isn’t paying $10 literally 300 times better than paying $3000 to other companies in the same area?

Yesterday, PaidContent published a report on Digital Rights Corp, an LA-based firm who monitor file-sharing networks for infringements and contact alleged pirates asking for money. It’s 2011, what’s new?

However, rather than asking for around $3,000 like many in this field, Digital Rights Corp are strictly at the budget end of the market. When they contact you there’s no need to panic since they request a measly $10.00 to settle their complaint. It’s a system that’s been used before by PayArtists.com.

To the die-hard file-sharer, the fact Digital Rights Corp (DRC) have asked for just $10.00 will probably carry some comedy value. By only asking for such a small amount the company sends the message that they aren’t serious about pursuing infringers.

And the reality is, they aren’t.

First off, DRC have no idea who the recipients of their claims are and have absolutely no intention of finding out. Instead of going through the lengthy and expensive process of going to a court to force ISPs to hand over the names and addresses of their customers, DRC short-cut the system.

DRC contacts ISPs with a DMCA takedown notice (which they are obliged to pass on to subscribers) which contains a link to their website. Follow that and the target gets an offer to settle for $10.00, payable by credit card. It is only after people have responded to their email that DRC even know who they are.

DigitalRights

But if we look at the current landscape, scarred by the punitive actions of the U.S. Copyright Group and the dozens of porn companies and their aggressive lawsuits demanding several thousands dollars in settlements, perhaps this $10.00 deal doesn’t look so bad, at least in comparison. It’s a couple of beers, a couple of sandwiches. What it clearly is not is a life ruiner.

Nevertheless, DRC have to go and spoil it.

The rhetoric in their emails and on their website consists of the same old anti-piracy scare tactics. Even though the company have absolutely no intention of suing, they give the impression they will, stating that: “The user who receives the notice, is liable for $150000 in damages, but if they click on the link supplied, they can enter a credit card and we will settle the matter.”

Now, bearing in mind that there is already a deal with the major US ISPs and the big music and movie studios to begin sending warnings which may, possibly, after more than half a dozen strikes, lead to the suspension of an Internet account, DRC lay it on thick in this department too.

Their initial email warnings state that the recipient risks having their internet cut off but their FAQ section on their website takes it a whole lot further.

“My Internet service has been shut off, how do I get it restored?” says the page’s first question. The supplied answer is simply ridiculous.

“Once you pay your settlement fee on this website or over the phone, we will notify the ISP that you have settled the matter with the copyright owner and they will restore your service,” is the response.

The notion that an ISP will cut off a subscriber based on the allegations of company like this following a simple, unsubstantiated DMCA notice, is unlikely to say the least. To suggest that the ISP would then switch that service back on after being notified that a $10.00 fine had been paid takes the statement to the absurd.

Another attempt at misdirection comes with the final statement on the page which declares: “Your ISP has verified that at the time your computer was used for copyright infringement, it was using the IP Address stated in the notice.” The implication here is that the ISP has verified that the email recipient has been infringing. They haven’t, they have simply forwarded an email.

The other problem is that these settlement companies, whether they ask for $10.00 or $3,000, is that they always try to give the impression their work is about reducing piracy. According to figures quoted by PaidContent, “…unauthorized sharing of one client’s song decreased from 20,000 to 4,000 in the month after its settlement offers were issued.”

How is that achieved with a system like this? Until now there has been almost zero publicity for this company or its business model. So, how does sending emails quietly to individuals that have already supposedly shared or downloaded the material in question reduce the uptake of new people doing the same? In fact, the entire model relies on new people coming aboard or the revenue simply dries up.

So if there is no reason to pay these people, why are people doing so?

Well, as shown by the type of artist in the DRC client list, it could very well be that the older, more-easily scared generation is being targeted here, rather than the young and tech-savvy. The good news is, however, that most of the artists being ‘protected’ by DRC won’t have been hurt by any infringements.

Because they’re dead.

Jelly Roll Morton – born September 20, 1885 – deceased
Louis Armstrong – born August 4, 1901 – deceased
Bob Willis & His Texas Playboys – born March 6, 1905 – deceased
Stephane Grapelli – born 26 January 1908 – deceased
Howlin’ Wolf – born June 10, 1910 – deceased
Bill Monroe & The Bluegrass Boys – born September 13, 1911 – deceased
Lightnin’ Hopkins – born March 15, 1912 – deceased
Muddy Waters – born April 4, 1915 – deceased
Lena Horne – born June 30, 1917 – deceased
Elmore James – born January 27, 1918 – deceased
Professor Longhair – born December 19, 1918 – deceased
Kitty Wells – born August 30, 1919
Dave Brubeck – born December 6, 1920
Albert King – born April 25, 1923 – deceased
Hank Williams – born September 17, 1923 – deceased
Mel Torme – born September 13, 1925 – deceased
Jimmy Reed – born September 6, 1925 – deceased
Fats Domino – born February 26, 1928
Pete Fountain – born July 3, 1930
Ray Charles – born September 23, 1930 – deceased
George Jones – born September 12, 1931
Ike & Tina Turner – Ike born November 5, 1931 – deceased
Johnny Cash – born February 26, 1932 – deceased
Nina Simone – born February 21, 1933 – deceased
Elvis Presley – born January 8, 1935 – deceased
Jerry Lee Lewis – born September 29, 1935
Allen Toussaint – born 14 January 1938
Mike Bloomfield – born July 28, 1943 – deceased
King Sunny Ade – born September 22, 1946

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Mac

    Johnny Cash is, (sadly!) also deceased.

  • Mac

    Johnny Cash is, (sadly!) also deceased.

  • Herbert

    of course it’s just another scam! they cant prove who was ‘the infringer’ any more than any other company. the IP address simply identifies the account holder, nothing else! i also read that 2 ISPs were taken to court for not handing over the names and addresses demanded. i dont know whether those ISPs were ordered to hand over the details or not. if they were, what evidence was used in court or out of court to convince that this company had the right to get this information, particularly as it has been stated in court previously that no person is identified from the IP address?

  • Herbert

    of course it’s just another scam! they cant prove who was ‘the infringer’ any more than any other company. the IP address simply identifies the account holder, nothing else! i also read that 2 ISPs were taken to court for not handing over the names and addresses demanded. i dont know whether those ISPs were ordered to hand over the details or not. if they were, what evidence was used in court or out of court to convince that this company had the right to get this information, particularly as it has been stated in court previously that no person is identified from the IP address?

    • Elviz

      Yeah these letters look more and more like those Nigera scam emails..

      • Olufemi Badande

        u are really silly for generalizing a whole nation.

    • Another Anon

      The name on the credit card used to pay up does not equal the infringer either.

  • Gargamel

    I’ll pay 10 dollars for Snacks & Popcorn to sit back and wath the RIAA burn.

  • Gargamel

    I’ll pay 10 dollars for Snacks & Popcorn to sit back and wath the RIAA burn.

    • http://twitter.com/buckybone Tyler Thorp

      I’ll buy the weenies!

      Oh yeah,

      *watch*, not *wath* /grammarnazi

  • Hedgehog

    You’ve just provided them with your details.
    I would hope that the $10 isn’t a nominal acknowledgement of wrong doing so they can come after you for more.

  • http://twitter.com/buckybone Tyler Thorp

    If the defendant settles for $10, then he can’t be charged for any downloads that happened before the “settlement” date under the US Constitution (5th Amendment). Random fact: Under the 7th Amendment, a settlement this small isn’t entitled to a jury trial.

    Also, I agree that a person can’t be identified by IP address, because there’s at least five people downloading from this IP right now, and it’s not under my name (screw you, feds!)

    Copyright law, as presently constructed (in the US), is impossible to enforce equally in the Internet Age. Equal protection under the law is the main point of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the 14th Amendment protects all “pirate” activity!

    Everything after the first sentence was typed under an increasing influence of alcohol. *hic*

    • http://twitter.com/buckybone Tyler Thorp

      None of this, of course, applies to non-US users. *hic*

    • Guest

      You’re going to have to explain how it violates equal protection.

      • 7th_Guest

        He’s drunk, he doesn’t have to explain shit!

  • Eddy

    Before reading this I thought it seemed a good idea, the reality is a bit different but the initial idea would seem to make economic sense to all concerned.

    Let me say that first I am not just a file sharer but also own a small torrent site, so you know where I am coming from and not a copyright troll.

    If we take this idea as genuine [which this psrticular one isnt] it could be the answer to the sharing problem.

    Lets stop bullshitting each other, we all know we shouldnt be getting things for free, but we do, cause we can. We also all know, despite what we all keep sayiing, that the vast majority of IP’s collected ARE genuine. So lets take that on board and pretent for a minute that they are all genuine…for the sake of this argument.

    I download a movie and get caught, I have downloaded thousands but they got me this time…they send me a letter informing me that I have broken the law [debatable] and to clear this up quickly I should pay for the file i got [film, music whatever], not stupid greedy money, just the RRP price of the product I downloaded. £10.00 for a dvd. Use the email as a legal agreement, [they agree not to persue if I pay, they drop the case and no furthur action is taken].

    I get a film for the RRP, they get the money for the film [like they wanted in the first place] and I use a proxy in future.

    I like to think that filesharers are fair minded people, if these guys meet us half way when they catch us, instead of trying to rape us financially, maybe everything could work out for both sides.

    I know I am just speculating cause at the end of the day these guys arent really interested in stopping piracy, its all about the dollars….gimme gimme gimme.

    • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

      Everyone who agrees with Eddy should send me 10 bucks because I can make you feel better about yourself (just like any other desperate, money-grabbing whore) and make you think “sharing IS caring”.

      You’ll feel good after you pay me, HONEST!!!
      … lol

      • Busterbrown

        Yes,

        If you wish to look as happy as me, send ten dollars to: Happy Dude.

        Or, conversely…

        I’m sorry. If you accept my apology, send ten dollars to: Sorry Dude

    • Travel

      “Lets stop bullshitting each other, we all know we shouldnt be getting things for free,”

      No public domain, open source, creative commons then?

      Give me a break, this wording is just falling into their paws – the problem is what we get, how we get – if it was merely a problem with getting things for free then those things would be worth criticizing, since we can get things in the aforementioned categories for free legally.

      It isn’t a matter of the work being copyrighted in of itself
      Nor is it a matter of getting it for free or not
      But whether or not you got it free with permission or not.

      Anything else, IMO, is falling into the hands of those twisting the language for their own gains.

    • Anonymous

      I dont mind paying artists. I mind people asking a fee for pressing ctrl+c, ctrl+v. In fact they ask more for that then the artists get. The settlement money also does not go to the artist. They are not the police and should not be conducting investigations because the result is always biast. These schemes are meant to pray on the weak. And i wish i could pay for my content the way i want. And get it in the format i want over the internet. The only way i can get that is through torrents ect.

      So don’t expect us to leave them alone while they pray on the weak. And don’t expect downloading to change if they don’t offer it a different way.

    • Anonymous

      File sharing culture doesn’t need saving. Get a Mac and make your own music and post that or otherwise just stop posting music. Everything you post on the Web should have your name signed to it like a letter or a painting. If you did not make it, you cannot sign it, so do not post it.

      Today’s music artists are not corporate fat cats, they are just another Web user. You’re not Robin Hood anymore. You’re the next generation of parasites on musicians. You should grow a little ponytail and start doing cocaine.

      When you go by a busker on the street, do you take money out of his guitar case? If you want to unite artist and listener, at least tip the f’ing artist. No, we don’t need your f’ing exposure, that is the oldest con in the music industry book.

  • Henrik Eriksson

    Personally I think this is a fair deal. A scam, sure, but still a fair deal.
    They caught you in the act. You pay, skip 1 or 2 beer in the weekend, and thats it. You have paid for what you downloaded, they got their money, a reasonable amount, and everyones happy.
    My major beef with the industry is that they fight the technology, and force you to the brink of ruin so you have to beg for money on the street when they catch you. With this they can still get the money, and we can download without fearing being the bum down the street.
    Sure, the actual evidence collection might improve quite a bit, but this is a totally acceptable common grounds until they do I believe.

    • Mike

      What your really saying is like the license crowd common ground idea, leave file sharing alone and let people make fair payments for it. Drop a couple beers a month and go wild on file sharing.

      They still don’t see how this would make them crazy money do they and without the need for expensive legal middle men…all these 10 bucks add up if half of the US pays up a monthly 10 bucks to file share and be left to do it.

      They can then figure out how to split it up worked for radio.

      They also do not need to change their archaic models they can go along with those also or concentrate on production and leave distribution/marketing to the so called pirates. Sometimes less control is more control. Open source software is a classic example.

      It is a solution. There will still be those not paying but you think about the price of a proxy and protecting yourself or buying usenet bandwidth and paying index sites etc etc etc. Or donating to keep your fav tracker up as most ISP that will even touch them charge them a fortune. Soon seems to be very good looking and all those people who would chill out on seeding and not run away would rocket so speed would go up. The current net infrastructure would be better utilised also; especially as fibre reaches into homes.

      Makes sense but they will NEVER go for it!

    • Anonymous

      No, you haven’t paid for what you downloaded.

      I could also sell you a $10 blanket immunity for all rapes you have commited in the past. Good luck getting the victims and the cops and courts to go along.

      It’s really simple: music is free on thousands of radio stations and streaming services. You pay by listening to ads. If you want to collect music, it comes ad-free, so you TIP the artist a small amount. Not tipping is not cool. Lie to yourself all you like.

    • Anonymous

      No, you haven’t paid for what you downloaded.

      I could also sell you a $10 blanket immunity for all rapes you have commited in the past. Good luck getting the victims and the cops and courts to go along.

      It’s really simple: music is free on thousands of radio stations and streaming services. You pay by listening to ads. If you want to collect music, it comes ad-free, so you TIP the artist a small amount. Not tipping is not cool. Lie to yourself all you like.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

    There seems to be one thing you’ve all not considered – its the same as giving anyone else your credit card details – they can actually charge you whatever they want, whenever they want from then on, even if it appears to be $10 initially it could easily be the first installment for a monthly fee or whatever. I thought the old adage of never give your card details to someone you don’t know would be the first thing talked about here…..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PXX4S66KOUIGIKTTIMV3CBGO7Y Colin

    Of course, if their target ‘market’ is older, less tech savvy folks, the idea may be to collect $10 today, and then concentrate on watching the IP addresses of these people for further downloading. This they then bill at $3000, adding the (flawed) argument that you confessed & paid up once so now we KNOW you’re guilty as hell..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PXX4S66KOUIGIKTTIMV3CBGO7Y Colin

    Of course, if their target ‘market’ is older, less tech savvy folks, the idea may be to collect $10 today, and then concentrate on watching the IP addresses of these people for further downloading. This they then bill at $3000, adding the (flawed) argument that you confessed & paid up once so now we KNOW you’re guilty as hell..

  • Momo

    I can’t imagine why anyone would think this is fair. Maybe it’s fairer relative to a $3000 settlement, but paying out even $10 on mere accusation of copying a dead artist’s work is still extortion.

    The copyrights of those artists should have expired decades ago. The corporations altered the deal, but that doesn’t make it right to demand people’s hard-earned money.

    Plus, it’s non-commercial file-sharing. There’s no money involved and there’s no companies involved. If those artists want to make money from their work, they should write some new songs and play some gigs. Oh they can’t, they’re dead. Then they shouldn’t be making money.

    • Matt in Palolo

      regarding your last paragraph, don’t assume all songwriters perform their own songs. Some of the very best songwriters, like Diane Warren–one of the most successful songwriters of all time, can’t sing. Same for Craig Wiseman, I’ve heard him sing his own songs, and he’s a terrible singer….but….he’s an incredible songwriter, wrote ‘Live Like You Were Dying” etc. As a songwriter myself, I’ll tell you it’s two entirely different talents to write music and to sing, and very very few can do both at the highest level, and because of file-sharing, pure songwriters are disappearing, staff writer positions in Nashville have virtually disappeared, more artists are trying to write hit songs themselves and you get shittier songs as a result. Just sayin…..

      • Momo

        I don’t follow your logic. If a songwriter’s song is performed at a live show then he still gets his cut. Say, if Diane Warren writes a song and Elton John sings it at a concert, she receives royalties. This part of the business is not affected by filesharing, and is in fact healthily growing year-on-year.

        If new artists choose to write and perform their own songs instead of paying “pure songwriters” to write songs for them, that’s not the fault of filesharing. What you said simply makes no sense.

    • Anonymous

      That is a severe case of self-delusion.

      What is happening today is music artists are taking jobs in advertising and playing music on the side for fun. They are not making any more albums. So you are drying up the river, not setting things right. Music is more and more just remixed corporate drivel. Muzak. Elevator tunes. That’s all free will support. It takes a lot of time and effort to write songs, it takes years of learning beforehand. If advertising pays better, then you, the listener, lose the most. The artist still has the music in their life. They just don’t have an incentive to do the F’ING MASSIVE amount of work it takes to produce and share that music with listeners who aren’t even appreciative enough to tip.

      Your complaint about changed copyright laws is valid. Your options: a) lobby to change the law, b) create your own music and release it Creative Commons, c) don’t listen to music where the songwriter is dead. Easy.

      • Momo

        “What is happening today is music artists are taking jobs in advertising and playing music on the side for fun. They are not making any more albums. So you are drying up the river, not setting things right.”

        Ok, how does the fact that the overall music industry is growing agree with your world-view? How can the music industry be growing (while only the recording industry is shrinking), yet artists are according to you worse off today than they were earlier? Tell me how.

        “Your complaint about changed copyright laws is valid. Your options: a) lobby to change the law, b) create your own music and release it Creative Commons, c) don’t listen to music where the songwriter is dead. Easy.”

        Done and done. As for (c), I’ll listen but not pay because the music is floating in the ether.

        “What you don’t know is that many of the heirs of artists work full-time to keep the work available to listeners.”

        I know and I don’t care because what you say is absolute bullshit, justified not by the absence of public domain recordings from iTunes, but of public domain recordings to speak of. Add to that the utmost stupidity of your statement that public domain recordings could be sold on iTunes, when (if they existed) they would be available for free elsewhere.

        Almost every recording made in the past 100 years is still under copyright. Period. If something enters the public domain, the master recordings are destroyed just so they can’t compete with more recent recordings. Tell me I’m wrong.

        And let me point out the most egregious flaw in your comment. There are thousands of culturally valuable public domain works that have not disappeared at all. Mozart, Beethoven and troves of other classical composers, thousands of poets starting from ones that are over 2000 years old (like Homer), authors, playwrights, painters, sculptors and so on and so forth.

        Let the copyrights expire and we’ll see if people will add them to their collections, with or without the help of the “indispensable” digitising heirs.

  • http://twitter.com/ctoon6 ctoon 6

    i think $10 is fair, but not the way this is handled. i think only the artist should be getting the $10, not some stupid CEO making 500,000 a year.

  • http://twitter.com/ctoon6 ctoon 6

    i think $10 is fair, but not the way this is handled. i think only the artist should be getting the $10, not some stupid CEO making 500,000 a year.

    • Anonymous

      Then fucking buy your music on iTunes. It’s not hard to tip the fucking artist.

  • hikaricore

    So, how exactly would they contact someone who doesn’t use email?

  • Noah C.

    (waits for Jack Murdock)

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Zzzz

    Surely this is fraud.
    They use dishonesty in order to profit, seems open and shut to me.

  • Fei

    The notion that an ISP will cut off a subscriber based on the allegations of company like this following a simple, unsubstantiated DMCA notice, is unlikely to say the least.

    ^ Not true. Mine has already done it on a first offense.

    • hikaricore

      That’s because you probably admitted to doing it.. you should always act stupid and say things like “I just bought a new cordless router, could someone have been hacking my modem?”. Noobs.

      • Matt in Palolo

        why are you condeming him for being honest? What’s wrong with being a responsible person? It’s why most people are trying to go green and recycle plastics and such–trying to be a responsible person and not just taking. And being a responsible person means admitting when you are wrong.

        and not that you said this, but people constantly say that they are taking from rich artists, like say Britney Spears or something. But that’s a tiny percentage, some 0.01 percent of artists hit it that big. As an indie songwriter/artist myself, and part of the songwriter community, I know tons and tons of very talented songwriters and artists who were never successful after many years of trying, and are struggling just like everyone else, musicans or not. Only a tiny percentage of artists see any real money.

        anyone who doubts that illegal file-sharing doesn’t affect songwriters, and I’m talking pure songwriters who can’t sing for crap but are incredible songwriters, look at Lamont Dozier, one of the legendary Motown songwriters who can’t sing but wrote many hits, his income from his song catalog was cut more than 60% in the last decade from illegal file-sharing.

        • Anonymous

          Collecting music and not paying is just as cool as eating at a restaurant and not tipping.

          There are many free music options if you are broke. And you are probably not as broke as the average songwriter, who in the US, which does not have a public health care system, more than half of them do not even have health care.

          But enjoy your free tracks!

        • Anonymous

          Collecting music and not paying is just as cool as eating at a restaurant and not tipping.

          There are many free music options if you are broke. And you are probably not as broke as the average songwriter, who in the US, which does not have a public health care system, more than half of them do not even have health care.

          But enjoy your free tracks!

  • Nospam1111

    Voluntarily paying any amount is an admission of guilt that might later be used to sue you for more. This demand isn’t coming from a court. You aren’t being offered a binding settlement. It’s just some company saying “pay us”.

  • Okarin

    having exploited all their legal and moral support to push through anti-piracy back in it’s heyday their social buzz has been decreasing ever since and the general trend is withdrawing social association to the anti-pirate side so this is just a quick push to grab any amount of money using what’s left of the trend downwards.

    the only good news about is that this company will start the race in the fraud-and-profit anti-pirate firms to a fair pricing model between what is downloaded and what is paid, the model netflix is using

  • Kr0nZ

    i was thinking what if we started spamming all the different isps with phoney infringement letters, then sooner or latter the gov’n will have to pass somekind of law to will make oaks check the validity of these letters

    • Kr0nZ

      Oaks = isps
      Damn word complete

  • Pingback: P2PTalk » $10 Music Piracy Fine: A Fair Deal Or Just Another Cheap Trick?

  • Randy_Lahey

    I’d pay a $10 fine if caught on the torrents, and I’d be willing to wager that most people would too..Imagine how much money they would make if the penalty was more realistic? It’s not like the content creators are going to see any of it anyway, whether its $10 or $10,000.

    Instead, they go on suing grandmothers and deceased people..And when the deceased was not available, they filed suit against their next of kin!
    /eyeroll

    I guess the moral of the story is you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Greed is doing a great job of killing the music industry, and I for one could not be happier.

  • http://twitter.com/AlyssaBlindy Alyssa Blindy

    I agree that this scam could be a way to get bigger fines from people later. However, in the long run, when business models are made better (more like if they are made better) and everyone can pay a fair price for whatever song they want, then this fine, or something small like it, would be fair for the rest of the people still “not going legit.”
    I’m not trying to troll or anything, but I think the business model should be like what the EFF suggests, where you pay a fair price per month for as much culture as you want.

  • Anonymous

    how is jerry lee lewis still alive?

  • Chimel31

    You can also add that this company does not likely own the rights to these deceased artists in the least or it would be incredibly famous and rich, instead of not having any hit on Google except their own web site (who has ever really heard of them?), that just by opening the settlement link, you are giving their web server a lot of details on you and your computer, or that it is likely purely a scam to get your credit card details and then possibly do whatever they want with it.

    The whole web site seems designed to support the scam: There’s nothing about other services, like the ones you’d expect them to offer to artists to protect their work.
    I don’t even know if the company is legit, I mean, apart from what it says on the web site or the resume his “CEO” somehow managed to post on wikipedia. Are there actually official records of when it was created, yearly declaration of revenues, etc.?

    The common sense recommendation would be of not even opening the link, another common sense saying is that if something looks too good to be true (only $10), it probably isn’t.
    Let’s also mention that ISPs that forward this kind of very unusual settlement offer would be accomplices of a scam. I very much doubt that their legal department would allow them to perpetrate such an obvious fraud. I am not even sure such an email is legal. There must be some restrictions in the type of notice ISPs can forward. I would think a settlement offer goes way beyond a simple infringement notification.

  • Guest

    Isn’t this fake?

    LOL

  • Anonymous

    http://www.lovetoshopping.org Cheapest Vans Shoes,Tiffany Jewelry Company,Wholesale Hollister Clothing

  • Anonymous

    lol, ten bucks? Thats not too shabby at all dude.
    true-privacy.net.tc

    • Guest

      flagged

      • 7th_Guest

        That’s not too shabby at all dude.

        +1

  • http://www.facebook.com/PCR.Tech.SC Tim Holmes

    Cheap trick.

  • Motoxxxx

    Just another cheap scam , created by some scheming lowlife lawyer LOL I hope not too many fell for this garbage!!!

  • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

    …and you just paid $10 to give them your personal details.

    On the other hand: how the F will my ISP send me an e-mail? They don’t know my personal e-mail address! I have an account at my ISP, which they assigned to my when I subscribed, but I never use it, and it wasn’t even mandatory, to register an e-mail account with them. So good luck sending me an e-mail! Also: since when do count e-mails as official documents? Was it digitally signed? Even if I should receive such an e-mail, I’ll simply Shift+Del it into oblivion.

  • Pingback: MakinMo's Tech Blog

  • Pingback: Illegale downloaders aanklagen lucratief? - Deel 2 - Projectcafe.co

  • Pingback: Quick takes | Third Pipe

  • Legion

    Nicely done TF, blanking out their IP & personal infringement password.

  • Pingback: $10 Music Piracy Fine: A Fair Deal Or Just Another Cheap Trick? - techtime's posterous

  • Pingback: makin257 - $10 Music Piracy Fine: A Fair Deal Or Just Another Cheap Trick?

  • Pingback: $10 Music Piracy Fine - The Answer To The Piracy Problem? - Digital Video Forums

  • Anonymous

    http://www.lovetoshopping.org Cheapest Vans Shoes,Tiffany Jewelry Company,Wholesale Hollister Clothing

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Pingback: Trick or Treat: $10 Fine For Infringing Copyrights | Dice Blog Network

  • Tmc80tmc

    Did someone say cheap trick?!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdwMSONE-aw

  • Marcos

    When will these execs understand?

    What we want is simple: Every movie, music and games ever produced, at the best quality, served in any device, for 5 dollars or less, monthly. And it gotta be really easy, no drm bullshit.

    Or we will pirate them. Their Choice.

  • Pingback: best-price-auto.info » Blog Archive » Top 10 Tech Stories We Almost Posted This Week

  • Pingback: Top 10 Tech Stories We Almost Posted This Week [PICS] | www.dotnetz.net

  • Pingback: best-price-auto.info » Blog Archive » Top 10 Tech Stories We Almost Posted This Week [PICS]

  • Pingback: Top 10 Tech Stories We Almost Posted This Week [PICS] | Freedom Developers

  • Pingback: Top 10 Tech Stories We Almost Posted This Week [PICS] | bursst.com

  • Pingback: Top 10 Tech Stories We Almost Posted This Week [PICS] | Stu Haugen

  • Pingback: Top 10 Tech Stories We Almost Posted This Week [PICS] « ampaiempire

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.