Doesn’t surprise me. Not a tiny bit.

Ditto!

A: They each have a one in a million chance of becoming human.

No its not me. Was commenting on @97.

I’m not saying you should sit behind your child, but they certainly seem to think so.

Basically what they are saying is you are a negligent parent if you do not watch your children when they are online.

How is a parent to know if a child is doing illegal activities online, so surely how can that be used in court.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-cacdce/case_no-2:2007cv01820/case_id-385180/

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/1103_amy_fisher_wm.pdf

Its a copy of a legal document that details a lawsuit that was brought against RLD Distribution, the porn firm in question here.

Unsurprisingly it details the copyright infringement THEY commited against Amy Fisher aka Long Island Lolita.

Just shows how slimy the whole industry is!

From ACS:Law Website –

If the holder of the internet account claims that a young child in their household was responsible for the copyright infringement concerned, it is possible that our client may seek to hold the parent or guardian responsible on the basis that the account holding parent or guardian should have been supervising the activities of the child. It is therefore very important that a parent or guardian supervises a child’s use of the internet to ensure that it is not carrying out any illegal activity.

“We will make everything metal, blacker than the blackest black… times infinity!”

The rights owners payout is almost certainly calculated at 0.5% of the cost claimed in the average letter of claim (approx £600) = £30.

By comparison Davenport Lyons would get £225 per letter of claim, nice work for sending template letters.

you just keep getting your a$$ kicked but you dont give in…your tenacious ill give you that…ignorance is bliss in your case as you ask for evidence and the people deliver and then you dont even do your homework,er workday work i mean…your no student in school as you have claimed here before…you sound exactly like raisin mind and default styles…

And yes, there will probably be casulties, thats just the nature of war. We are at war people. Fight for your right!

So go ahead Big Industry keep suing old ladies who sing, the infirm, the pensioners, go ahead and see what happens. Bullies ALWAYS pick on those who don’t defend themselves.

I have long since taken measures to hide my identity online, and I don’t jump on the biggest torrent for the lates film / album.

But I suppose one could make a mistake, or be unlucky.

Right now it seems that the stupid or incredibly unlucky people are the ones getting nailed.

Thanks TF, for clarifying that the correct course of action is to kick up a hell of a fuss until they target someone else (although I feel for the next victim).

“You consent to other users’ use of your network connection to download portions of such files from you.”

I’m sure the other clients have some similar wording.

vexatious litigation n. filing a lawsuit with the knowledge that it has no legal basis, with its purpose to bother, annoy, embarrass and cause legal expenses to the defendant. Vexatious litigation includes continuing a lawsuit after discovery of the facts shows it has absolutely no merit. Upon judgment for the defendant, he/she has the right to file a suit for “malicious prosecution” against the original vexatious plaintiff. Moreover, most states allow a judge to penalize a plaintiff and his/her attorney for filing or continuing a “frivolous” legal action with sanctions (money award to the defendant for the trouble and/or attorney fees).

UK law states…

Term: vexatious litigant

These are litigants that habitually commence legal proceedings or otherwise bring unmeritorious applications to court. Vexatious litigants bring legal proceedings for the purpose of annoying the defendant and are characterised by an absence of a reasonable prospect of success.

When courts deal with such claims and applications they are bound to consider whether a civil restraint order should be made against the claimant to prevent the litigant from commencing, instituting or continuing proceedings in the future without the leave of the court. Such orders may be extended by prohibiting appeals from decisions made by the court to restrain future conduct. A current list of vexatious litigation is maintained at the Court Service website.

Follow it up with your answer of “go and fuck yourself”, and then send them a bill for another half million for “consulting”. That’s the language they understand, that’s the language the speak.

The law firm owns the rights to the posted list of (porn) movies. They voluntarily put these movies up on torrent sites for people to download.

—THIS MEANS ITS LEGAL TO DOWNLOAD IT—

They then record the IP Addresses of anyone downloading and uploading. With these, they are able to threaten the owner of the IP address, though without any actual legal basis.

The person is to either a)Pay $xx.xx , b)Go to court, or c)ignore it.

These people are then ranked on who to sue. Anyone who resists gets a lower rank and is less likely to be sued, anyone who ignores it will most likely be taken to court for exaggerated amounts, and if they pay the settlement then the law firm gets free money from people who know no better and only had to pay for the ink, the paper, and the postage of the letter.

Jess

yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…