?????? (Click At My Name For Link)

?????? (Click At My Name For Link)

How ignorant are you? It’s been estimated that over 30% of all extortion letters are sent to the completely wrong household/Internet subscriber in the first place, have you not heard of some of the more bizarre stories about letters being sent to printers, dead people and people without a computer being extorted?

> “File sharing illegally and risk of being fined (whether you believe the fines are too high is irrelevant) in fact go hand in hand.”

This discussion is not about being fined? It’s about the risks for extortion victims compared to the risk for scammers.

> “A person who can’t prove that they weren’t illegally file-sharing..”

In a civil society no one should have to prove their innocence, that is a human right, human rights though which you many times have declared are something than can never be allowed to stand in the way of protecting the profit of weak failed entrepreneurs that can’t handle themselves on the free market.

> “..would find it cheaper to pay the fine. That’s not extortion..”

How ignorant are you? Extortion is extortion regardless of what the extortion victim has done. The extortion letters does not say only pay if you’re guilty, and they never have said that. They say pay up, or we’ll take you to court. That is text book extortion.

> “..that’s them being caught with their hand in the cookie jar and no reason as to why.”

Whether or not a person has done what the extortionist claims is irrelevant to what constitutes extortion.

> “There actually is a risk to sending fraudulent takedown notices.”

There is not. Definitely not when you send them to overseas companies as in this case.

> “Untrue there are risks. Did you forget them, or do you not know them?”

Did you not know that there are no risks in sending scam letters to overseas operations. Did you not know that?

> “No..”

So, extortion victims take no risk if they stand up against extortion? They do not risk losing in court despite being innocent? They do not risk having to loose thousands of dollars in the process regardless of the outcome? How ignorant are you?

> “..they take a risk uploading and downloading copy-written materials..”

Which this discussion is not about, it’s about extortion victims.

> “You don’t know that.”

I most certainly do, because that’s how the judicial system works. Until something in a precedent sentence has been established to be in general illegal, the judicial system considers it legal, which is the clear case with H33t.

> “If H33T have no obligations to do anything at all, why would they do something with a arbitrary price attached ?”

Well if ignorant idiots are gonna send them meaningless scam letters they might as well try to make money from this annoyance.

> “Couldn’t be to extort money could it ?”

Again your ignorane shines through. Freely offering a buyer to freely buy something if they wish is not extortion.

> “Or to dissuade legitimate rights-holders..”

Again with the ignorance. They are not the rights holders to the non-copyrighted torrentfiles that are owned by a completely diffrent party.

> “..from contacting them so they can continue to potentially profit from their website?”

Obviously no successful entrepreneur has any interest in without payment wasting valuable time handling invalid claims from confused parties that lack legal basis. Does this really have to be explained to you?

> “I did comment on what was said..”

No you didn’t, you did not comment on the comparison of risks for actual extortion victims than had already been extorted, and scammers.

> “..and just because you put “extortion” in front of the word “victim”, rarely if ever does that makes it so.”

Someone who is being extorted is by definition an extortion victim.

> “..the OP forgot to mention one other potential reason why people don’t fight their accusers in court, he forgot “guilty”.”

Whether or not someone is guilty is completely irrelevant to the fact that there is always a huge risk going to court in civil matters. The discussion was about comparison of risk, not reason.

> “Actually, its crystal clear that you’ve taken some guesses in your response and not very good ones.”

Again an empty meaningless accusation.