Adult film company suing people who download porn

[notinmybackyard]

You make good points but unfortunately while good they would never be implemented.

Well maybe the bats but it is hard to hit someone in India on a laptop with a bat from the USA.

Just like the problem being complex the attempts at a real solution will also be be very complex. We all know the current systems of protection are worthless today and will be going forward. Conventional methods are too slow and often unsatisfying to say the least.

Virtual bats of sorts may have some effect in the virtual word we live in now though.

I will not lie about my perspective.

I come from the old school and I believe that a porn industry without a baseball bat is doomed to failure. And I also believe like Hollywood that each new gadget is just another tool to be used to steal/pirate.

OK so much for my honesty and everyone can take or leave it when I talk

Now unless things have drastically changed since the 1960s, theft still always begins close to home therefore ...

If producer distributes on DVD then they should know where those DVDs are ending up and better have a way of identifying each indivdual DVD on the market. That way if (or when) it is ripped, a producer can plug the leak... or investigate possible other actions.

If a producer has an american based paysite they should only allow surfers from their jurisdiction. Allowing traffic from places like Russia, India, etc. is only begging to be pirated.

Furthermore a producer should never get into bed with known pirates. To this I will argue that Internet companies like Google have a business based on piracy. If a producer depends on them for customers he has no reason to be surprised when his product is stolen.....(There are plenty of ways to advertise a site without the need to myriad of backlinks, search engines, etc. )

[WDF]

You need to factor in greed to the equation.

Greed will not allow many to restrict their audience, it also fuels others to steal to attempt to capitalize without investment in production. While limiting distribution to a specific area may help greed will never permit it for most rights holders.

Pirates and Accomplices:

You covered Google so we will skip them.

With Ad Networks, Web hosts/data centers, designers/developers, and just about every other type of support business playing both sides of the equation it becomes difficult to ID the "Bad" guys and the "Good" guys.

I agree a means of IDing where your content leak originates is important. Getting rights holders/ content producers to embed code could be useful but how many want to spend money or time doing it.

The biggest problem I see these days is no one worries about anyone else, only themselves and you are never going to put so much as a dent in the problem on your own.

I like the gadget statement it is true to a very large degree.

When you have companies like Google and Apple wanting to control the major segment of media and content distribution/sales that do not care about the media and content producers it expands to a much larger problem.

[brassmonkey]

[notinmybackyard]

You need to factor in greed to the equation.

Greed will not allow many to restrict their audience, it also fuels others to steal to attempt to capitalize without investment in production. While limiting distribution to a specific area may help greed will never permit it for most rights holders.

Pirates and Accomplices:

You covered Google so we will skip them.

With Ad Networks, Web hosts/data centers, designers/developers, and just about every other type of support business playing both sides of the equation it becomes difficult to ID the "Bad" guys and the "Good" guys.

I agree a means of IDing where your content leak originates is important. Getting rights holders/ content producers to embed code could be useful but how many want to spend money or time doing it.

The biggest problem I see these days is no one worries about anyone else, only themselves and you are never going to put so much as a dent in the problem on your own.

I like the gadget statement it is true to a very large degree.

When you have companies like Google and Apple wanting to control the major segment of media and content distribution/sales that do not care about the media and content producers it expands to a much larger problem.

I agree no one worries about anyone else, including me. I have no concerns about what anyone else is doing or suffering unless it somehow affects me and my business. In fact from a business perspective, I am professionally pleased that so many people are disappearing....(Less players means less market saturation and that means my product's value increases)

However, it is not as simple as waiting until everyone goes out of business. There are some serious players today playing all kinds of games. And after more than 40 years in porn, I have no intention of losing the game now. Which gets to the heart of the reason I am a membre of all the webmaster and porn forums and never tell anyone who i am. In summation I am keeping informed about everyone.

Without giving too much infomation about myself

All of our DVDs are indivdually identifiable and all the endcoding and distribution is done in house. We also have a policy of not selling outside of our geographic legal jurisidiction. We also avoid producing anythig that would appeal to a niche that is favoured by pirates. (ie: English speaking, Teens, etc) So I can sum up the business strategy as "bring no attention to ourselves, stay small enough to always be in control of every aspect of business and produce only for our niche."

This strategy was touch and go in the begining because we had seveal decades of product and clients. However, it works because we have had a year of no noticible piracy problems.

This year the strategy for us is to stop producing all DVDs and move to products that can NOT be easily put into digital format and uploaded onto the Internet. Again it is working but the implimentation is a serious time consuming head ache.

We have to be really careful about how and where we market. Add to this that many of the traditional mediums we used 10 years ago for promotion no longer exist. Plus there is the added problems of zoning, neighbours, building rents, etc.

Of course this is me rambling
Simple to say that piracy can be beaten and that there is still lots of money to be made in this business. But you have to be smart... You have to be tough... And you need to keep your eyes and ears open.

[TisMe]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-arent-people/


"Adult film company Malibu Media has sometimes been called a "porn troll," or "copyright troll," because it has sued hundreds of people for allegedly illegal downloads of pornographic movies that it owns. Malibu is believed to have filed over 1,000 such lawsuits.

Last week, a federal judge in Florida threw one of those Malibu lawsuits out of court with some remarkable legal reasoning. Just two months after Malibu filed its case, US District Judge Ursula Ungaro tossed the lawsuit Malibu filed against the user at IP address 174.61.81.171. Ungaro said that there's no proof Malibu is even in the right venue, since "[t]here is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff's videos and establishing whether that person lives in this district."

[_Richard_]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-arent-people/


"Adult film company Malibu Media has sometimes been called a "porn troll," or "copyright troll," because it has sued hundreds of people for allegedly illegal downloads of pornographic movies that it owns. Malibu is believed to have filed over 1,000 such lawsuits.

Last week, a federal judge in Florida threw one of those Malibu lawsuits out of court with some remarkable legal reasoning. Just two months after Malibu filed its case, US District Judge Ursula Ungaro tossed the lawsuit Malibu filed against the user at IP address 174.61.81.171. Ungaro said that there's no proof Malibu is even in the right venue, since "[t]here is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff's videos and establishing whether that person lives in this district."

In that case, the judge took issue with Malibu's practice of attaching lists of lewd movie titles not owned by Malibu to its complaints. Such exhibits were "calculated principally to harass defendants," wrote US District Judge William Conley.

[SplatterMaster]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-arent-people/


"Adult film company Malibu Media has sometimes been called a "porn troll," or "copyright troll," because it has sued hundreds of people for allegedly illegal downloads of pornographic movies that it owns. Malibu is believed to have filed over 1,000 such lawsuits.

Last week, a federal judge in Florida threw one of those Malibu lawsuits out of court with some remarkable legal reasoning. Just two months after Malibu filed its case, US District Judge Ursula Ungaro tossed the lawsuit Malibu filed against the user at IP address 174.61.81.171. Ungaro said that there's no proof Malibu is even in the right venue, since "[t]here is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff's videos and establishing whether that person lives in this district."

I'm confused. Don't ISPs confirm what IPs their users are using. Any ISP should be able to tell you if that IP was associated with that client on this day and at that time. The IP you posted above is provided by Comcast. Comcast can tell you exactly who that IP was assigned to on the day and hour and minute in question.

[Colmike9]

I'm confused. Don't ISPs confirm what IPs their users are using. Any ISP should be able to tell you if that IP was associated with that client on this day and at that time. The IP you posted above is provided by Comcast. Comcast can tell you exactly who that IP was assigned to on the day and hour and minute in question.

Still doesn't mean that the subscriber on the bill was the one connected..

[TisMe]

I think that would have been the next step, to find names to match to IPs through discovery.

However, some courts have found that even that is not enough to prove legally who was at the computer at that time with open wireless routers and new routers designed to function as wi-fi hotspots.

[SplatterMaster]

Still doesn't mean that the subscriber on the bill was the one connected..

Was his connection. He should take care to secure it IMO.

[SplatterMaster]

I think that would have been the next step, to find names to match to IPs through discovery.

However, some courts have found that even that is not enough to prove legally who was at the computer at that time with open wireless routers and new routers designed to function as wi-fi hotspots.

Yea next steps would have to be a search of computers to actually pinpoint the correct person

[Colmike9]

Was his connection. He should take care to secure it IMO.

So let's count in the 100,000s of public access internet spots. What happens when someone downloads a torrent and the IP goes to that hot spot's account?..

[SplatterMaster]

So let's count in the 100,000s of public access internet spots. What happens when someone downloads a torrent and the IP goes to that hot spot's account?..

Just home connections here. If you're dumb enough to download from your home connection you need to be busted. Oh I agree you can't prosecute from a public access point. That shouldn't even make it into the court system

[woj]

Just home connections here. If you're dumb enough to download from your home connection you need to be busted. Oh I agree you can't prosecute from a public access point. That shouldn't even make it into the court system

so lets say you "secure" you internet connection, but your leet hacker neighbor hacks it, and downloads cp with it... you should go to jail for the next 20 years for that?

[woj]

BTW, there isn't such a thing as "secure" when it comes to wireless:

"There are various ways to protect a wireless network. Some are generally considered to be more secure than others. Some, such as WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy), were broken several years ago and are not recommended as a way to keep intruders away from private networks. Now, a new study reveals that one of the previously strongest wireless security systems, Wi-Fi protected access 2 (WPA2) can also be easily broken into on wireless local area networks (WLANs)."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0320100824.htm

[WDF]

Without giving too much information about myself

Sounds like you have a good handle on your distribution. I enjoyed our brief conversation. I have seen the nick before, can you tell me if you use it elsewhere without throwing yourself under a bus?

[SplatterMaster]

so lets say you "secure" you internet connection, but your leet hacker neighbor hacks it, and downloads cp with it... you should go to jail for the next 20 years for that?

Of course you wouldn't be arrested if CP were downloaded on your connection. But your computers have a good chance of being searched.

BTW, there isn't such a thing as "secure" when it comes to wireless:

IMO there is absolutely nothing online that is completely secure, wireless or not

[Gator]

http://www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com

[WDF]

I'm confused. Don't ISPs confirm what IPs their users are using. Any ISP should be able to tell you if that IP was associated with that client on this day and at that time. The IP you posted above is provided by Comcast. Comcast can tell you exactly who that IP was assigned to on the day and hour and minute in question.

Most ISPs can tell if a router is in place and the mac id of the connected primary device. That isolates it to a single device. Legal precedents need to be set on this for piracy yet I think, but they do it with high profile hackers.

Still doesn't mean that the subscriber on the bill was the one connected..

Exactly but a mac ID narrows it down, the subscriber is responsible for his connection violating the ISPs ToS and AUP though.

I think that would have been the next step, to find names to match to IPs through discovery.

However, some courts have found that even that is not enough to prove legally who was at the computer at that time with open wireless routers and new routers designed to function as wi-fi hotspots.

See above in this post. Also new routers have the ability to allow only certain mac IDs, block sites, block IPs, etc.

Was his connection. He should take care to secure it IMO.

ISP needs to enforce their ToS and AUP.

Yea next steps would have to be a search of computers to actually pinpoint the correct person

The mac ID matches a pc in the home the subscriber might have a tough defense.

So let's count in the 100,000s of public access internet spots. What happens when someone downloads a torrent and the IP goes to that hot spot's account?..

Any good legal team will look at those and toss them aside for further investigation or other actions.

Just home connections here. If you're dumb enough to download from your home connection you need to be busted. Oh I agree you can't prosecute from a public access point. That shouldn't even make it into the court system

Again a good legal team will be better educated about what will or won't fly in court.

Trolls try to process as many claims in a filing as possible hoping for settlements rather then court trials.

so lets say you "secure" you internet connection, but your leet hacker neighbor hacks it, and downloads cp with it... you should go to jail for the next 20 years for that?

You are going to be investigated and more then likely have your ISP discontinue serving you.

BTW, there isn't such a thing as "secure" when it comes to wireless:

"There are various ways to protect a wireless network. Some are generally considered to be more secure than others. Some, such as WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy), were broken several years ago and are not recommended as a way to keep intruders away from private networks. Now, a new study reveals that one of the previously strongest wireless security systems, Wi-Fi protected access 2 (WPA2) can also be easily broken into on wireless local area networks (WLANs)."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0320100824.htm

You can do more then plug in your devices though, your ISP will help you if you are using their equipment.

You must do your due diligence, you are after all protecting yourself. Many people have found out Ignorance does not buy them much in front of a judge.

All systems have vulnerabilities, but the IP is not the end of the traceable chain in many cases. Also Routers store logs to determine if an outside/unknown device connected and that is just the start if you know what to look for and how to collect evidence.

[Gator]

Mac address and all others do not tie a certain person to a computer. It could be a guest or family member. Might not be likely, but who the hell really knows.

[SplatterMaster]

Mac address and all others do not tie a certain person to a computer. It could be a guest or family member. Might not be likely, but who the hell really knows.

MAC address ties to a device.
IMO “Sorry officer, those are not my drugs in the back seat of my car” is not a defense.

[esham]

Ip doenst = person downloading content

google aircrack Its very simple to hack wifi. Wifi is pretty easy to crack password.

[esham]

Mac address and all others do not tie a certain person to a computer. It could be a guest or family member. Might not be likely, but who the hell really knows.

Mac address is simple to spoof and change

[WDF]

Ip doenst = person downloading content

google aircrack Its very simple to hack wifi. Wifi is pretty easy to crack password.

You are correct, it can also be used for surveillance and logging when a target is ID'd.

The average downloader of "Free" Content has no clue how to mask their mac id, these are the same people others argue are incapable of securing their ISP connection.

So which is it, they are too incompetent to secure their WiFi and connection or they are brilliant enough to spoof their mac?

[Gator]

MAC address ties to a device.
IMO ?Sorry officer, those are not my drugs in the back seat of my car? is not a defense.

No offense, but this is analogy is no where near the same.

[Gator]

You are correct, it can also be used for surveillance and logging when a target is ID'd.

The average downloader of "Free" Content has no clue how to mask their mac id, these are the same people others argue are incapable of securing their ISP connection.

So which is it, they are too incompetent to secure their WiFi and connection or they are brilliant enough to spoof their mac?

Who knows, it could be both. Bottom line these lawsuits are just to extort settlements by shame and scare tactics.

[notinmybackyard]

Sounds like you have a good handle on your distribution. I enjoyed our brief conversation. I have seen the nick before, can you tell me if you use it elsewhere without throwing yourself under a bus?

I just lurk using my other nicks.

How should I put this?
For the most part the "intellect level" of GFY tends to bring out the worst in me.

[The Porn Nerd]

..."intellect level"....

Good for a 3am post count.
Thx. :D

[ATMManagement]

SUE THEM ALL! Why can't pay site owners all rally up and sue the piss out of the owners and uploaders etc of all these pirate bay and bitcomment sites? why do they even fucking exist? Crazy...mind boggling

[L-Pink]

SUE THEM ALL! Why can't pay site owners all rally up and sue the piss out of the owners and uploaders etc of all these pirate bay and bitcomment sites? why do they even fucking exist? Crazy...mind boggling

Ass to mouth manager?

[lezinterracial]

I will bet VPN service is one of the top selling things on pirate networks now.

[InfoGuy]

Last week, a federal judge in Florida threw one of those Malibu lawsuits out of court with some remarkable legal reasoning. Just two months after Malibu filed its case, US District Judge Ursula Ungaro tossed the lawsuit Malibu filed against the user at IP address 174.61.81.171. Ungaro said that there's no proof Malibu is even in the right venue, since "[t]here is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff's videos and establishing whether that person lives in this district."

This is similar reasoning to the argument against red light cameras, in which pictures are taken of cars running red lights and tickets are sent to the registered owner. Unless the municipality can prove the identity of the driver, tickets can't be enforced, as the owner of the car is not necessarily the driver.

There is a different viewpoint on this law blog about the Malibu Media lawsuits in Philadelphia last year.

Even though an IP address isn?t a person, evidence that infringement occurred via that IP address is enough to get into court.

In the same vein, if you want to claim wi-fi hacking, or something similar, you need to have actual evidence for it. It?s not enough in a civil trial to say ?My wi-fi could have been hacked, so the lawsuit has to be thrown out!? If that is the case, you need to show a jury evidence that your wi-fi was indeed hacked. Otherwise, testimony that your wi-fi could have been hacked is speculation and non-admissible.

The Bellwether Trial (Malibu Media v. Does) ? What Have We Learned? My Five Takeaways From the Trial

His five takeaways are:

1. Porn is copyrightable.

2. Not everything you read on the internet about bittorrent lawsuits are true: Malibu Media has reliable evidence, people do pirate stuff off the internet (at an alarming rate), and bittorrent cases can absolutely be proven in a court of law.

3. ?But? an IP address is not a person!? has never been a good argument in court, and it never will be.

4. Civil litigation is different than criminal defense. There are no secrets or surprises in civil litigation. You are not permitted to lie in a deposition or in court hearings. That is illegal.

5. Many purported ?bittorrent defense lawyers? get their information from the internet. It?s wrong, and they are morons.

This is a summary of the results of the lawsuit.

Last October, Judge Baylson ordered Malibu Media to take a bittorrent case to trial. Some had concerns that a bittorrent case could never be tried successfully in court.

That proved to be wrong? on June 10, 2013, Malibu Media tried three John Does accused of copyright infringement to a verdict.

A $112,500 verdict was entered against John Doe 16, in addition to attorney?s fees and costs. The judgment will be close to $500,000 once costs and attorney?s fees are entered.

No money damages were entered against Doe 1 and Doe 13 because they settled before trial to avoid an entry of a damage award.

So for those of you who think Malibu Media are wasting their time suing people, you're wrong.

[ATMManagement]

Adult Talent Miami

[timlover]

That's what I was thinking, too..

Just say "My internet doesn't have a password, damn kids" or the fact that IPs aren't 100% accurate.

I'm pulling all links and promos from x-cash.com, fuck those people. Yes, pirating is a problem, but "solving" it this way is just being greedy motherfuckers with no solution except a paycheck for their lawyers...

Stupidity is not an excuse in a court of law.

1.) Protecting your internet connection is your responsibility. Just the same as keeping a lock on a gun safe. Liability belongs to you.

2.) Parents are responsible for their kids. If your kid breaks a vase at a store, you pay for it. If they download illegal content, you are responsible.

3.) IP's are pretty damn accurate. This isn't 1958. If IP's weren't accurate, then half your packets would drop and your titty pictures would only get as far as her neck when they were loading. It's not rocket science to people who are educated in the matter.

[iwantchixx]

so lets say you "secure" you internet connection, but your leet hacker neighbor hacks it, and downloads cp with it... you should go to jail for the next 20 years for that?

Is everyone that black and white? IP is one thing, but they also have to prove by machine IDs.. and yes.. ISPs log that... so nobody with an insecure or hacked access point need worry, it still has to be proven and if the offense goes in front of a judge, those details will be ironed out in the investigation.