'Copyright Troll' Porn Company 'Makes Millions By Shaming Porn Consumers' (yahoo.com) 100
In 1999 Los Angeles Times reporter Michael Hiltzik co-authored a Pulitzer Prize-winning story. Now a business columnist for the Times, he writes that a Southern California maker of pornographic films named Strike 3 Holdings is also "a copyright troll," according to U.S. Judge Royce C. Lamberth:
Lamberth cwrote in 2018, "Armed with hundreds of cut-and-pasted complaints and boilerplate discovery motions, Strike 3 floods this courthouse (and others around the country) with lawsuits smacking of extortion. It treats this Court not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM." He likened its litigation strategy to a "high-tech shakedown." Lamberth was not speaking off the cuff. Since September 2017, Strike 3 has filed more than 12,440 lawsuits in federal courts alleging that defendants infringed its copyrights by downloading its movies via BitTorrent, an online service on which unauthorized content can be accessed by almost anyone with a computer and internet connection.
That includes 3,311 cases the firm filed this year, more than 550 in federal courts in California. On some days, scores of filings reach federal courthouses — on Nov. 17, to select a date at random, the firm filed 60 lawsuits nationwide... Typically, they are settled for what lawyers say are cash payments in the four or five figures or are dismissed outright...
It's impossible to pinpoint the profits that can be made from this courthouse strategy. J. Curtis Edmondson, a Portland, Oregon, lawyer who is among the few who pushed back against a Strike 3 case and won, estimates that Strike 3 "pulls in about $15 million to $20 million a year from its lawsuits." That would make the cases "way more profitable than selling their product...." If only one-third of its more than 12,000 lawsuits produced settlements averaging as little as $5,000 each, the yield would come to $20 million... The volume of Strike 3 cases has increased every year — from 1,932 in 2021 to 2,879 last year and 3,311 this year.
What's really needed is a change in copyright law to bring the statutory damages down to a level that truly reflects the value of a film lost because of unauthorized downloading — not $750 or $150,000 but perhaps a few hundred dollars.
Anone of the lawsuits go to trial. Instead ISPs get a subpoena demanding the real-world address and name behind IP addresses "ostensibly used to download content from BitTorrent..." according to the article. Strike 3 will then "proceed by sending a letter implicitly threatening the subscriber with public exposure as a pornography viewer and explicitly with the statutory penalties for infringement written into federal copyright law — up to $150,000 for each example of willful infringement and from $750 to $30,0000 otherwise."
A federal judge in Connecticut wrote last year that "Given the nature of the films at issue, defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified."
Thanks to Slashdot reader Beerismydad for sharing the article.
That includes 3,311 cases the firm filed this year, more than 550 in federal courts in California. On some days, scores of filings reach federal courthouses — on Nov. 17, to select a date at random, the firm filed 60 lawsuits nationwide... Typically, they are settled for what lawyers say are cash payments in the four or five figures or are dismissed outright...
It's impossible to pinpoint the profits that can be made from this courthouse strategy. J. Curtis Edmondson, a Portland, Oregon, lawyer who is among the few who pushed back against a Strike 3 case and won, estimates that Strike 3 "pulls in about $15 million to $20 million a year from its lawsuits." That would make the cases "way more profitable than selling their product...." If only one-third of its more than 12,000 lawsuits produced settlements averaging as little as $5,000 each, the yield would come to $20 million... The volume of Strike 3 cases has increased every year — from 1,932 in 2021 to 2,879 last year and 3,311 this year.
What's really needed is a change in copyright law to bring the statutory damages down to a level that truly reflects the value of a film lost because of unauthorized downloading — not $750 or $150,000 but perhaps a few hundred dollars.
Anone of the lawsuits go to trial. Instead ISPs get a subpoena demanding the real-world address and name behind IP addresses "ostensibly used to download content from BitTorrent..." according to the article. Strike 3 will then "proceed by sending a letter implicitly threatening the subscriber with public exposure as a pornography viewer and explicitly with the statutory penalties for infringement written into federal copyright law — up to $150,000 for each example of willful infringement and from $750 to $30,0000 otherwise."
A federal judge in Connecticut wrote last year that "Given the nature of the films at issue, defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified."
Thanks to Slashdot reader Beerismydad for sharing the article.
Re: (Score:1)
Esplain me the difference, por favor.
Re: (Score:1)
One is on its way down, the other faction is on its way up. Unfortunately the pro fascist [msn.com] faction that quotes white supremacist essays [c-span.org] is the one taking over.
Re: (Score:1)
I just came.
Re: (Score:1)
They make less from the product because... (Score:3)
It's pirated everywhere and supremely easy to find without paying for it. And unlike games where there's a consistent percentage of people willing to buy the game if they like it afterwards especially if it has significant replay value, the transitory nature of porn consumption makes people much more unlikely to go back later and pay for the same thing.
Re:They make less from the product because... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't get it why download copyrighted porn? It's not like there's any shortage of people wanting you to watch them for free.
At this point, the next step would be that people pay you to watch them screw...
Re:They make less from the product because... (Score:5, Funny)
What I don't get it why download copyrighted porn? It's not like there's any shortage of people wanting you to watch them for free.
At this point, the next step would be that people pay you to watch them screw...
FINALLY! A job I'm qualified for!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine screwing for money paid by spectators is like playing games for other people to watch: It turns something you enjoy into something you have to do in a way that others can enjoy.
I don't think I'd enjoy that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but GP is talking about the other end of the deal. Watch and get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh.
Well... doesn't seem that great a proposal either, I mean, if you pretty much have to watch, no matter whether what you get to see is pleasing or in the "what has been seen cannot be unseen" area...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they haven't installed DRM in human eyes yet. What they can do is to make your browser / device download the video, with some DRM even force the video to run on the device. Your eyes can always wander, your monitor can always face away, and of course the speakers can be switched off, or volume turned down.
This is a category of videos while watching which, blood flows away from the brain :) . No one can blame the watcher to forget the details, so questioning after video to ascertain if the video was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're posting on Slashdot.
I think someone's confused. I meant the being paid to watch porn part. Pretty sure we're all qualified for that one here.
Re: (Score:2)
This was my thoughts exactly. Like, who the fuck waste time "downloading" porn. I mean, why? As you said, huge amount of free porn. I suppose, maybe for production value but eh, I'm not exactly watching this content for the story line...
IP address != customer (Score:3)
I thought there were legal rulings in the US that had found that IP addresses alone were not enough to force ISPs to hand over user details (which is why movie studios etc have switched to suing ISPs rather than trying to go after individual users)
Re:IP address != customer (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that unless you contest the claim, nobody is going to make that argument for you in most cases. Contesting it costs money and time, and your family is probably going to find out you are accused of downloading porn.
They rely on people just paying. If you contest, they usually just drop the claim.
There is a similar scam with parking invoices ("fines") in the UK. Spam the court, abandon any claim where the other party puts up a defence.
Re: (Score:3)
Hah. Not sure it'd work quite like that in mine, but I do remember finding my dads penthouse collection as a teen in the 80s and being told "Dont tell your mother" lol
Re: (Score:3)
That's something that could only work in the prudish US of A.
Who do you want to tell that I got some porn? My family? That would be my dad and he usually asks me if I have something new. My employer? Where do you think I got my current stash?
Re: (Score:3)
In some places it could be a legal issue. Not sure about the US, but e.g. where homosexuality is illegal. Well, you could get fired in the US for being gay.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you could get fired in the US for being gay.
In some states you can also be fired for having red hair, being taller than your boss, or being left handed. Some states allow employers to fire anyone for any reason. Sexual orientation is normally a protected class, but a boss would pick a different reason even if they were offended by someone's preference.
Note that this is NOT the case in every state. Local laws differ across the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that young woman who was sacked from her job - it was something in a dentist's practice - for being too attractive? She fought it and lost. This must have been around 2015-17, I knew someone around then who looked rather similar and remember telling her about the case.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't fly here. Actually ,even the very conservative company I work for now tries pretty desperately to look "inclusive" to shed their conservative image.
Quite frankly, if someone could as much as hint at being fired for being gay, the shitstorm that followed, not to mention the lawsuit that the person affected couldn't even stop the worker's chamber from pushing, would be a PR disaster for that company.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you prove it in an "at will" state though? Boss says you are fired, doesn't give a reason. Or the reason is the lawsuit, not the content of the porn.
No need to prove it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speculate about it on antisocial media and wait for the shitstorm fallout, of course...
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't just a copyright case, we're talking porn here. How many do you think will just pay the extortion money so people don't get to know that they were watching le sex?
Re: (Score:3)
I thought there were legal rulings in the US that had found that IP addresses alone were not enough to force ISPs to hand over user details (which is why movie studios etc have switched to suing ISPs rather than trying to go after individual users)
No. There are legal rules in the USA that had found IP addresses were not enough to declare the owner of the endpoint of the IP the "direct infringer" of copyright. In all these cases (including the prescedent settings ones the MAFIAA lost) the IP addresses were handed over first and the John Doe case amended. Only *then* did the MAFIAA start losing cases because they couldn't prove the owner of the IP was the one who did the infringing. The bar for handing over details in discovery is significantly lower.
T
I thought shame was dead? (Score:4)
I see in the article mention of "sending a letter implicitly threatening the subscriber with public exposure as a pornography viewer", but unlike Prenda which made a point of going after consumers of the more outré genres, the article doesn't really mention what kind of porn BitTorrent users are being sued for seeding?
Since there's little shame in vanilla porn, my assumption is that if Strike 3 is in it to get settlements, they would be going after less mainstream content, and not bothering with people who download stuff akin to "Devil In Miss Jones" (the 2005 remake, not the public domain original)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To answer your signature: Because they read the bible. And according to the bible and their behaviour, they're the bad guys.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I thought shame was dead? (Score:4)
And that's bad according to their religion. Matt 6, 1-8:
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
Which also comes handy whenever someone in a Bible-heavy area badgers you about coming to church with them, so you can tell them you follow Matt 6 and don't want to draw the attention of anyone but THE LORD (tm) to your prayers in privacy and secrecy, so they shut up and leave you alone.
Re: (Score:1)
I find it simpler just to tell them that my rabbi doesn't want me worshiping with the gentiles. That generally gets the point across without getting into a religious argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, that only makes them hate you for being of the "wrong" religion or, worse, get them into full proselytization mode.
Mine is better. Since I'm holier than they, for I show them that they're just showing off instead of "truly" worshipping, they don't want to come near me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Granted, I didn't have a lot of run-ins with them anymore since I turned my back to the US.
Europe is in a weird way way more secular and also way more religious at the same time. A church (and VERY impressive ones!) around every corner, but believers just go there, pray, and generally leave you alone.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite of his is still If Jesus returned [youtube.com].
Quite bluntly, the first to fight a returning Jesus would be the church head honchos. I mean, let's be honest, what local district manager wants the corporate CEO to come visit his branch and audit his business?
Re:I thought shame was dead? (Score:5, Informative)
I see in the article mention of "sending a letter implicitly threatening the subscriber with public exposure as a pornography viewer", but unlike Prenda which made a point of going after consumers of the more outré genres, the article doesn't really mention what kind of porn BitTorrent users are being sued for seeding?
Since there's little shame in vanilla porn, my assumption is that if Strike 3 is in it to get settlements, they would be going after less mainstream content, and not bothering with people who download stuff akin to "Devil In Miss Jones" (the 2005 remake, not the public domain original)
They own brands such as Blacked, Vixen, Deeper, Slayed and Holed. The first is primarily white women doing it with black men. The second one is simple straight scenes. The third is stuff that has a lightly edgy side to it, like couples-friendly bondage or maybe partners stepping out on their spouses. The fourth is lesbian. The final one is anal-themed. The thing that unites the brands is that they tend to be lavishly shot, very high production-values. Absolutely not Blair Witch shaky-cam or creepy casting couch $20/hour hotel room scenes. These are frequently shot in massive mansions and/or exotic locales and beaches. Frankly none of it is anything to be ashamed of if you're willing to admit you watch any porn. It's hardcore, but it's glam porn, not fringe in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
I see in the article mention of "sending a letter implicitly threatening the subscriber with public exposure as a pornography viewer", but unlike Prenda which made a point of going after consumers of the more outré genres, the article doesn't really mention what kind of porn BitTorrent users are being sued for seeding?
Since there's little shame in vanilla porn, my assumption is that if Strike 3 is in it to get settlements, they would be going after less mainstream content, and not bothering with people who download stuff akin to "Devil In Miss Jones" (the 2005 remake, not the public domain original)
They own brands such as Blacked, Vixen, Deeper, Slayed and Holed. The first is primarily white women doing it with black men. The second one is simple straight scenes. The third is stuff that has a lightly edgy side to it, like couples-friendly bondage or maybe partners stepping out on their spouses. The fourth is lesbian. The final one is anal-themed. The thing that unites the brands is that they tend to be lavishly shot, very high production-values. Absolutely not Blair Witch shaky-cam or creepy casting couch $20/hour hotel room scenes. These are frequently shot in massive mansions and/or exotic locales and beaches. Frankly none of it is anything to be ashamed of if you're willing to admit you watch any porn. It's hardcore, but it's glam porn, not fringe in any way.
The problem is the US's archaic attitude towards sex. If this happened in Europe they'd be laughed at and then probably charged under various countries privacy laws... then sued for libel by private individuals. No body would give a shit that it was out in the open.
However because Sex is Baaaad(TM) in the US, people are ashamed of a natural part of life (because old book says so). So organisations such as this can prey on your society's puritanical views that shame people for liking sex... or liking peop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can still find all that on pornhub for free. I suppose if you really want more of the same, then I suppose you could pay for it but still, WHY!!! I suppose the people that can be shamed really don't want it to be known they have an obsession with viewing porn.
There are plenty of free videos, from those brands you mention, that are on numerous platforms for free.
It's true a lot of devout religious people have some really odd issues though. They hate to admit they still like this stuff but feel all this s
Re: (Score:2)
Elfstein, Emsteen.... (Score:2)
Apparently some guy whose name rhymed with "steen" had an extortion racket where he threatened to expose people's sexual habits...
Whatever happened to that guy?
Re: (Score:3)
Charlie Sheen? Just when you think you know someone /s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, after his acting career hit a wall, he's gotta find a new income source.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Deja Vu All Over Again! (Score:5, Informative)
Anybody remeber Prenda Law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law [wikipedia.org]
Another copyright troll firm. John Steele received 5 years, Hansmeier 14. Duffy was the lucky one - he died before being arrested.
Re: Guest ssid (Score:2)
Re: Guest ssid (Score:5, Interesting)
But hey, if you think you can prove you didn't materially contribute to infringing activity on your unsecured network and didn't have reason to know of the infringing activity in the second case, more power to you. Juries generally follow the instructions given them, though, rather than nullify out of some fear it could be them next. But, like you said, you only have to convince 6 of the jurors of an argument that you didn't even make in front of them.
Yes, the unethical ones may well be looking for a quick buck, which has convinced many many slashdotters there should be no copyright protection for anything. Apart, of course, from their own code.
Re: (Score:2)
If you left your front door open and someone wandered into your house and stole a gun or a knife and then committed a crime using said object, you would be liable if you didn't immediately report the theft though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you left your front door open and someone wandered into your house and stole a gun or a knife and then committed a crime using said object, you would be liable if you didn't immediately report the theft though.
The mandatory reporting in federal law applies to FFLs (registered commercial dealers) only.
Individuals are not held criminally liable for the actions of thief, regardless of what was stolen -- a car, a knife, a gun or a porn stash. With firearms specifically, federal law protects owners in the event of a stolen weapon.
California and the handful of other states with a "gun theft reporting law" generally do not explicitly impose civil liability for the actions of the thief, though California is moving
Re: (Score:3)
Xfinity enables this public wifi from all their modems unless you turn it off. So who would be at fault then? XFi or the customer. /s
xfinitywifi's captive portal (Score:3)
Hotspots on the xfinitywifi SSID present a captive portal that requires users to sign in with an Xfinity username and password before their packets get routed to the Internet. It's likely that the Xfinity subscriber who signs in would be liable for infringement while signed in.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if it was you. It's a civil case and now you're sitting in court trying to explain what an SSID is to an elderly judge.
Re: Guest ssid (Score:3)
Like Joe Hand Productions, for instance. I bet they're the only ones, no lawyers ever shoot the shit, and anyway, court documents are all secret.
Re: Guest ssid (Score:3)
You don't know how the lawyers get paid. You don't know what their agreement with the copyright owner says. You don't know if the agreement is the same in another federal district in your state. You don't know how aggressive a particular plaintiff is on net. You don't know where they are in terms of how recently they did mail someone.
You've hit on the only worse defense than merely pushing back: ignorance.
Re: (Score:1)
So you don't know much of anything about how things work in court. As expected. Thanks for being honest about that.
And displaying your ignorance again as you have no clue what any of my cases was about. As expected again.
Mod me down some more with your sock puppet since you have no point and speak from a position of pure ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
These guys send out thousands of these things every year. They are not taking me to court when I push back hard.
True, but not despite or because of your open WiFi but simply because they're going for low hanging fruits. Just saying "screw you, take me to court" would suffice to have that lawsuit fizzle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They won't take anyone to court who pushes back. They send out thousands of these a year. They want quick easy no fight money. I could cost them 50-100k in court fees plus the potential of my fees as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
1. It has happened before
2. It doesn't matter because presenting any aggressive response will chase them off. Al ost no one wants to go to court. It's expensive and risky and no matter what the law says, anything can happen. And extremely time consuming. The amount of paperwork and hearings and status calls and other bullshit that had to happen before you even see a judge is wild. These guys aren't going there for one random porn viewer who saw some titty without paying them 99 cents. No jury is givin
Re: (Score:1)
How dense are you? The number here is $20M a year, and all they need to cut that stream down to $0 is failing to ever file suit. Judges approve the subpoena requests to the telecoms, you dolt, so they really are completely done the moment judges put two and two together about how maybe they're just "extorting" settlements.
Your corporate lawyer would sue over $1 if his $10M-a-year-in-billables client asked him to. You also radically overestimate th
Re: (Score:2)
Two things to consider.
First, judges quite normally understand jack shit about anything computer related. To a Judge here, SSID could well mean some sort of identification document from the Schutzstaffel...
Second, hope that you're not up against a lawyer who equates your open access point to leaving a car unlocked and with the key in the ignition that is then used by a criminal for his crime, because that is aiding and abetting, which would carry a quite similar sentence as the original crime here.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, hope that you're not up against a lawyer who equates your open access point to leaving a car unlocked and with the key in the ignition that is then used by a criminal for his crime, because that is aiding and abetting, which would carry a quite similar sentence as the original crime here.
[Citation Needed]
The crime of "aiding and abetting", in any sane nation (and in the USA) has a mandatory component of mens rea.
Re: (Score:2)
If you leave your car unlocked and with the key in the ignition, ready to be taken and used for nefarious means, yes, you will get into trouble. If you let your gun lay around and someone takes it to shoot someone, you will most certainly get into trouble.
You are required to keep your belongings safe and secure. Failure to do so will result in you getting into quite uncomfortably hot water.
Re: (Score:2)
If you leave your car unlocked and with the key in the ignition, ready to be taken and used for nefarious means, yes, you will get into trouble. If you let your gun lay around and someone takes it to shoot someone, you will most certainly get into trouble.
You are required to keep your belongings safe and secure. Failure to do so will result in you getting into quite uncomfortably hot water.
Perhaps -- but you would not face charges for the specific crime of "aiding and abetting" [justice.gov].
For the example of leaving your car unlocked, you'd only have legal trouble if you proceeded to file a fraudulent insurance claim, and in many states would not incur any tort liability [mwl-law.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that depends on your jurisdiction. In mine, you're required as the owner of a car to ensure that you take "reasonable steps" (in the case of a car, lock it and don't leave your keys in the ignition) to ensure nobody can abuse it for criminal purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
I had something along these lines back around 2010/2011 in Germany.
I received a letter from some lawyers saying I'd been distributing some porno (via a torrent) with a name like "soccer mom sluts" and the rights holders wanted damages. They supplied either the IP address or the MAC address I was supposed to have been using - whatever it was, it matched the address I had that day (I looked at my Linux logs). It was still totally ludicrous, back then my download speed was 1536kb and what I was actually doin
This is both hilarious and sad. (Score:2)
Are they kidding? Who the FUCK either pays for porn or gets sued for "distributing" it?
LAWDY
Lawyer has details (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
This specific copyright troll has also been covered in some detail by copyright lawyer Leonard J. French in his YouTube videos. He and his co-counsels recently managed to overturn the first case to reach jury trial (or more accurately just before it reached jury trial, naturally!)
He wrote a brief article about it on his site: https://torrentdefense.com/def... [torrentdefense.com]
Entitlement (Score:2)
I watch porn. Come get some. (Score:1)
I watch porn. I will happily watch porn from this company and others. I will happily download what's available and enjoy it.
Welcome to the United States of America, where I'm not registered as a fuckwit "conservative" and get to enjoy being part of this great democracy.
Will waive service of process for any copyright holder of pornography in Arizona fling suit against me in Arizona. I'm nowhere else, so play venue/jursdiction games with other people.
E
Jokes on them (Score:2)
Jokes on them when being shamed is the kink
With adult sites so frequently visited, is porn even smut now? Debatable if there's even something to be shamed over
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. I'd be more shocked to find out someone never watched porn at this point.
Everyone is watching porn (Score:2)
I assume everyone has watched porn at some point so I don't give a crap if they do it. I'm not paying hundreds or thousands of $ and no one else should either. I wouldn't be surprised if they could be sued in turn for deliberately trying to harm people.
The copyright damages system is broken anyway and congress needs to get it in line (real vs imaginary damages) but I don't see congress even being able to decide on what to have for lunch never mind pass legislation helping the people.
Oh boy (Score:1)
What's really needed is a change in copyright law to bring the statutory damages down to a level that truly reflects the value of a film lost because of unauthorized downloading — not $750 or $150,000 but perhaps a few hundred dollars.
Uhhh, no. At the absolute worst, the damages should be the retail value of the digital product - especially if you only downloaded. If you are a reuploader, then maybe a little bit additional. But even then, they can't prove any of this is actually a loss of profits because pirating doesn't impact profits and sales at all. At least, not negatively.
Anyway, time to go hunt down every digital product Strike 3 owns, pirate it, and give a giant middle finger to them. I only wish I could also face-to-face tell ev