Torrent users sue US Copyright Group for fraud and extortion


TS Rookie
I will not go into too much detail about why it is these lawyers are in the wrong legally for this, and why the downloaders are -not- legally in the wrong for this, but I will express attempt to clear some things up for those remaining open-minded on the other side of this conversation.

You must understand the difference between obtaining and distributing ANY material before I continue, and that what ever material, being copyrighted or not, does not change the definitions of these two terms.

These lawyers have committed extortion and fraud. They knowingly threatened these individuals while not only failing to obtain substantial evidence, but without the intent to follow through with their threats and demands.

Not only that, but these individuals you are describing as "infringers" are nothing of the sort. Again, you must understand the difference between someone obtaining and someone distributing the material. It is NOT illegal to obtain copyrighted material over the Internet, regardless of the source. Those who are infringing on copyright laws are the ones distributing the material. Therefore, legally these individuals are innocent on all counts, and the lawyers have threatened them with legal action that they not only do not have the intention of pursuing, but also do not have the legal grounds to.

In short, these individuals are completely innocent, and these lawyers are breaking laws and should be prosecuted. I agree with one of the guests on here saying these lawyers should no longer be able to practice law, and that they should be put out of business. This is blatant disregard for federal law and they should be prosecuted severely for this. It's not right.

On another side note, have you ever received a speeding ticket where they marked down a few things on your slip that were incorrect? You do know that you are legally eligible to have the ticket dismissed? For instance, years back my brother owned a 1994 Honda Accord Coupe, and the officer wrote 1996 (different body style) Honda Civic (different model) Coupe. This officer obviously wasn't paying attention and also quoted him quite a few MPG higher then he was actually going. Regardless, he was speeding, which is illegal. Doing something illegal constitutes a penalty... unless the issuer makes too many mistakes. My brother has never owned a 96 Honda Civic Coupe. He has, however, owned a 94 Accord Coupe.

While that is only somewhat relevant to what I am about to say, I'll explain the rest of this in the next paragraph. The individuals in this case never downloaded a copy of the Far Cry DVD published in November 2009, because none exists. Not only that, but regardless of whether or not they've downloaded it or not, they still have not done anything illegal.

Furthermore, TomSEA defended that it did not matter the year of the publication date, that it was still illegal [to distribute the material in question]. While this is true, it makes considerable difference if the material in question was published in 1940 or 2008 (if the material was being /distributed/ that is, and not obtained). The fines are not at all at a fixed rate, but rather change depending a couple different factors, especially including current retail value (or retail value at the time of infringement). For instance, you will not be fined as much for a $2 milk carton, as you would a $20 DVD (I hope we have also already cleared up that downloading copyrighted material is neither infringing on the rights of the copyright holders, nor considered theft?). Therefore, with everything else above these lawyers heads, they have also falsely advertise the publication date of this DVD, thereby increasing the amount these individuals would likely pay if they were in-fact infringing on copyright laws.


"You are incorrect. The Fair Use Act does not permit wanton non-profit copying. You must have a legitimate use of the copy that is considered to be fair (it's incredibly vague, but that's to allow flexibility). Copying something in its entirety for personal use has never, ever, been considered a fair use of the copyrighted material.

There are a few definite things you can do: You can copy excerpts for commentary (if the work is small enough, or the commentary large enough, the whole thing may be copied), you can parody (nearly exact copy with slight changes for obvious comedic or commentary value), and you can copy for the purpose of preserving your own legal copy of the material (this has wrinkles now due to the DMCA).

There are some gray areas, like time shifting and the like, and there are gray areas within the fair use exemptions, but everything not covered by the fair use exemptions is copyright infringement. The only difference between for-profit copyright infringement and not for-profit is whether it is a criminal case of copyright infringement (for-profit) or a civil case of infringement (not for-profit).

For those saying downloading is OK, it's distribution that is illegal - well, Jammie Thomas-Rasset has been fined (after three trials, no less) $1.5 million, and all that was ever proven was that she downloaded 24 songs. Distribution was implied, and that was good enough for a civil case. Those of you who use bittorrent cannot even rely on that, as distribution is mandatory for bittorrent downloads. "

thank you very much for clairfying



I'm sick and tired of these damn legal carpet baggers Ransoming consumer rights then paying the Republican Cash Cow to turn a blind eye,

Jerome Thomas