Printable View
The unfortunate situation is it is going to take someone willing to pay a he!! of a lot more to defend, than what it is to settle. And I am sure they are keeping the ISP subponeas in their back pocket until they need it. Hate to say it, I am back to thinking they have a slam dunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
All you need is an attorney that specializes in copyright lawsuit and DMCA matters. It shouldn't be that hard to find one. Hell I live in the sticks and could find probably half a dozen right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Not so easy, my boy;Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
doubtful that a copyright law attorney would be that cognizant with this type of litigation, and a DMCA specialist would be pretty rare indeed, given the extremely narrow field of potential clientele.
Most attorneys, as we have seen in posts referencing their advice, will simply err on the side of caution, recommending paying the lessor amount. Even if there were a knowledgeable lawyer, perhaps Faudlin, they recognize that it will cost the client more to fight it.
In the post where he said that for $750 he would assist in the settlement, for example; he would have to be able to get it below (3500 - 750) $2750 to legitimately earn his fee. He didn't say that he could beat them in court, and even if that was so, the cost would prolly be in the 5K range.
Its not? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
Code:http://www.avvo.com/copyright-infringement-lawyer/mi.html
Nah it IS that easy to find one. Now I never said it would be cheap of course....but easy....hell yes. It really shouldn't be that hard to draft up a letter countering these allegations either. Then of course you go from there. If its to court then you go to court, if the demand letter answer works then you are off the hook. But its my understanding that none of these attorneys have even offered to draft a response to this demand letter. And before you say "There is no acceptable response"....there is. You just have to have the right verbiage and know what you are talking about.Code:http://michigancopyrightattorney.com/
I think it was another site where I pointed out that Hagan, Noll and Boyle are actually citing the wrong paragraph of the DMCA law that they are supposedly alleging these people broke. They are quoting the one about actual signal theft instead of using the other sub-paragraphs that pertain to possession of equipment that has only one use. Which is what they should be citing in their demand letter. I think its USC 17 1201 (1)(A) when they should be using USC 17 1201 (2)(b) and either (A)(B) or (C):
Paragraph quoted in demand letter:Code:http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201
Paragraph that actually fits alleged wrongdoing:Quote:
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Every attorney wants you to think "Oh its SO tough to understand this copyright law" when its actually not. Its pretty cut and dry if you read the sh*t and follow along with the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.Quote:
(b) Additional Violations. — (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
You're still missing the point, SOD; that it's cheaper to pay the $3500 than to pay more for litigation.
Mr Faudlin Pierre wrote back today, you might find out soon enough to what the answers to the questions might be, then again who knows, I have a sneekin suspicion we may hear from him
when will you share that letter. sure eager to knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
He's waiting for the drum roll...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by skyline68
No what I'm saying is that if you find a 'good' attorney i.e. that is one that knows copyright law and DMCA law in and out, and will draft up a letter for you, you have a fighting chance at least. It doesn't necessarily mean paying 'more' than the $3500 but of course the attorney can tell you whether its gonna be more with his retainer and sending a couple letters than it is if you just pay this. I'm not reading this here. Now maybe that is what the attorneys are saying to these guys but I'd like to hear it from them. So far all that is being posted is "The attorney said pay it". I'd like to know why he said pay it? Does the attorney think its cheaper? Is the attorney timid about litigating against a large law firm? Does the attorney think its a losing battle? These are the questions I'm curious about. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by fifties
very simple, DN/NAG have better lawyers then he is, they are experienced and highly educated on the subject at hand, and your attorney is not, he is being honest with you and basically saying "i will get my a$$ kicked by their attorneys"Quote:
Originally Posted by sodusme
it would be like a 10 year olds pee-wee baseball team playing the new york yankees
lawyers who have knowledge about this are hard to find, you dont hire a lawyer who specializes in divorce cases if your charged with murder, you need somebody who knows how to defend the specific charges against you, and not many out there do, that is why DN/NAG already have 2 strikes against you before the game even starts
I would think if in the position where as your ISP records were subpoenad you would be able to find out if they infact were subpoenad.Quote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
they would not even risk going to court unless they were 120% sure they had a slam dunk, its over before you even enter the courtroom....they are not bluffing, they are not fishing, the letters and threats are real....ignoring the letters will only end up costing you much more, dont stick your head in the sand, its not going to go awayQuote:
Originally Posted by alex70olds
True many ISP's have a clause that stipulates they must notify you if your records are subpoenaed. You'd have to read your TOS to be sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibalector
I find that hard to believe. These guys (Hagan, Noll and Boyle) don't even know what sub-paragraph of the DMCA law they are quoting applies to the alleged wrong doing here. To me that is just plain stupidity especially when a laymen like me can read the law and ascertain what sections apply here for possible litigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave Digger
Will be interesting to see what the letter from Mr Pierre has to say. Everyone's situation is different. My friend said that after 30 years of free tv the fine averages out to about 8 dollars a month. Go figure. lol.