Porn company makes millions by shaming porn consumers

The applicable rule, in federal court, is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

If I get harassing phone calls from 911-867-6309 shouldn't I should be able to file suit and subpoena the phone company to discover who has the number?

Sorry, but they have a reasonable basis to believe infringing is occuring, and a reasonable basis that it was done from the internet connection in your house. If you want to try to convince the jury that Colombian drug dealers hacked your wifi, knock yourself out.

Shutting for sarcastic not offensive :)

Beyond which, fighting a 6 figure lawsuit rather than taking a 4 digit settlement can be a dangerous gamble, especially if the copyright infringement did actually take place.

Not to say that I agree with what they're doing, but I can certainly understand why people just take the settlement and move on.

if (shame)

But it's almost certainly this:

if (bankruptcy_risk || shame)

History of RIAA settlements-- where prudishness wasn't a factor-- supports my interpretation.

Furthermore, savings held by the average American supports short-circuiting on bankruptcy_risk and not the other way around.

Edit: clarification

Plus, now that people heard about Strike 3 Holdings, breach happening in: 10, 9, 8, 7 ....

Are you watching it right now?

Anyway you're right, it makes no sense to me now that there's streaming. Why wold you ever be caught with anything on your machine, or in your house?

We are actually the first generation since the invention of clay pots to avoid the awkward problem of discovering your kids' porn collection.

Kinky ;)

I think two things, first, these people downloading videos from torrents might not be aware what they're doing is illegal (and it might not even actually be illegal - just because a lawyer sends you a letter, it doesn't mean you're breaking the law...).

Second, if you like a particular porn star, you want to see their videos, and porn is star driven. It's the same reason Jordans cost so much more than your average sneaker and people line up for them. It's the same reason why Taylor Swift tickets cost so much more than Pink tickets, etc.

People bought it because they wanted to support it. They wanted to feel like they were part of a community and get access to stuff hot off the press. There were people who were fans of the directors and models. Similar to how people go see movies by a certain director when they are released.

There was definitely a high rate of churn (people who would only pay for a month at a time), but there were also the whales who would buy up subscriptions to all of the sites we had.

We also innovated live pay per minute in HD. No other way to get it without paying for it.

So if you have been watching porn for a decade or two, and you know exactly what scratches the itch, then you can drop $30 or so to get more of just that. And if you are bad enough with your finances to let that subscription charge a few extra months, that can add up to a very good profit.

And maybe you just really appreciate a studio! Maybe you like the way they work with talent. Maybe you are tired of the "mainstream" trends, and want to vote with your wallet. If you think of porn subscription more like a donation model, it makes plenty of sense.

--

And then there is VR. A good-bitrate 7K video looks incredible, but it's also pretty huge. Piracy just isn't competitive yet.

--

Finally, there are webcam services. You can't pirate interaction. That's really all there is to it.

1. They're being hypocritical. They're making porn that they presumably stand by artistically, and don't believe is "wrong" in some way but are then using the shame of watching it to control people.

2. Linked to 1. they're engaging in blackmail. Pay this hefty fine or we associate your name online with watching porn. They're not just taking this through the courts, they're threatening a public shaming (according to the article at least).

3. The demands are disproportionate and seem to be targetted at how much the firm can get people to settle for rather than redress any actual harm done.

I think it helps to look at how people in society in general judge the problem to use as a baseline here. Most (unverified, my belief/experience) people never had a problem with home taping of music, either for listening to in the car or giving a copy to a friend. Same with CDs. In the UK there are strict limits as to how long you're allowed to keep something taped off the TV that almost no-one ever payed any attention to. Back when software was distributed on CD no-one I know ever had an issue with sharing it around to their friends.

Simply, "piracy" isn't seen as a big deal. People just don't see it as stealing (after all, it's /not/ like stealing a car because you're not denying the owner the actual use of the original), or if they do it's like stealing something harmless that no-one will ever suffer from.

Undoubtedly people who "pirate" copyrighted material have broken some law, but then demanding $5000 with a threat to publicly shame people if they don't pay up is a pretty significant thing to do and disproportionate to the harm the copyright owner has sufferred, considering the status of piracy in society.

*edit The limits on home taping of TV seem to have changed. I believe there was a definite limit, however there is not one now, but there is provision for "Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting""

That sounds like the real estate industry. The agent selling you the house is not on your side. The agent helping you buy the house is not on your side. And they're both vaguely colluding to get you pay quickly.

I know that a lot of people have valid reasons for wanting to make this type of thing go away as quietly as possible, but I personally have no problem talking about my porn consuming habits on public record. I owned an adult website for 20 years, it was my primary source of income for 15... so that's already on record and my employers know etc.

Even for less than 10k I would be tempted to fight it on principle, but litigation is extremely expensive and stressful, so I understand why many would choose the less expensive option. Which is what these assholes prey upon. I'm sure they are also "willing to settle" for FAR less than the damages they are actually threatening you with. Which is why step #1 is to consult with a lawyer to explore options and find out if they actually have a case (from TFA it sounds like they usually don't).

1) no other traffic going over that VPN at the same time, so the IP can't be linked to you at that time

2) ensure all your porn traffic goes over the VPN, and never accidentality over your actual IP, keeping an eye on things like dns leaking

You have to be lucky every time, they have to be lucky once.

It certainly won't hurt mask your online presence, but it's not the end of the story, or even the end of the beginning

If most people did, VPNs would either be illegal or extremely heavily regulated. Just like they are in countries where VPNs are almost mainstream.

It's all in the article.

This is tort, not crime.

> Using courts to enforce sanctions against monetary losses due to illegal activity ought to be encouraged.

Using unreliable means which target the innocent and a strategy based on reputational harm irrespective of truth to coerce settlement isn’t addressing monetary losses due to illegal activity. It is a practice which by deisgn avoids isn't directed well at actual illegal activity and avoids any consideration of whether there are actual monetary losses.

> The government ought to take more action to prevent theft as well.

This isn't about theft at all.

> That's what the law says.

It would be irrelevant if it were, but its also literally not what the law says.

> I fail to see why he should be painted as a bad guy for 'shaming' people for stealing.

The issue isn't stealing, and it as a major hughlighted aspect of this thr method by which the targets are identified does not, even approximately, reliably identify the person tesponsible for targeted activity.

Is the law clear? I thought it was only illegal to upload. Don't people get in trouble with torrents only because BT clients upload while they download? Has something changed over the years?

If people stopped settling, or the settlement amounts dropped significantly, then Strike 3 wouldn't even bother. They want the easy settlement money. And if people stopped the stealing, Strike 3 would probably be pretty unhappy.