Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Prenda Law Shell Corp Threatening to Tell Your Neighbors You Pirated Porn

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the barely-legal dept.

Piracy 258

It appears that Prenda Law, freshly defeated, has formed a new shell company named the "Anti-Piracy Law Group," and has resumed sending threatening letters to supposed porn pirates. But this time, they've expanded their threats (from a letter (PDF) sent to Fight Copyright Trolls): "The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house. In the coming days we will contact these individuals to investigate whether they have any knowledge of the acts described in my client’s prior letter" Naturally, the letter also notes that the recipient can avoid having the list of videos they supposedly copied sent to their neighbors and family if they settle for a few thousand bucks...

cancel ×

258 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

When is the scum going in the slammer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718557)

I mean, really.

Haha, let them. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718559)

1. I am not ashamed to admit I watch porn.

2. Watching porn is something I do with the windows open so my asshole shithead neighbor across the street's wife can watch.

3. Yeah you asshole. Your wife likes to watch me stroke.

4. I am not ashamed to admit I watch porn.

-- Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:Haha, let them. (5, Insightful)

MiKM (752717) | about a year ago | (#43718563)

Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

I thought you said you weren't ashamed to admit that you watched porn.

Re:Haha, let them. (1)

second_coming (2014346) | about a year ago | (#43718633)

haha

Re:Haha, let them. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43718635)

I'm not ashamed to admit it*, but I also wouldn't like a list of exactly what I enjoy watching posted to my friends and family, or my employer for that matter.

* Yesterday I saw Star Trek, one part of which I'd say was soft porn.

Re:Haha, let them. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718671)

* Yesterday I saw Star Trek, one part of which I'd say was soft porn.

Ooooh, is that the one where Kirk and Spock finally kiss? That one is awesome. ;-)

Re:Haha, let them. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718827)

There's too much lens flare to tell for sure what they were doing in that one moment. The director is such a tease!

Re:Haha, let them. (5, Funny)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about a year ago | (#43718815)

Yeah I usually don't share my fetish for tranny midget shieser porn until the second date.

Re:Haha, let them. (5, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#43718651)

I'm not ashamed of my sexuality. I don't pirate porn, largely because the majority of it is fake and really poor quality (I'm not in the target audience), but let them tell my neighbours. They'll get hit with a defamation lawsuit pretty quickly.

And my neighbours have been able to wrap their heads around the fact that I'm a tree-hugging dirt-worshipping lesbian hippie who goes to festivals where witchcraft is practiced from time to time, I think they won't have any problem understanding that I may look at porn occasionally too.

Re:Haha, let them. (5, Funny)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#43718791)

majority of it is fake

Wait, what!?!? It's fake? Crap. I guess I probably should go back to pirating movies and TV shows since those are real then.

Skyclad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718799)

And my neighbours have been able to wrap their heads around the fact that I'm a tree-hugging dirt-worshipping lesbian hippie who goes to festivals where witchcraft is practiced from time to time, I think they won't have any problem understanding that I may look at porn occasionally too.

If so...where?

Re:Skyclad? (4, Interesting)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | about a year ago | (#43718945)

I watch porn. I enjoy adults performing a natural function. And I have no reason to pirate porn. LITERALLY a search engine away and you have streaming porn. I mean, You have to really enjoy a certain actor to go as far as pirating a video. And then, why not show that you enjoy their work by paying for it? And to those that don't think performing on screen while performing sex acts is work, I would disagree. While I personally have never done so, I can imagine it is quite uncomfortable at times. "Hey earl, Stop, stop, stop! You are doing it wrong, You see her face? She should be begging and you aren't performing like you should. Get out of the way, john, take earls place, he is terrible today." I know that would hurt on a professional and emotional level. >.>

Re:Skyclad? (3, Interesting)

asylumx (881307) | about a year ago | (#43719011)

No kidding! Why pirate what you can already get for free?

Re:Haha, let them. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718857)

I dont pirate porn because watching it more than once feels too much like a relationship.

Re:Haha, let them. (2)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | about a year ago | (#43718665)

I think he meant that in a tongue in cheek fashion, though what that tongue is doing, we can only guess...

Re: Haha, let them. (2)

garcia (6573) | about a year ago | (#43718719)

Woooooosh

Re:Haha, let them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718757)

he should have added a /sarcasm just for you..

Re:Haha, let them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718861)

pointing out the joke is insightful now?

Re:Haha, let them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718905)

He's (?) not foolish enough to admit it to Prenda's crack team of lawyers, who might use the admission to prosecute.

["plausible"?]

Re:Haha, let them. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719063)

Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

I thought you said you weren't ashamed to admit that you watched porn.

The wooshing just took off the upper 1/8 inch of my head. And +5 insightful at that. What was insightful? That he didn't even recognize a joke, and you didn't even rise to his level?

God almighty. You people vote, too, and probably full of yourself with your penetrative analysis capability.

Re:Haha, let them. (1)

budgenator (254554) | about a year ago | (#43719317)

"3. Yeah you asshole. Your wife likes to watch me stroke."
you haven't seen his neighbor's wife

Re: Haha, let them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718617)

This particular admission comes with a six figure price tag.

Re: Haha, let them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718999)

Admitting to watching porn? I didn't realize that is illegal.

As long as they're honest about what kind. (2)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year ago | (#43718567)

They can know I watch it, just as long as they aren't telling everyone I watch the wrong type.

Re:As long as they're honest about what kind. (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43718661)

They can know I watch it, just as long as they aren't telling everyone I watch the wrong type.

another brony [slashdot.org] ?

Black mail (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718569)

This is black mail, and illegal.

=]

Re:Black mail (5, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about a year ago | (#43718625)

It really is blackmail. This is a threat with menances in order to get someone to comply with the sender, and it is not a reasonable way of enforcing the request. If they simply send out the letters, while questionable in other ways it is not blackmail. These threats however are genuine straight up blackmail. I'm not sure whether this is criminal or civil offence in the US, but in the UK you'd be in a lot of trouble for this.

Re:Black mail (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#43719179)

It is in fact illegal in the US as well.

Although "blackmail" is such an ugly word. I prefer "extortion" - the X makes it sound cool.

Re:Black mail (3, Insightful)

Creepy (93888) | about a year ago | (#43719297)

Blackmail is criminal in the US, as is slander and defamation of character (and heck, I'm probably missing 100 similar charges for the country where using the internet is a felony by some interpretations of law). Even in the best case, this will scare people that don't know better than to pirate by proxy (anonymous proxies, coffee shops, etc), and even then, being nearly impossible to prove (without a search warrant and raid) will result in every single person involved suing them. This is going to backfire on them like a backward facing shotgun.

Re:Black mail (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718627)

Yeah, but your porn is black male.

Re:Black mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718831)

That's completely beside the point!

Re:Black mail (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#43718669)

I think you missed the part where it was a corporation bribing an individual.

Re:Black mail (-1, Offtopic)

lexsird (1208192) | about a year ago | (#43718769)

Indeed, and when you dabble in crime like that, you risk becoming some psychopath's new shrunken head trophy. Porno can rabbit trail to some serious mental disorders pretty pronto if you look at case studies. So by all means, blackmail away people who might potentially cut you up in tasty bits and make a coin purse out of your scrotum. It sounds like a self correcting problem to me.

Re:Black mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718821)

Hey lex, I missed you at the book burning party last weekend. Afterwards we went out for ice cream and some gay-bashing. Hope you can make it next time, it sounds like you would fit right in.

Re:Black mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719185)

It is a pretty picture...

Good luck with that (2)

Fear the Clam (230933) | about a year ago | (#43718573)

Because when these guys fail to prove that the defendant's computer is the one they claim, any lawyer worth his or her degree will slap them with a defamation lawsuit.

Re:Good luck with that (4, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#43718675)

Just read the letter in the linked article. Reeks of troll. Typical Nigerian-type content: they refer to material stolen from their client, without naming either. Not who that client (presumably copyright holder) might be; nor what content was allegedly stolen. I'm seeing similar vaguely worded e-mails time and again - and most of them are Nigerian scams. They are also intentionally vague, trying to have the reader fill in the gaps (which people automatically do), and make the reader feel as if it's targeting them while it's really a standard letter sent to hundreds if not thousands of people.

If I'd receive such a letter, I'd probably just toss it in the trash, like I do with similar e-mails. They'd at least have to identify the alleged stolen content, and with that, who their client would be.

Or would it be possible to file a complaint with police, and have them initiate a criminal investigation? May be hard in practice for a single letter but if more people are targeted they may act on it.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718681)

They not only fail to prove it, they outright admit that they don't know.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43718705)

Because when these guys fail to prove that the defendant's computer is the one they claim, any lawyer worth his or her degree will slap them with a defamation lawsuit.

Fail.

They aren't out to prove anything. They're sending out random letters in the hope that there's a few people out there that are stupid enough to pay up.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43718751)

Because when these guys fail to prove that the defendant's computer is the one they claim, any lawyer worth his or her degree will slap them with a defamation lawsuit.

I think that this is their 'clever' twist on exactly that problem. In their prior iteration, one of the things that they were slapped down for was their utterly crap 'computer forensics' procedure, which wasn't even close to adequate for identifying the actual party behind the alleged piracy.

So, making a virtue of that incompetence, their letter now says that, just to be extra sure and stuff, they'll be doing a more thorough investigation that just so happens to involve asking everyone you know "We think that person X downloaded 'Deviant Donkey Dicks V. 2'; but it might have been you. Do you think it was him?"

I can't believe that this wouldn't fall under the realm of 'trivially extortion'; but it's a cute little twist.

Wow (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43718583)

This is a new low

Re:Wow (2)

Mister Transistor (259842) | about a year ago | (#43718659)

This may very likely get them shot. Someone who's life they've ruined may very well become completely unbalanced and do what we all would secretly love to see happen...

Myneighbor sure is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718585)

going to be surprised when he sees his daughter in the links.

Explaining it to a judge (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#43718587)

If you can't explain it with a straight face to a judge it shouldn't go in writing. This is a simple rule of conducting business that applies to many, many things. Perhaps Prenda never heard of this basic rule of courtroom survival?

Threat would not work for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718593)

I couldn't care less what they tell my neighbors...

Maybe someone can send a letter to Prenda Law's family members, friends and neighbors and update them about this person's new job?

cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718601)

more people i can share with and now i can walk instead a using the net and then the morons of hollywood wont have a clue what everyone is up too

WIN WIN
and go read how stupid and desperate alec dumb ### is

They've shot themselves in the foot legally (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43718607)

"The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house

So you just say it must have been a neighbour or visitor, ask them to add all the visitors to neighbours' houses, the post man, delivery men, etc. and let them get on with it. If they go to court quote their own words - it could have been any of these!

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43718677)

"The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house

So you just say it must have been a neighbour or visitor, ask them to add all the visitors to neighbours' houses, the post man, delivery men, etc. and let them get on with it. If they go to court quote their own words - it could have been any of these!

besides, they claim to represent the people who produced the porno in the first place! so are they suggesting watching their material is something to be ashamed of or not..

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about a year ago | (#43718753)

No, I believe you inferred that. They are suggesting that "piracy" or copyright theft or whatever you want to call it is illegal, and that they found one that just happened near you, and now they want to bring the perpetrators to justice.

They just want to be paid! I'm trying to imagine the content that you could produce, and see pirated, i order to sue over it that would make this case more defensible, but I can't. We should just do away with copyright already. From now on, the only way to get paid for porno is by the cameraman who offers you 500 euro while he's giving you a ride to your friend's house. He'll have no way to recoup, other than taking money from investors who convinced him to release the footage on Bittorrent.

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year ago | (#43719295)

We should just do away with copyright already. From now on, the only way to get paid for porno is by the cameraman who offers you 500 euro while he's giving you a ride to your friend's house. He'll have no way to recoup, other than taking money from investors who convinced him to release the footage on Bittorrent.

Hot Legal Teens Fucking on a BMW. Brought to you by BMW.
 
Product placement would be an easy way to fund free porn. And really, how much more Pavlovian can you get than to have someone masturbate while looking at your product?

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43718743)

You have to look at it from Prenda's perspective. They think you are guilty and just holding out on them, so this threat is a cheap way to make you pay up and avoid going to court. They have had some bad experiences in court before so generally want to avoid going back there.

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43718745)

You assume they want to go to court.

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43718851)

You assume they want to go to court.

No I assume that when I give them a long list of people who I have seen in the neighbourhood and insist that I want to assist in the crusade for justice, and how I expect it was that google camera car they will drop it.

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718771)

They don't want to go to court, though, they just want the money.
They're betting that people would rather pay the go-away fee than risk being outed as a porn watcher to their neighbours. After all, even if you're innocent, the court case would cost you a fair bit of time and money, and the neighbours will have different standards of proof than a court.

Re:They've shot themselves in the foot legally (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43718859)

They don't want to go to court, though, they just want the money. They're betting that people would rather pay the go-away fee than risk being outed as a porn watcher to their neighbours. After all, even if you're innocent, the court case would cost you a fair bit of time and money, and the neighbours will have different standards of proof than a court.

But you have a piece of paper saying that it could have been them!

well (1, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43718611)

Who cares unless you live in Utah or in a monastery?

However the Utah thing is relevant as they watch more porn per capita than anywhere else in the U.S....

Re:well (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43718683)

Who cares unless you live in Utah or in a monastery?

However the Utah thing is relevant as they watch more porn per capita than anywhere else in the U.S....

I thought you were kidding, but it's true [sltrib.com] .

Wow ... (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43718631)

These guys might find themselves getting some pretty major smackdown from a court beyond what has already happened.

This is straight up extortion, and at this rate, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone slap them with RICO charges or something.

They don't have any evidence which can stand up in court, so they're resorting to smearing you in front of your family on the assertion that you must have violated a copyright they don't own.

If ever lawyers needed some sanctions from the court, it's these guys. Epic douchebags.

Re:Wow ... (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about a year ago | (#43718779)

They didn't say they were going to give your name out. They just told you they'd be contacting your friends, family, and neighbors. Some percent of those people will have pirated porn, and some percent of those people will confess. I get form letters all the time. Most of them are offering pre-approved low interest, high limit credit cards. I'm sure they put about as much research into both forms of letter before mailing.

Re:Wow ... (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43719293)

They didn't say they were going to give your name out.

They certainly implied it since they're saying they will contact your friends and family and neighbors to see if they have any knowledge of this "alleged activity" (which they don't actually state anything about what is alleged).

So the threat certainly reads to me like they're suggesting they might be naming you in the process of saying "hey, do you know anything about this porn this guy is alleged to have downloaded".

From what I can see of that letter, it's thinly veiled threats, an extortion attempt, and no details at all on what is alleged to have been downloaded. I don't see how this is anything other than the same old illegal tactics which got them into so much trouble in the first place.

Re:Wow ... (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43718895)

Only way to stop them is to lock them up or disbar them.
After the last defeat, it was pretty obvious nothing would change so long as they were allowed to practice law. They just made a new firm and voila, same old tricks.

Re:Wow ... (3, Funny)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year ago | (#43719187)

Only way to stop them is to lock them up or disbar them.

Why "or"?

Libel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718639)

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153

Oh, this will be fun.

CAPTCHA: malice

Re:Libel (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43719267)

What exactly have they "published"?

They Learned From SCO (4, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about a year ago | (#43718643)

I'm sure they are perfectly aware that their claims are groundless and probably illegal. They're also aware that their lifespan is shrinking rapidly.

I think what they're doing is seeing how many poor schmucks they can scare into settling for a few quick bucks before the whole scheme implodes.

Clearly, SCO's "Linux Licensing" was a model modus operandi for trolls everywhere.

Re:They Learned From SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718933)

The SCO litigation was a game. All the lawyers had a high old time and none of them of stood to lose anything personally.

Prenda Law has gone well beyond that. A federal judge has asked various agencies to begin criminal inquiries into their activities. Continuing the scam can gain them nothing but extra jail time. It is incomprehensible.

Re:They Learned From SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719043)

Well at least Prenda doesn't have Microsoft behind them, so their money will run out sooner than SCO's did.

Go ahead a$$hats (1)

rtkluttz (244325) | about a year ago | (#43718647)

I run a computer repair shop out of my house with open wifi and am also in an area with no DSL or Cable modem options. I'm bringing a cable connection in from a mile away with 900Mhz equipment and then re-share that over wifi to my cluster of neighbors. Everyone that comes to my place has a device that connects and I get PC's to work on that have bittorrent downloads in mid-download. They can kiss it.

Isn't this pretty much... (3, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about a year ago | (#43718685)

Re:Isn't this pretty much... (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about a year ago | (#43718855)

My thought was malicious prosecution

Pirate porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718695)

Must have been one of the ladies, I guess, isn't that a typical "romance novel" subject matter? Good on them for being equal opportunity smut merchants.

This seems very illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718701)

I hope they contact me so I can sue for all they have (which probably isn't much).

What is the point of extortion laws then? (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43718723)

If private companies and groups can threaten stuff this heavy-handed, what is the point of extortion and creditor laws then? My creditors can't threaten to call my neighbors, but this group can?

As always, customer comes first (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | about a year ago | (#43718727)

The best way to create customers is to tell them that they are dirty, disgusting perverts and that if their family and friends knew what they where doing they'd be disowned.

Wait, if this is the world they want to pretend we live in, why would I ever buy a physical copy when it can be easily discovered. A password protected file of all my torrents is so much safer.

Re:As always, customer comes first (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43718797)

The best way to create customers is to tell them that they are dirty, disgusting perverts and that if their family and friends knew what they where doing they'd be disowned.

They're not trying to create customers, they're trying to find people who are willing to cough up the extortion money instead of being named and shamed.

Do you think these guys have a product they're trying to sell? Their business model is shaking down people for settlement money.

Makes me want to go wardriving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718729)

Just to cause an uproar that is

The old days (0)

C_Kode (102755) | about a year ago | (#43718733)

It used to be legal in Texas to kill someone because they "needed kill'in'. These guys clearly fit in that category.

Defamation of character, anyone? (2)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | about a year ago | (#43718759)

How can this tactic not qualify as defamation? With the huge number of screwed up lawsuits over bittorrent piracy going on, it would only be a short while before they "outed" the wrong person...and then they would be liable. What then? They apologize and hope that they don't get sued? Screw that. They start this mess, they mess with the wrong person, the first thing would be "lawyer up!" and counter file against them--and make them eat their words.

Re:Defamation of character, anyone? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#43718911)

Seems like defamation and extortion to me, but I'm not a lawyer. If they keep this up, they won't be either.

Re:Defamation of character, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718981)

You are assuming there will be anything left to sue by the time a ruling is made on a defamation suit.

Jail the fuckers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718765)

Clearly, the criminals involved in the Prenda Law scam aren't going to stop trying to use the court system as a tool of extortion - so for the good of society, JAIL THE FUCKERS.

Stick to accurate accusations (5, Informative)

slim (1652) | about a year ago | (#43718813)

From TFA:

infamous scumbag Steve “Lightspeed” Jones, a pornographer who specializes in “barely legal” genre (i.e. he recruits and films very young girls)

(emphasis theirs)

Now, by all means call him a scumbag on the basis of his extortion and blackmail. By all means find actual ways in which the way he produces porn is scummy.

But the "barely" in "barely legal" means they're above the age of consent, and hence not "very young". Indeed, since he's in the US, and they're (barely) legal, they must be 18 (2 years older than the age of consent in many countries), and capable of making their own decisions.

Sweet! (1)

boristdog (133725) | about a year ago | (#43718839)

Now my neighbors won't have to tell me which good new porn they have found!

It's a time saver, really.

Extortion - plain and simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718863)

Pay us or we WILL tell your neighbors you watch porn.

When did the American business model come to include extortion? What are business schools teaching in their business ethics classes?

This used to be a free country!

They need the cash (5, Funny)

goodmanj (234846) | about a year ago | (#43718885)

Hey, cut the Prenda guys some slack. They really need to earn some spending money, what with their upcoming dismissal from the bar and possible RICO prosecution...

RICO (4, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | about a year ago | (#43718913)

Straight from copyright troll to racketeering? Impressive!

I refer you to the reply in Arkell vs. Pressdram (2)

catman (1412) | about a year ago | (#43718947)

Also, see figure 1.

Re:I refer you to the reply in Arkell vs. Pressdra (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#43719201)

For those across the pond who may not be familiar with this important bit of case law, here's the reply in question:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

Probably getting ready for a long trip (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43718955)

If the feds have started looking into Prenda at all, now would be a really good time to keep tabs on their accounts. Sounds like a last ditch collection effort before moving to the Caymans.

Copyright violation vs slander. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43719047)

Most juries take a dim view of porn and porn makers, their eyes glaze over and fall asleep if you try to explain the intricacies of copyright laws, but they do understand slander. They might get sued for slander and get into very hot water.

English Libel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719069)

You like making fun of English libel laws, but they could protect you from this. You can't release information about someone without a Public Good clause, and no, there is no public good in telling your neighbours that you watch porn. It's none of their business.

Re:English Libel (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43719217)

Extortion is a Good Public Cause, at least according to all Good Public Politicians in all countries throughout all human history.

extortion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719105)

isn't extortion illegal? we do still have some laws left in this country don't we?

This headline has it all! (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about a year ago | (#43719107)

Best of Slashdot, rolled into one line of text!

Soap on a Rope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719191)

One or more of those assholes will wind up in prison over this.

This has RICO violation written all over it, not to mention state extortion statutes.

Are these fools supposed to be LAWYERS?

If we can get them to target politicians (1)

RichMan (8097) | about a year ago | (#43719313)

If we can get them to target politicians then laws against monitoring user traffic(*) will be created in no time at all.

(*) without due authority, like a warrant, suspicion of terrorist activity, or membership in the tea party.

Molon labe, you pieces of shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719321)

I like to watch porn and I also like to eat human brains.

Something tells me the entire staff of PrendaLaw won't be able to
provide a filling meal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>