3 ms·

2 things jump out at me: 1 - From the perpetrators' POV, this kind of white collar crime is orders of magnitude safer and more lucrative than a blue collar equ

by netcan 14y ago

2 things jump out at me: 1 - From the perpetrators' POV, this kind of white collar crime is orders of magnitude safer and more lucrative than a blue collar equivalent. This may amount to evisceration, but it's nothing compared to a judge getting angry at drug dealers turning that kind of a profit. 2 - From the victims' POV (or at least many of them), the lawyer-extortionist, defense lawyers, laws & judges are all really part of the same "system." It's the system that is abusing them. The judge has tried to make it clear that it's the perpetrators abusing the system, but I wonder if victims feel that distinction. It sounds like a cleaned up version of this scheme might still be legal and profitable: Get actual porn copyright owners on board, pay their taxes, maybe actually litigate a case or two.

dchest 14y ago
Regarding the "cleaned up" version, perhaps, it just won't be profitable? From judge's order: "Further, Plaintiffs cannot conclude whether that person spoofed the IP address, is the subscriber of that IP address, or is someone else using that subscriber’s Internet access. Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires substantial effort in order to make a case. It is simply not economically viable to properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video."
- netcan 14y ago
  Maybe. I don't know enough about it to tell. It sounds like like a lot of the stuff leading to the judges angry response is somewhat incidental to the business model. In any case, if they hadn't evaded taxes, forged signatures and were "legitimately" representing copyright owners they may not have gotten such "harsh" treatment from the judge. So even if not completely above board, they may have escaped with a wrist slap and moved on to another scam.
jerf 14y ago
"This may amount to evisceration, but it's nothing compared to a judge getting angry at drug dealers turning that kind of a profit." It may be if they end up on the wrong side of a RICO prosecution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO : "Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of 'racketeering activity.' RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages)." And actually if you keep reading the summary, the bad news goes on. Patience. That said, in general I think you're right about the relative safety of white collar crime. But it is possible to overplay that hand, and that may have happened here.

by netcan 14y ago

dchest 14y ago

Regarding the "cleaned up" version, perhaps, it just won't be profitable? From judge's order: "Further, Plaintiffs cannot conclude whether that person spoofed the IP address, is the subscriber of that IP address, or is someone else using that subscriber’s Internet access. Without better technology, prosecuting illegal BitTorrent activity requires substantial effort in order to make a case. It is simply not economically viable to properly prosecute the illegal download of a single copyrighted video."

netcan 14y ago
Maybe. I don't know enough about it to tell. It sounds like like a lot of the stuff leading to the judges angry response is somewhat incidental to the business model. In any case, if they hadn't evaded taxes, forged signatures and were "legitimately" representing copyright owners they may not have gotten such "harsh" treatment from the judge. So even if not completely above board, they may have escaped with a wrist slap and moved on to another scam.

jerf 14y ago

"This may amount to evisceration, but it's nothing compared to a judge getting angry at drug dealers turning that kind of a profit." It may be if they end up on the wrong side of a RICO prosecution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO : "Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of 'racketeering activity.' RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages)." And actually if you keep reading the summary, the bad news goes on. Patience. That said, in general I think you're right about the relative safety of white collar crime. But it is possible to overplay that hand, and that may have happened here.