Flava Works still doing this

me7022

Re: Anyone Recieved Letter In The Mail From Flavaworks Studios?

I just got one in the mail as well. I haven't taken it seriously. I see this is going back as far as 2021. Has anything happened to anyone who hasn't responded?

@me7022 that's just juridical harassment, there' not legal basis for suing someone for DMCA having only one' IP address as proof. IP addresses can be spoofed and even if you were to assume it was your real IP address there is no way to objectively confirm that it was you consuming said content. Even if you are the contractor of your home's internet service provider they cannot argue that you are liable for enabling others to commit DMCA infringement. That would be equivalent to suing the ISP company itself, total bullshit made just to scare people.

jrewingwanna

@me7022 I'm curious if you torrent with VPN? If so, does it have a killswitch or consistently make sure that when VPN isn't active that the torrent client isn't open?

If you do use VPN software and are cognizant not to have your torrent client active not in use, then who is your VPN provider?

I'm guessing you were tracked down by using a VPN provider that gives that information up to authorities or through commercial arrangements or your torrent client was up while your VPN connection wasn't..

To directly address your situation: Even if the studio isn't operating its assets and rights could have been acquired by another and make a business model of litigious defending their new intellectual property - i.e. they just make money by suing people and seeking a quick settlement buck. In their calculus it's going to cost you a lot more to defend yourself in court by hiring a lawyer, even if you have a good case, than it is to pay them off. Since they have a seemingly legitimate claim of the content, then their lawsuit would not be easily squashed with a request for a SMJ to dismiss. Worse is if you completely ignore it and they proceed with the suit then you stand to have a default judgement for the plaintiff. I'd do a little digging on the internet on defending yourself against DMCA claims (there are great AI Chatbots that focus on legal stuff - or maybe even regular ChatGPT), or talk to a lawyer. To find one, go to your state's bar association website and look for Intellectual Property Lawyers or Copyright Lawyers in your area - don't call the ambulance chasers you see on TV or general civil lawyers that don't specialize in Copyright or IP law.

bear1515

@me7022 I'm not a lawyer, so you know, hehe.

But as is my understanding many places send those e-mails, but they basically mean nothing, unless you respond to them. I've heard of cases when people responded to the e-mails and the company went after them.

So the best thing you can do about those e-mails is to ignore and delete them, they can't do anything about it. Answering is the worst option.

lololulu19

@bear1515 you are exactly right. by replying to a message, you are confirming that the email address is real, and active, and that you have seen the message.
I doubt I read 1% of the emails I receive!

There are companies that do nothing but cold call random phone numbers to see if the number is in service, and if someone answers. If they do, they then sell those numbers to various customers. Same thing with physical addresses. There are companies that send out postcards to addresses, and remove those that come back as "undeliverable". Those that do not come back are collected and sold to advertisers, etc.

jrewingwanna

@bear1515 I agree with you if it was an email.

He specified "in the mail" which to mean only reads as snail/post mail. If addressed to him and not something like "RESIDENT OR CURRENT OCCUPANT" then they already have him on a target list which at some point they compelled his ISP to provide his info.

Then again, if this was an email then yeah delete it and move on as it's a nothing burger. Responding to it only will make things worse.

MrMazda

Just to chime in with some relevant Canadian case law... In the case of Voltage Pictures VS TekSavvy Solutions Inc (an independent Canadian ISP), it was argued and ruled that an IP address alone is insufficient information with which to make a legal claim for three main reasons.

An IP address alone may identify the subscriber of the service used, however it does not prove who the physical end-user of the device used actually was.
An IP address alone does not prove that the contents were downloaded in their entirety, or that they were shared with anyone else.
An IP address alone does not verify the device that was being used to commit the act.

Given that these have been accepted as being reasonable objections, it is likely that in any common law country, that the courts would take the same stand.