Posts made by raphjd

hXXp://www.slyck.com/story2135_US_Copyright_Group_Attacks_Defense_moneymaking_scheme

US Copyright Group Attacks Defense 'money-making scheme'
November 23, 2010
Thomas Mennecke

The US Copyright Group case involving Voltage Pictures (The Hurt Locker) vs Does 1-5,000, it appears the barrage of motions to quash and motions to dismiss are getting to the US Copyright Group - at least financially. In a motion filed on November 22nd, the USCG is looking to have all future motions to quash and dismiss summarily denied by the court, and to have lawyer Graham Syfert sanctioned for providing a streamlined form, allowing John and Jane Does to filed motions to quash/dismiss easily and without the need for legal counsel.

Much like the Far Cry case, the Judge's docket in this case is being inundated with motions to quash and dismiss from John and Jane Does looking to protect themselves from identification. Attorney Graham Syfert has developed a fillable form that numerous John and Jane Does have been using in an attempt to have their cases dismissed. Typically, the defendants using these forms are unable to afford an attorney, and opt for the $20 form instead. This onslaught of motions to dismiss is wearing on the USCG, who wants to see the court bring an end to this siege.

"Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the motions and any similar future motions be denied in their entirety, without the need for Plaintiff to file any additional oppositions, and that the Doe Defendants and the attorney selling the form motions be sanctioned," the USCG wrote in their motion yesterday.

Of course, it would be very convenient for the USCG to not have to write an opposition to every motion to dismiss entered. According to the motion, it has cost the USCG $5,000 to respond to these Does - responses to motions they feel are without any merit whatsoever. Additionally, the USCG wants Mr. Syfert to foot the bill.

While it's true that the form that Mr. Syfert provides indeed takes a Gatling gun approach, such as claiming innocence due to using a WIFI connection, using a VPN, claiming no knowledge of infringement, multiple connections used by multiple people, and so on (most of which have been already denied in the Far Cry case), it does bring up the very important issue of jurisdiction. As you'll recall, last week in the Far Cry case, Judge Rosemary Collyer denied the USCG's motion for a 5 year extension to process the identities of the 4,000+ Does - and also ruled that only those the court has personal jurisdiction over could be sued. Perhaps most of the claims are frivolous as the USCG claims, but certainly not the most important one - jurisdiction.

Lastly, the USCG attacks the originator of the forms, requests sanctions against Mr. Syfert and the defendants - and to top it off, attacks him for his "money-making scheme". A curious charge since the current P2P litigation campaign in the US is designed to provide an additional revenue stream to copyright right holders.

"Attached as Exhibit 1 hereto is a true and correct copy of an email from Mr. Syfert, wherein he admits that his form motions are a money-making scheme. The Court should not tolerate such actions."

We'll find out soon whether the Judge in this case, Justice Ricardo M. Urbina, will agree whether jurisdictional issues are indeed frivolous enough to warrant a summary judgment against all future motions to quash/dismiss.

Oddly, they {the evil layers} wouldn't have a thing to complain about if Mr Syfert was paid a ton of cash to be the lawyer of the victims.  Their whole complaint is that he's doing it for so little {$20} and it's making it harder for the evil lawyers to extort money from their victims.

hXXp://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/nominet_crime/

Police to get greater web censorship powers

Nominet prepares to yank more domains

By Chris Williams • Get more from this author

Posted in Policing, 25th November 2010 12:47 GMT

Free whitepaper – Centralized data control and compliance

Police will effectively get more powers to censor websites under proposals being developed by Nominet, the company that controls the .uk domain registry.

Following lobbying by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Nominet wants to change the terms and conditions under which domain names are owned so that it can revoke them more easily in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.

The changes will mean that if Nominet is given "reasonable grounds to believe [domains] are being used to commit a crime" it will remove them from the .uk registry.

"There are increasing expectations from Law Enforcement Agencies that Nominet and its members will respond quickly to reasonable requests to suspend domain names being used in association with criminal activity and Nominet has been working with them in response to formal requests," the not-for-profit company told its members – the firms that sell .uk addresses – in a briefing this week.

At present, there is no specific obligation under Nominet's terms and conditions for owners to ensure their domain names are not used for crime.

Despite this, in December, at the request of the Met's Police Central e-Crime Unit (PCeU), Nominet revoked the domain names of 1,200 websites it said were being used to sell counterfeit designer goods. For legal cover, it said the owners breached their contracts by supplying registars with incorrect details.

Plans for more such action, which was taken without any court oversight, are likely to raise concerns over the potential for increased censorship online.

Last week, for example, the PCeU contacted the ISP hosting Fitwatch, a website the Met alleged was offering illegal advice to student protestors, and had it taken down. Mirror sites and copies of the information it carried quickly sprang up across dozens of hosts, making the attempted censorship ineffective.

By working through Nominet, however, it would be much easier for police to centrally block such efforts by revoking the domain name of any website republishing the allegedly illegal information.

Apparently aware of such concerns, in its briefing for members, Nominet said it will consider creating an appeals process, and that it will only act "if the incident was urgent or the registrar failed to comply [with a police request to revoke a domain name]". It also sees closer cooperation with law enforcement agencies as a way show the domain industry is capable of self-regulation.

Nominet's move nevertheless represents a victory for SOCA, which is also campaigning for similar arrangements internationally. It is being consulted in the policy discussions, as is the PCeU, HMRC, the Home Office, the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards.

Let's be clear, this change is more about censorship of websites that are not actively pro police, than it is about closing down pirate and counterfeit websites.  The UKpolice have a ong history of bully tactics against anyone who is not pro them.

Of course, Nominet is extremely eager to make the changes to lessen any potential damage that might result from them shutting down the 1,200+ websites that were accused of selling counterfeit goods.   As the law currently stands, only a court can order a website shut down.

Basically, this change will mean that on the whims of the police, any website can be shut down and the courts don't need to ever be involved.  So much for checks and balances.

I think it's "Grid: Reloaded".

I'm gonna get the new NFS {and Fable 3} after I get paid.

He's using a well worn legal tactic that has been used in the UK and other parts of Europe for several years now.  It's a form of extortion.

Google " Davenport Lyons " and " ACS: Law " {same people, they set up a new company to do piracy cases} to see what they are doing. I think DL getting banned from practicing law in several EU countries for dirty tactics is why they started ASC: Law.

Their "proof" is extremely weak and they have sent letters threatening to sue to printers, dead people and countless variety of other non sense.

They don't take people to court, despite their claim to have successfully won a case and awarded £16,000, they rely on your fear of court to get people to pay.  No one can find any evidence of the supposed case where they won the $16,000.

Sir Isaac predicted the world would end in 2060.  Supposedly, it's based on biblical prophecy.

He believed that the church became corrupted by evil popes starting in 800 AD and that it would last 1260 years before the evilness would end.

800 + 1260 = 2060

There's an updated version of Grid with some extras.  Try and get that one rather than the plain edition.

This isn't the same person I mentioned before but it's from a pro "official" holocaust site,

hXXp://www.hopenothate.org.uk/At-the-centre-of-the-web

If you scroll down to the "Revisionist bishop" section of the article, you will see that he was prosecuted in Germany for something he didn't do {dispute the official holocaust record} in Germany.

I have heard of many prosecutions of for denying/revising the holocaust as far as it's impact on Jews, but where are the prosecutions for the denials of it's impact on gays, gypsies and all the other groups?!

For the record, I don't defend these assholes, but I do think that they have the right to free speech and that if denying/revising the holocaust is illegal, then all denying/revising the holocaust should be prosecuted.  I also DO NOT support being tried for a crime in a country that you did not commit a crime in.

I don't know of a European country that has anything like the US's 1st amendment, that gives free speech.

The UK severely limits free speech to the 4 pedestals at Speaker's Corner and a couple of other places.  Even in Parliament you can not speak freely.

Germany isn't about free speech as it criminalizes disagreements about the "official" version of the Holocaust.  A UK professor was thrown in prison for saying that the number of Jews killed in the holocaust was too high, while lecturing in Germany.  He said it back in the 1970s before it was illegal, but was arrested and imprisoned in the last few years.

Also unlike the US, European countries love to backdate laws that have a negative effect.

I'm interested in find out more about VPN too.

Microsoft is shit, but it's the easiest to get other programs for.

WHen the UK banned discrimination against gays in service related issue {ie; hotels, adoption, etc, etc} the government gave them 7 years {a 5 year automatic extention and a 2 year automatic extention} to comply with the law.

The catholic church got tax money to fund their adoption agency.  They wanted a total exemption allowing them to continue discriminating against gays for eternity, while using tax money.  The gov gave them the 7 extra years, but in the end, the catholics decided leave the adoption business completely instead of being non bigoted.

This is on BBC Breakfast and it's funny that most of those that were interviewed for their opinion, women tended to be supportive, while most men are worried he might end up "different" or as 3 men said "sissy".

While I was in the Marine Corps {85 to 89}, I never heard that sharing rooms was to promote "unity".

When I first joined, there were squad huts and then there were 4 man rooms and later it was 2 man rooms.  All were run down pieces of shit that that would be condemned in the real world.  Oddly enough, they did start building new housing units, but the women got them, go figure.

Oh yeah, I lived in a fucking GP tent for a year in Yechon South Korea, at the end of a fucking runway.

"Men's lib" is an extremely long way away.

Courts discriminate against men in divorce and child custody.

In the UK, women in the private sector retire 6 years before men in the private sector and 5 years before men in the public sector.  Woman only need 17 years worth of tax credits to qualify for a full state pension, while men need 37.  Women can use years staying at home to care for the kids as their pension tax credits, while men can not.  The law does not allow for Mr Mom type situation under the pension scheme.  When the husband dies, women get 100% of his pension, but when the wife dies, the husband only gets 50% of her pension. Only until a few years ago women got taxed less than men on their incomes.

Women are in for a huge fucking shock when they get true equality.

Women are already bitching up a storm because in 2020 they will have to retire at the same age as men and work 30 years for their pension tax credits.  Sadly, only women will still be able to get pension tax credits for staying home and taking care of the kids.

This is why I always say that people need to set their BT clients up to suit their broadband speeds.

I've always loved how open and honest Cher's interviews are.

GWB is a homophobe, but not a racist.

So far 3 UK governments {Blair, Brown and the current coalition} have said they do not intend to revisit the gay rights issue as we are already equal.

In the UK gay couples are treated as such, even if they don't have a civil partnership, when it comes to getting state benefits. The same applies to hetero couples. So far the equality issue is intact.

However, excluding relationship by blood, your hetero spouse and gay/lesbian partner can also be your next of kin. Now here is where the UK fails in their "separate, but equal" rubbish.  Non married hetero couple that have lived together for 6 months or more are also considered next of kin.  The same rule DOES NOT apply to non civil partnershiped gay couples.

So someone tells you that gays have total equality in the UK, excluding the word "marriage" and all the international acceptance that word has, just remember this.  It's one of a number of things in the UK where we are still 2nd class citizens.

This is part of the reason why I live in the UK.

Don't forget, Obama loves us so much, that he has used extremely nasty tactics in defending DoMA in court.  According to the Obama administration {Obama personally defended using such tactics}, our relationships are no better than incest, bestiality and pedophilia.