Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts United States News Your Rights Online

Judge Ends Massive Porn Lawsuit 181

Posted by Soulskill
from the an-end-to-silliness dept.
eldavojohn writes "A recent offensive of porn producers using copyright law against many anonymous P2P users has been terminated by a West Virginian judge. Initially, Ken Ford of Adult Copyright Company planned out nine lawsuits against some 22,000 file sharers, starting with 7,000-person and 9,000-person suits in the first wave. Unimpressed, the judge reduced everything down to one lawsuit against one file sharer, telling the Adult Copyright Company that they are to prosecute each individual separately, as the accused neither participated in the same transaction nor collaborated in these offenses. So, if you're looking to hit 22,000 people with such a lawsuit, the $350 court filing fee will require an investment of $7.7 million ($1.8 million for the individuals listed so far). Ars points out the hilarious fact that 'Ford has sued enough people that lawyers are taking out ads on his company name,' providing an image of an advertisement for such a search. This is separate from a similar showdown in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Ends Massive Porn Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • Stiff Competition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday December 17, 2010 @02:43PM (#34590518) Journal

    The fact is that the real downfall of the porn industry isn't illegal file sharers, it's the fact that there appear to be a growing number of amateur exhibitionists willing to do filthy things to each other for discount prices, or in some cases for free. Mom and pop (and various other combinations) porn films are kicking the crap out of "mainstream" porn, because the Internet, that great leveler, has given this new wave of pornographers a cheap and universal distribution mechanism.

  • by bobjr94 (1120555) on Friday December 17, 2010 @02:48PM (#34590570) Homepage
    Seems somewhat biased the riaa and other lawyer heavy companies can send out millions of lawsuits but when it comes to the porn companies it's different. What does that do for all the other mass lawsuits that have been or will be sent to other downloaders ?
  • by lymond01 (314120) on Friday December 17, 2010 @02:58PM (#34590718)

    Eventually something's going to break. The reality is such:

    1) 10,000 people can "steal" your digital goods easily
    2) You can't currently sue more than one person at a time if they didn't collude
    3) It's too expensive to sue 10,000 people separately
    4) It's not really the ISPs fault so you can't sue them either

    So what DOES someone do who has bankrolled their digital creation and would like to recoup their investment, even make a profit, only to find that it's spread amongst 10,000 people without a penny returned. My thinking: make one copy cost what you hope to earn. So if you make a little software program and it takes you 30 hours at, say, $60/hour...charge $1800 for it. That way, when someone "steals" it, you can sue that single person and get your money back.

    Yes, that's a dumb idea. But really, money is going to start failing in terms of something that is essentially eternally renewable. What would clothes be worth if we could 100% recycle them into fresh ones? You have that going on now with software, movies, etc. It's a tricky spot we're in.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thethibs (882667) on Friday December 17, 2010 @04:24PM (#34591982) Homepage

    Ford has sued enough people that lawyers are taking out ads on his company name,' providing an image of an advertisement for such a search.

    What the hell does that mean? The words are english, but...

  • by bwayne314 (1854406) on Friday December 17, 2010 @06:06PM (#34593420)
    Umm according to your link, the artists are actually making MORE now:

    The decline in Recorded Revenue (To artists) from 2004-2008 is 152,500-111,750=40,750 thousand pound decrease.
    The increase in Live Revenue (To artists) from 2004-2008 is 650,880-382,320= 268,560 thousand pounds.

    This yields a net increase of 227,810,000 pounds to artist revenue from 2004 to 2008.

    Yea Labels are making less money (still as much as the artists though), but fuck them, the internet has turned them into a vestigial leech. In a world where "David After Dentist" can land millions of hits for free, a talented individual can/should stand alone.

Air is water with holes in it.

Working...