Copyright extortionist ripped off his competitor's threatening material


10 Responses to “Copyright extortionist ripped off his competitor's threatening material”

  1. Rob says:

    They need to make the law that when something like this happens, they must refund all monies from previous actions.

  2. Blaze Curry says:

    A few people are saying that this doesn’t matter; it does, simply because this casts the same kind of doubt that has been put on file sharing onto one of the major proponents of the old system.
    If I’m a dirt bag thief, than so is he; why does he get to throw stones?

  3. cornicefire says:

    Just typical. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  4. Donald Petersen says:

    Kinda like putting a humidifier and a dehumidifier in the same room.  But sooner or later, CEGzilla and Steele-Rodan will stop clobbering each other long enough to remember their mutual enemy: the multiheaded King Ghidorah known as Bittorrent.

    But since I’m disinclined to believe that these entities are “fighting the good fight against copyright infringement” out of an altruistic desire to protect copyright holders from being victimized by piracy, rather than profiting from the relatively zero-sum scavenging vulture’s game of big copyright lawsuits, I don’t imagine they’ll join forces, like the daikaiju would.

  5. johngoad says:

    The serpent is eating itself….

  6. nosehat says:

     Presumably the other company will send them a letter shaking them down for an absurd amount of money in “lost profits” for each time they’ve used this text.

  7. MandoSpaz says:

    Schadenfreude is an ugly thing … and I think it’s just about time we had some!

  8. Greggem says:

    I wonder if they registered the copyright on their demand letter. That could affect damages quite a bit. In this case it qualifies for copyright protection because it is so creative (i.e. dishonest). 

    It’s amazing that lawyers who send out things like this don’t get brought before disciplinary committees. There is absolutely no legal basis for the claim that account holders are liable for the actions of anyone/everyone who might use their connection.

    • EvilSpirit says:

      Yeah, well, it just says the account holder “may be held legally responsible.” Nowhere does it say “may *correctly* be held legally responsible.” Because, hey, anything could happen.

  9. This will be fun to watch…

Leave a Reply