Big Biz Hates You: Article criticizing Copyright Troll John Steele has its Cached version removed by Google(repost. hidden within minutes because they don't want you to read it)

Im married and people don't go to jail for going after law breaking thieves. Your argument is as educated as it is on point.

Amazing! Between blackmailing, extorting,harassing, being married and being a parent, how come you still have time to post on forums?

But people DO go to jail for extortion.

If anyone is aware of similar stories that are tied to the actions of Mr. Steele's firm, please add them here. I am sure there are cases of business owners giving into his threats and then struggling to pay rent, LGBT individuals becoming severely distressed after being outed by one of his threats, lonely confused teens getting tossed out on the street after their parents refused to believe they are innocent, etc. So far, I am aware of an individual becoming so emotionally distressed as a result of Mr. Steele's harassing behavior that he became physically ill. Also, a young adult allegedly issued a rambling statement offering one of Mr. Steele's clients enough money to cover a year subscription to his client's site. He maintained his innocence, however stated that the potential reaction, to the letter, from his parents could be so extreme that he could only see drinking himself to death as a way out. As far as I am aware, Mr. Steele's client never responded. It's strange and somewhat depressing how an individual specializing in family law seems to be completely disinterested in the potential impact his actions have on the emotional and physical well-being of the individuals and, by association, families he is accusing. What is even more depressing is how my requests for due diligence to be applied prior to demanding a settlement have been met with articles and comments getting flagged to death

I agree that people should not intentionally download copyrighted material, however when you are dealing with material that tends be stored online alongside free content one should attempt to take the downloader's intention into consideration. While strict liability is usually applied to copyright, there have been multiple cases settled as unintentional copyright infringement, which carries a drastically reduced fine(min. of $500).

As for being stopped for a DUI, one should have to produce his ID because he is a physical presence that can not be denied. Short of having an identical twin or being severely schizophrenic, one could not make a claim that someone else committed the DUI.

The difference with an IP address, is the fact that it can easily be manipulated so long as you have a decent amount of computer security experience. I've personally used software that can change my IP address every couple of minutes. The software legally allowed me to tap into the network of schools and businesses, all the while presenting any tracking software with random IP addresses. If I wanted to, I could remotely take control of another computer and download any file I want without the owner's knowledge. I could even set up an encrypted section on an unsuspecting person's hard drive and use it to download files. In other words, an IP address is not an person and simply locating it does not prove that someone committed copyright infringement.

In a sense, suing someone based solely on an IP address can potentially be equivalent to suing an identity theft victim for crimes committed by the individual who stole his id.

It's comforting to hear that you are using technology similar to what is used by police, however I am still concerned about the fact that the technology is being utilized by your employees.

No lawyer would ever want to argue a case in which the prosecutor is best friends with the lead investigator. Honestly, nothing could be worse than trying to argue a case in which the opposition pays the salary of the crime lab. I don't think that is a "procedural gimmick," rather I view raising the concern as nothing more than an attempt to maintain the fundamental fairness required for justice to be properly served.

There is no reason why your organization can not function as a Torrent tracking company that outsources cases to a paid third party attorney. I understand that you do not charge for your services, which means the temptation to pressure people into settlements and to possibly alter evidence is extremely great.

I have no proof that you are altering evidence, but I feel the need to publicly acknowledge the fact that your firm's business plan creates a reasonable doubt that the 1000+ computer users you are going after in each suit might be being falsely accused. You send out thousands of letters at a time which request money from the recipients, yet you refuse to define your evidence. If you are really interested in catching thieves, then you should attempt to make sure your evidence is accurate. Instead, you seem to prefer to hope the accused will simply settle out of fear.

My posts appear to be getting flagged to death and I can not say for sure who is involved. However, I hope you agree that both sides of every story deserves to remain visible to those who need to make an informed decision

I appreciate the points made in this post, especially regarding possible flaws in our data collection. Its refreshing to hear someone who isn't just a pirate complaining because they were caught.

From a legal perspective, the issues about the data collection are are called 'questions of fact', and as such are things to be brought before the jury. People are convicted all the time (criminally) and held liable (in civil cases such as this one) all the time on circumstantial evidence such as ours.

As to the posts complaining about how sad people are after getting caught, I would respond that it is their fault. Come on, we are supposed to feel sorry for thieves because they are upset about getting caught? I guess taking responsibility for ones own actions is becoming passe.

I feel bad for the grandfather who committed suicide because he knew being accused of(not convicted. the police even acknowledge his innocence) of viewing child porn can ruin a person's life. I feel bad for the people who are being dragged into court because their lack of computer knowledge allowed a third party to abuse their internet connection. I even feel bad for the lonely people who went and downloaded some random video with hopes of making themselves feel a little better only to get hit months later with a letter demanding $1000s.

Though the courts may disagree, I feel that a person must be aware of his wrongdoing for your actions to qualify as him 'getting caught'. Free porn is frequently stored on-line along side pirated porn, so even if someone downloaded a mislabeled film it would be difficult to prove to a jury that they intended to financially harm your client

As is, it seems like your firm is exploiting the unique circumstances around the viewing of porn. People tend to keep their viewing habits a secret and will do anything to erase their tracks. Some married individuals avoid getting subscriptions to paysites because they don't want to be forced to answer questions about random charges on credit card statements that his/her spouse reviews. For certain individuals, the content they view online is the only way for them to explore their sexual orientation/preferences without being criticized by their peers.

Your firm is trying to exploit the sense of shame that is tied to porn. I recently spoke with one of your employees and all he had to say was "we have all the evidence we need to proceed with a federal lawsuit." I asked him multiple questions and he kept repeating that line. Then he said that he knows people don't want to be named in a suit for downloading adult content

You have mentioned that you believe that anyone who wants a jury trial is probably bluffing, but at the same time you acknowledge the fact that the significant concerns about your data collection process can not be addressed without the aid of a jury.

Many of the accused can not afford a lawyer, especially with the fees that come with jury trials. They could attempt to make statements before the court, however they run the risk of having those stricken from the record due to their lack of legal training(your recent motion to strike actually made me nauseous)

You've essentially created a scenario in which all of the accused are treated as though they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to a lack of legal training, you've cut off their ability to be heard before the court. For finacial reasons, most can't obtain adequate legal representation to fight accusations that are based on questionable evidence.

Despite being legal, all the aforementioned issues are incredibly disturbing