Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
smut suits

Corbin Fisher Has Begun Suing BitTorrent Users Who Downloaded Its Bareback Film

And so begins Corbin Fisher’s mass lawsuit against alleged illegal file sharers, an unknown number of which may be closeted gay teens about to be outed (and prepared to kill themselves if that happens). In a copyright infringement case filed on Monday against 95 John Does, the porn company’s parent Liberty Media accuses the as-yet-unidentified BitTorrent users not just of stealing Corbin Fisher’s material, but purposefully acting in concert to illegally share the files. That’s because the way BitTorrent works — where users download a file in pieces, and can upload those pieces to other users on the BitTorrent “swarm” as soon as they’re received — effectively guarantees, in the words of the lawsuit, a “collective and interdependent” effort to participate in the “unalwful reproduction and distribution” of Liberty’s movies. It’s one big conspiracy to spread A3E6F65F2E3D672400A5908F64ED55B66A0880B8, the torrent hash that otherwise identifies the Corbin Fisher flick Down on the Farm. Oh, did we mention this movie is a bareback film?

While Liberty Media’s lead attorney Marc Randazza gets busy subpoenaing the Internet service providers of the 95 IP addresses listed in the suit to find out the actual names behind the web connections — itself an uphill battle, since some ISPs are less than willing to hand over their client list simply because they’re asked by a copyright infringement plaintiff — he wants a California court to begin hearing his case against “Swarm of November 16,2010.” That’s what the 95 defendants are being called, a nod to the date the illegal activity allegedly took place on. While Liberty Media claims it has upwards of 40,000 IP addresses to go after for infringement, the 95 included in the suit pertain only to users who allegedly shared Down on the Farm on Nov. 16. (We checked some but not all of the IP addresses, and it appears they belong to residential ISPs including Verizon, Comcast, and Wide Open West. No .mil or .gov IPs turned out in our cursory check, which would make this story that much more exciting.)

There are four claims Liberty Media is making, which we’re going to over-simplify here.

First, that BitTorrent uploaders are guilty of “distributing” the movie, while downloaders are on the hook for “reproducing” it, allowing for claims of copyright infringement. Meanwhile, sitting on the BitTorrent network means the defendants are also guilty of contributory copyright infringement, the case alleges. The civil conspiracy charge comes from Liberty Media’s claim that BitTorrent users purposefully shared the file with the expectation they would then be allowed to download more of it, because of the way some torrent networks implement upload/download ratios that forces users to upload a certain amount of data in order to download files.

But it’s the the fourth charge — negligence — that is the most ridiculous. The suit alleges Internet service customers (like most anyone reading this website right now!) who don’t properly secure their wifi networks through password encryption are guilty of facilitating infringement, because these customers let anyone hop on their connection to distribute illegal content. “Reasonable Internet users,” the suit claims, “take steps to secure their Internet access accounts.” Try telling that to my grandmother, who doesn’t know the difference between a router and a computer tower. (No, really.)

And what does Liberty Media want out of all this? Oh, just $150,000 per infringement (the maximum allowed by law), plus attorney fees and costs. You can get a very NSFW look and what Down at the Farm looks like, and why at least 95 folks were so desperate to download it. Then you can head to the comments below to continue debating whether these lawsuits are going to out gay teens, whether that matters, and just how responsible a porn company that 21 young men — including CF “favs” Connor, Dawson, Dru, Elijah, Trey and Travis — to star in a bareback sex film really cares about the gay community it claims to serve.

Want to see if your IP is listed? Here’s the full suit:

[photo stills of Down at the Farm via Corbin Fisher]

By:           Max Simon
On:           Apr 3, 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,
  • 73 Comments
    • onehundredeight
      onehundredeight

      Got to be honest, based on those snapshots, I wouldn’t pay a thousandth of their infringement charges for that. I can’t believe this is still happening. Why can’t they just end it here, prove they have the power to catch Torrent users, and then people are less likely to do it in the future? Torturing teenagers over this seems completely trivial. And, explain why this never happens with straight porn? Nobody ever gets sued over that. This industry is a joke, if you want to be respected and well paid to do something people do in their free time anyways, you’re just dumb. Equally, porn isn’t a necessity, so illegally downloading it is equally stupid. Before the digital era, people found ways to be stimulated. This whole thing is just laughable.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jimmy Fury
      Jimmy Fury

      The negligence claim confuses me. They don’t even know the names of the people they’re subpoenaing yet but they’re saying they know these people all have unsecured wireless networks?

      Obviously that’s impossible which leaves only one explanation. Epic douchebaggery.

      They’re actually that fucking slimy that they tacked on an additional claim just in case they accidentally go after someone innocent of the actual crime?

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      It’s pretty pathetic how low Queerty has sunk in this latest attempt to gain click-throughs. You could have focused on the interesting, innovative and important legal methodology this suit employs, but instead… bareback. Really?

      I guess it begs the question: does anyone at Queerty think about this stuff, or just willy-nilly search news for items you can slant to your particular agenda? How ironic that your slogan is “free of an agenda… except that gay one” because this post cements your radical right-wing take on everything porn related, and since CF is gay, it’s fair to say your hatred of gay porn is showing through. Or do gay pornographers not deserve the basic rights and protections of being Americans?

      Think about it for a moment. The vast majority of gay porn is made by Americans, employing Americans, for the American market primarily, but exported around the world. This is changing. It’s becoming easier and easier to outsource porn production overseas (the Czech Republic, anyone?), and factions within the culture would like nothing better than to see porn production forced out. But our founding fathers had the foresight to write copyright protection into the Constitution — not as an afterthought or Ammendment, but right there in the main body — for a reason.

      But hey, nevermind that pesky Constitutional argument; if the facts don’t support your agenda, obfuscate the issue by injecting faux controversy, wild-ass claims about “the children,” and top it off by condescension towards those of us that still believe that actions have consequences. You’d fit right in at Fox News.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RomanHans
      RomanHans

      If he’s got to sue people to make money, he’s a pretty lousy hustler.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jamienoir
      jamienoir

      Would this be the same Corbin Fisher that sued one of their own models for using their pictures of him on his website?

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JDS
      JDS

      I have no problem with the lawsuit. They are a for profit business. It doesn’t make a difference that closeted gay teens are the ones stealing their product. It is theft. Some of the claims are overreaching but if you read enough legal complaints you’ll see that almost everyone filed has some overreaching claims.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wellwisher
      Wellwisher

      I agree with the comment #1. I think Corbin Fisher has managed to scare enough people by threatening a lawsuit. Many of these people who actually downloaded the movie(s) probably did not even know that what they are doing is illegal and they can be sued.

      Now they know that what they are doing is illegal. They will most probably stay away from indulging in such illegal activity not only for the CF movies but also for all other studios.

      At least CF and Mr. Randazza need to consider announcing a blanket amnesty to give these teens a last chance. They will earn goodwill of the entire community if they were to announce that they will forgo all the illegal downloads thus far; however, any illegal activity now on will not be tolerated.

      Such a move will do enough for people not to indulge in illegal activities any more and at the same time will keep options open for CF or any other studio to sue in future.

      At least that is what I would do, if I were them.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justnow
      justnow

      all of the above is right however
      there is xtube- and those guys are willing to do it for free
      so……

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @JDS: There is a particularly human (or, lack of human) aspect to this lawsuit that has upset many people in the gay community, since the lawsuit is putting young gay lives at risk (this is alleged, and I am not backing this claim). For that reason, it would seem better for CF’s PR to proceed carefully with the way it handles the lawsuits, if it should proceed any further than this.

      @Wellwisher: In many ways, this is very much like a witch hunt. I personally don’t think these kids should be made an example of, but to just erase their culpability would not benefit CF and their cause, which is, it seems, to stop this activity. They clearly want to go the whole way and that is their prerogative.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cabr1to
      cabr1to

      The lawsuits won’t stick. A single legal entity is not permitted to engage in reverse-class-action discovery to uncover the identities of file sharers; they must instead file a separate suit for each single user. That’s prohibitively expensive especially given the low probability of recovering any damages from average internet users.

      So this mass-lawsuit will be “severed” into individual suits and Corbin Fisher will capitulate with a press release saying their “deterrent effect” has already been achieved. I say this because there’s already a precedent for reverse-class-action severability in several states now:

      http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/25/40000-p2p-lawsuits-d.html

      Apr 3, 2011 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lefty
      Lefty

      Cunts.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      All this fuss over some of the worst porn ever made.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brandon h
      brandon h

      @cabr1to:

      If they were going for a chilling effect, then they have already accomplished it. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if this has a chilling effect on their legit sales as well, whether or not their scuzz ball lawyer will admit it or not. They may be within their legal rights or what ever, but there is such a thing as not being a dick to potential customers and actual customers.

      Most of the people I have talk to who know about this have said they never use file sharing but after this they sure as hell won’t pay cash money to these guys. And they all go for the jock/twink types. Myself included.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McMike
      McMike

      Cry me a f’n river. People know there is a ton of free porn online and that downloading these movies was illegal.

      It’s like having $5 in your pocket and deciding to steal the loaf of bread anyways.

      If you get caught it’s your own damn fault.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The sane Francis
      The sane Francis

      First of all, CF has lost a lot of business because of this bullshit. Which is a good thing. They are slimy hustlers, nothing more. Anyone thinking they care about anything but their money is sadly mistaken. Secondly, this lawsuit is simply not going to go anywhere, so PLEASE all gay teens reading, do not be scared or alarmed. It is flimsy, it’s overreaching. This is purely scare tactics at hand here, and yes, they have worked, but they have also worked in driving most away from watching their films legally as well. Guess it’s well worth it to them.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • joe
      joe

      @McMike:

      Well that’s why we generally have separate laws for *minors*. I think irony at this point just demands that one of the CF models be found to be a minor, and this asshole go down for it. I hope there’s a ‘mo somewhere in the system just willing to dig that extra bit deeper for something like this.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jack e. jett
      jack e. jett

      Why would anyone want to watch this fem little fish bot? He has a lot of nerve exptecting people pay to look at his sex work.

      X Tube beats 100 Corinia Fishettas.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DJ
      DJ

      Looks like a hot video but I would NEVER support these people. Total assholes.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • milo
      milo

      Ive seen these torrent sites, and it is a hell of a lot of trouble to download all those parts just to watch a porn movie. At any rate, can’t they just hire someone to monitor these places and demand their content be deleted? Suing people in the community seems to be a pretty radical step that won’t win them any friends. I certainly plan on staying far away from anything to do with their content.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe
      Joe

      First, no one can say with any surety how many of these pirates are teens. Second, CF is trying to make its profit and these people are stealing their product. I would feel terrible for any young kid who is “outed” this way, but seriously, anyone can Google “Napster” and see that pirating copyrighted material never ends well. If you don’t want to be outed as a gay thief, don’t be a gay thief.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @brandon h: Bingo. Add to this the sneaky lines they put into their TOS agreement for legit customers that leaves them liable for thousands of dollars of damages and I’ll never go to CF ever again. I sincerely hope that CF goes bankrupt.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 7:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      Good for him, a thief is a thief and has to pay the consequences for his and/or her actions. Just be thankful it’s not like in ancient times when they would have whacked off your wacker as punishment ;)

      Apr 3, 2011 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      Gay teens at risk of suicide, over this? That’s really reaching, I think.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dave02657
      dave02657

      Looks like Corbin has taken a pencil to this quarter’s budget and significantly increased the expense line item for the payments to all of his tragic little astro-turfers – posting here with their impotent excuses, justifications, and explanations for what is nothing more than Corbin’s pitiful temper tantrum and hissy-fit. Carry on, asswipes.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 8:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie
      Charlie

      Just pay for your porn y’all or go to sites that give you a 3 minute clip to entice you into buying and make do with that.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam

      Apparently, Corbin Fisher people are the ones uploading their own videos on torrent sites, so as to ¨harvest¨ IP addresses for them to sue.

      A ¨sting¨ operation if you will.

      They are in big trouble if that turns out to be true.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aiden
      Aiden

      Only 95? I thought it was 40,000?

      Apr 3, 2011 at 10:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank
      Frank

      @Jamie: Anyone who treats their customers the way CF has with their changes to their TOS, and is willing to roll the dice on outing gay teens, doesn’t deserve my money, American company or not. No Czech porn company tries crap like that, so I can see why they are getting more and more business. I don’t want all American porn companies to crash and burn, but I have no problem if CF does. Good riddance.

      Apr 3, 2011 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dulaman
      Dulaman

      - The negligence claim is garbage. A negligence claim depends upon a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. CB’s argument is essentially that all internet users – every household in America and most households in the world – owe Corbin Fisher a duty of care to police their connections and usage on their accounts. Ridiculous nonsense. In my opinion, it is in the suit in order to scare the innocent moms and dads who didn’t know that junior was using the computer to download porn and to scare defendants’ whose WiFi has been hijacked. I suspect that CB would want to use this claim as a tool to pressure these innocent defendants to settle and not get the idea in their heads that they can escape paying money to CB on the grounds that their WiFi was hacked.

      – The conspiracy claim, I believe, is in there as a creative solution to the problem highlighted by Cabrito, above. CB does not want to have to file 95 separate suits in different jurisdictions, but you are not allowed to join separate suits based on different facts into one suit. So CB comes up with a conspiracy claim, arguing that all of the infringers are bound together by their actions, and so can be sued together. CB further tries to keep the defendants tied together by limiting the claims to a single day when they were all online and sharing. This approach has some force but I doubt that ultimately this will allow CB to keep all the cases together. However, points for creativity go to Mr. Randazza.

      – I truly hope that no gay teens are caught up in this. CB has the right to pursue what it believes are legitimate claims, but it is morally wrong to blind oneself to the circumstances in which many gay teens live and plow ahead with lawsuits indiscriminately. If it succeeds in getting the real names of the file sharers, CB should promise its gay customers that it will take steps to contact them informally to determine if any are gay minors. And it must do this BEFORE serving papers, an action which would out a kid to his parents.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 12:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      @Joe: I think it’s interesting that you bring up Napster, as the suit brought against that service set up a very important precedent to this case: the RIAA had to go after Napster, the service, not the users. A few artists went after individuals, but those numbers of torrenters were small. As more songs were downloaded by more people, it became harder to get everyone, so it was just best to shut down the service.

      I’m interested to see how far this goes as I feel it won’t go on too long. I could understand CF going after the torrent site, or even going after the users who uploaded the original content, but to go after 40,000 people is practically impossible, especially if you’re only going to do it 100 people at a time, unless they truly plan on filing 400 lawsuits.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 12:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HG
      HG

      At one time people needed a password to open CF’s material, but CF got rid of that feature. Thus contributing to, or facilitating the
      theft of their own material. Isn’t that called contributory
      negligence? Could it, also, be a lesser thing called “an attractive nuisance’? Or, possibly aiding and abetting? Opening
      the possibility to counter law suits

      Apr 4, 2011 at 1:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      @Frank: Have you actually read their TOS? Or maybe, the real question is, have you read anyone else’s TOS? Because they all say the same thing. CF was probably sternly reprimanded by the court because they didn’t have anything in their TOS that specified the amount of damages they could claim, and the courts have been known to tell plaintiffs that they couldn’t possibly hold anyone liable for the amount of damages they were claiming simply because they hadn’t informed their users of the potential loss they would suffer were the user’s account compromised.

      And, you’re confusing what they say in their TOS with what they would actually claim and further, what they would actually do. No matter; CF has clarified their position on the matter, and you can rest your weary head that they would have the audacity to claim any value for their intellectual property.

      As far as worrying about spending your money with any company who would out gay kids, well, put your wallet in the safe and don’t spend a dime with any gay company then… because they all could potentially out a gay kid. Kid buys a magazine, stashes it under his bed, mom finds it, kid’s out. Kid downloads gay porn, dad finds it on the computer, kid’s outed. It doesn’t take the involvement of a lawsuit to out a kid. And it’s ridiculous that we’re still having this conversation (much to Queerty’s joy, no doubt).

      Regarding what Dulaman said: see Queerty, was that so hard? Analysis, interpretation, reporting… you know, covering the news.

      Agreed, Dulaman, regarding the negligence claim, and yes, it’s included as an add-on to give CF standing to continue the case even if the remainder is thrown out. But the conspiracy claim is the intriguing part of this suit, specifically, that Randazza responded to the court’s rejection of earlier suits on the basis of what you call reverse-class-action. They found a way to tie the downloads into a single case, and the outcome of this suit — perhaps if it even makes it to the next stage — is the important part of what this suit means.

      Porn companies have always been the innovators when it comes to new technology (as in, how porn drove sales of VCRs in the 80’s, then DVD players in the 90’s, and now online streaming); why wouldn’t a porn company find the way to go after copyright infringement when the RIAA and mainstream Hollywood seems to have simply given up?

      Apr 4, 2011 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      QUEERTY: “The suit alleges Internet service customers (like most anyone reading this website right now!) who don’t properly secure their wifi networks through password encryption are guilty of facilitating infringement, because these customers let anyone hop on their connection to distribute illegal content.”

      It’s more ridiculous than QUEERTY thinks. Read http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9015559/Don_t_use_WEP_for_Wi_Fi_security_researchers_say for a discussion of WEP security and http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/30278-how-to-crack-wpa–wpa2 for how to bypass WPA WiFi security.

      With WEP, you can break into a wireless network in minutes no matter how good the password is. WPA is significantly better, but may not be supported by an older system.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 1:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Somehow No 33 got sent before I finished … a reasonable defense to any charge of negligence is to point out that the manufacturers could not get it right with WEP. If professionals can’t get it right, why on earth would anyone expect general members of the public to do better?

      Also, if you leave your network open, you should be covered by the DMCA act exemptions for ISPs – you are acting like an ISP if you let the general public use your network as a perhaps unintentional community service, but with consumer-grade hardware, there is not going to be much in the way of access logs.

      Due to the WEP problems, I suggest Corbin Fisher sue the real culprits (the ones who helped design the standards) – companies such as Intel. http://www.wi-fi.org/our_members.php has a list of the usual suspects. If Corbin Fisher tries to go up against Intel’s legal staff, the results will be hilarious, and Corbin Fisher will not be the one who is laughing.

      You might also want to read http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/pub/docs/JesseWalker.pdf for a discussion of Wifi security, including the history. Give that to the jury too! It should convince most people that the issue is way to complicated for the general public to handle.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 2:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 27 · Aiden wrote, “Only 95? I thought it was 40,000?”

      Given the length of the legal document with only 95 IP addresses, I suspect someone got carpal tunnel syndrome and couldn’t continue to type in the rest!

      Apr 4, 2011 at 2:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • marco
      marco

      So did the 40,000 people download this particular video or are they spread out among different videos as well?

      Apr 4, 2011 at 4:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Queerty is really getting insane and desperate over this. If you really want to save closeted teens’ lives, you should ban porn on the internet, period. Then you’ll know for sure that no parents will ever find it on their kid’s computer.
      Ban porn. For the gay children!

      Why do I suddenly hear crickets?

      Hey Queerty Staff, you’re not fooling anyone. Start paying for your porn already.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 6:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff
      Jeff

      Why doesn;t Corbin go after the owner of the Bit Torrent sites? Oh thats because they are hosted in overseas country where they cannpt be touched. So instead the people upl;oading and downloading. Which isn;t right. BUT if Fischer was serious about this he would add an encryption code to his DVD’s that wouldn;t allow it. But that costs too much money for Corbin.

      Imagine if it were the 1970’s and everytime you taped a song off the radio they came after you. Same thing

      Apr 4, 2011 at 6:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank
      Frank

      @Jamie: I have read many a TOS, and I haven’t seen anyone else threaten their members to the tune of $25K if someone hacks their account. I don’t care if CF tweaks it – the fact that they ever thought that was a good thing to do to their members means I will never, ever be one. And if you think CF wouldn’t actually do this to someone, I think you are sadly naive and can only hope you never have to learn that lesson the hard way.

      And yes, other gay companies could potentially go after gay teens, and if they do then I will withdraw/withhold my money from them, too. And yes, kids can be outed by just the existence of gay material in their lives, but the providers are passive in that respect. This is CF ACTIVELY making their presence known to a young person’s parents, and that is a huge difference. A difference that clearly doesn’t matter to you, but does matter to many others which is why I’m very glad Queerty is keeping the spotlight on the issue.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 7:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • craig tx
      craig tx

      Looking forward to the day that leaders in our community have the damn balls to say no to all this bareback nonsense.

      All my forty dead friends my age had no real choice as AIDS whiped them out – shame on these bareback video companies for promoting death to young gay men.

      It is pathetic – and unconscionable.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 7:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cabr1to
      cabr1to

      @brandon h: It’s true. The RIAA’s lawsuits against random music downloaders in the early 2000’s certainly didn’t do anything to increase CD sales, either… Somehow I think it’s safe to say this won’t have much positive effect on Corbin Fisher’s sales nor their public image. “Litigious pornographer” is not first on my list of sympathy figures… :-P

      Apr 4, 2011 at 10:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wellwisher
      Wellwisher

      How is this case different from the Hurt Locker case? Hurt Locker lawyers also sued for 150k per infringement. However, once they managed to get the names of the defendants from ISPs, they sent letters asking to settle for $2,900. This shows that the intent of the case was to make quick bucks than to stop piracy. Fact is that if you check the usual torrent websites still have Hurt Locker trackers alive and kicking.

      If these companies genuinely want to attack piracy, they need to attack such torrent platforms and websites that allow users to share the files illegally. How will targeting 5% of the individuals in one corner of the world stop piracy?

      Apr 4, 2011 at 11:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ty
      ty

      Will Andrew Rasmus (Dawson) and Brian Lowederman be called as star witnesses?

      Apr 4, 2011 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in London UK
      Mike in London UK

      A quick survey of some random entries (20) shows that they are all registered against USA service providers (Cox Communications shows quite a lot).

      I’m guessing they’ve pruned the first “batch” to be in the USA so they don’t have inter-jurisdictional issues, becuase lets face it, the RU or PDR-C isn’t going to play ball.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in London UK
      Mike in London UK

      @cabr1to

      Agreed, they’ve filed in California which has already enforced severance.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PoopyJoe
      PoopyJoe

      $150,000….for THAT? They sure think highly of themselves, don’t they?

      Mason Wyler also did bareback. Now he has HIV. Not saying I want these Corbin guys to get infected but I really wouldn’t feel sorry for them if they did.

      Corbin Fisher is trash. I don’t know why anybody would give them money. You’re more likely to be sued if you’re a paying customer of theirs than if you’re not.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dulaman
      Dulaman [Different person #1 using similar name]

      A few points:

      – In my comment above, I meant to say “CF” to refer to Corbin Fisher, not “CB”. I must have been thinking about corned beef.

      – @PoopyJoe: C’mon, man. That’s a really horrible thing to say. Even in Queerty comments, it is beyond the line.

      – @Jamie: Great comments. The reason I don’t think that CF will succeed in keeping this as a single case is that the conspiracy claim will fail for lack of an agreement. Admittedly, this will turn on which state law governs, and that could even vary with each defendant, but for the most part, conspiracy requires an agreement among the conspirators. Randazza will argue that an agreement can be inferred from a course of conduct. But in this case, the so-called “swarm” had no fixed identity. Anyone could join or leave. And none of them communicated with any other. I think that is too far afield to constitute the basis of a conspiracy claim. If the conspiracy claim fails, the case becomes like the Hurt Locker cases and will have to be pursued individually.

      – This case, like so many others, raises the very serious question of whether the damages allowed by the Copyright Act are constitutional. These “statutory damages” go from a minimum of $750 to a maximum of $150,000 per work infringed. This is true even if the work in question is a 99 cent song or a $20 porno vid. The goal of the statutory damages is punishment and deterrence. But there are limits as to how that type of damages aware can be fixed, and I would maintain that a damages award that is hundreds or thousands of times the value of the infringed work is unconstitutional. I am not sure that this is the best case for that question to be worked out, but sooner or later, some court will have to tackle it.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 47 · Dulaman wrote, “These “statutory damages” go from a minimum of $750 to a maximum of $150,000 per work infringed. This is true even if the work in question is a 99 cent song or a $20 porno vid. The goal of the statutory damages is punishment and deterrence. But there are limits as to how that type of damages aware can be fixed, and I would maintain that a damages award that is hundreds or thousands of times the value of the infringed work is unconstitutional.”

      A $150,000 award is probably not unconstitutional in general for a $20 video: if the video is reproduced and sold 7500 times, that would in fact deprive the copyright owner of $150,000 in sales. The catch is that a typical bit-torrent user is not going to come even close to that upper limit, if only due to not having the bandwidth (up, not down) to do it. Also, the user may not even be aware that his/her computer is being used for any sort of illegal activity. If you have a naive user and a checkbox that says, “share”, the user could easily click it thinking that sharing is a good thing. The user may think that sharing means giving the copy to someone else after finished with it rather than making a new copy, and that is only applies to material in the public domain.

      Of course, someone will claim, “they knew what they were doing,” but in reality, lots of people select options when they install software and then forget about it as long as the software is working.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoshG
      JoshG

      From a PR perspective, it is astonishingly stupid to file the first suit based on a copyrighted work featuring barebacking.

      Part of CF’s shtick has been its support for the gay community. And then they choose a film demonstrating the most reckless form of gay sex?

      If there are households with teenagers among the defendants and at least one of the parents becomes aware of the fact that there are gay porn films featuring young adults who are not using condoms…well, it does not take a genius to figure out where that heads.

      But I’m sure that this is all part of some larger plan and that the choice of work was deemed either irrelevant or a plus for the litigation.

      I don’t know CF’s work that well – is this a clip or a full film? My understanding is that they do not make many full-length films. Is this one chosen so they can demonstrate the cost of producing it?

      Curious.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 6:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ALT
      ALT

      And what about those users that are not located in the US?
      Does anyone know if in this case, international treaties on copyright infringement would apply rather than national law?

      Apr 4, 2011 at 7:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoshG
      JoshG

      P.S. I just read that Equality Florida has accepted a large donation from CF or its owners.

      Not a stretch to think that some may question whether the organization is endorsing or tacitly approving unsafe sex in gay adult films?

      I am not sure of the optics of, say, Treasure Island Media contributing to Equality California?

      Interesting questions.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      @JoshG: Oh look, this thread finally got the concern troll Queerty wanted! At least it took a little more than 24 hours for the thread to degenerate into the usual line of bs.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoshG
      JoshG

      @Jamie: Perhaps you could explain why it is not a concern? I stumbled on this thread through a news alert. My second visit to Queerty after seeing another link a few weeks ago.

      I would love to hear your thinking as to why concern is unwarranted as I am unfamiliar with the “usual line of bs”?

      LGBT organizations have always refused donations from individuals or groups on many grounds. This is nothing new. Why should it be a surprise?

      Clearly you are more than capable of making some sort of argument beyond a snarky hit-and-run?

      Apr 4, 2011 at 9:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 49 · JoshG wrote, “if there are households with teenagers among the defendants and at least one of the parents becomes aware of the fact that there are gay porn films featuring young adults who are not using condoms…well, it does not take a genius to figure out where that heads.”

      … it doesn’t head anywhere unless those teenagers managed to get accounts with CF. CF would claim that it was some other copyright infringer who was responsible for this kid getting hold of the video and that he furthered the crime.

      And JoshG’s comment assumes the parents know that condoms are effective for reducing the risks of getting HIV (some groups such as the Catholic Church have put out propaganda to the contrary – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids ). Even if they do know, they may not know what the term “barebacking” means – they may assume it is slang for some sexual position and not realize that it means anal sex without a condom.

      Apr 4, 2011 at 11:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoshG
      JoshG

      @B: I do not think you understand what I meant by “where that heads.” More OSHA involvement, calls for increased regulation of the industry, more state/local laws to prohibit the sale or distribution of adult content, etc.. Gay adult films fly beneath the radar for the most part. I think you underestimate the reaction most people would have to young adults performing in gay porn without condoms.

      Why do you think the industry self-censored for all those years? There was demand for condomless videos. But folks like Chuck Holmes realized – after delaying the use of condoms for a long time – that it was just bad business bringing unwanted attention and possible regulatory oversight to the industry.

      Parents won’t contest the copyright claims. They won’t get involved directly with CF. They don’t have to. You underestimate the determination of an upper-middle-class suburban mother on a crusade.

      Choosing to pursue copyright infringement litigation over videos featuring barebacking seems like a poor business decision when the suits will almost inevitably receive broader media coverage.

      Apr 5, 2011 at 12:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 55 · JoshG wrote, “@B: I do not think you understand what I meant by “where that heads.” More OSHA involvement, calls for increased regulation of the industry, more state/local laws to prohibit the sale or distribution of adult content, etc.. Gay adult films fly beneath the radar for the most part. I think you underestimate the reaction most people would have to young adults performing in gay porn without condoms.”

      Josh, most parents are going to be concerned that there kid was watching porn, some (not all) will be horrified to learn that the kid might be gay, and most will be concerned about a lawsuit and what it might cost to defend against it. They almost certainly will not review the videos to check for condom use.

      I doubt that there would be any OSHA reaction that did not occur already when it was discovered that some porn actor was HIV+ in spite of tests a month or so before the filming (not sure where he was working).

      The sale or distribution, particularly over the Internet, is not something state or local officials can control due to federal law, although it is a bit muddled. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States for an overview.

      Apr 5, 2011 at 1:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoshG
      JoshG

      @B: “They almost certainly will not review the videos to check for condom use.”

      They won’t have to. An internet search will suffice.

      “The sale or distribution, particularly over the Internet, is not something state or local officials can control due to federal law, although it is a bit muddled.”

      There are already laws and ordinances on the books in several states and local jurisdictions which is why certain porn companies will not ship to some locations.

      In any case, you have made up your mind. I am less certain of the consequences. I doubt either of us will be swayed at this point.

      Apr 5, 2011 at 11:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • giantkingoffairys
      giantkingoffairys

      Damn you people are disgusting, I wish you would seek treatment for what is obviously a mental disorder.

      If you eat rocks instead of food, you have a mental disorder.

      If you f**k trees instead of women you have a mental disorder.

      If you f**k men’s hairy buttholes instead of women, you have a mental disorder.

      All of you clearly need treatment for your disorder, but political correctness makes you think its not a problem. Apparently whenever a bunch of mentally ill people get together they begin to think of their disorder as a way of life, not as a disease…Just ask NAMBLA or the vast amount of paedophile forums on the web.

      You all need help, please seek a qualified mental health professional who is brave enough to stick to scientific fact and treat your disorder as a disorder.

      I don’t know if you can be cured, but I know you should certainly try.

      Oh well at least your not insecure enough to think you actually transgendered…I can’t stand it when a gay person won’t accept they’re gay and imagines themselves trapped ion the wrong gender. But still, you shoving your genitals into the orifice in which bacteria and parasite ridden feces is excreted…how can you not understand this is a disorder?

      Why is it that homosexuality is the only time when humans acting in ways which contradict human nature that we don’t consider it a disorder?

      Anyways its also just plain disgusting, and no one as ill as you should be allowed to adopt a child. That truly bothers me.

      Enjoy being crazy.

      Apr 5, 2011 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lefty
      Lefty

      @giantkingoffairys: Can you give us a precis, please?
      That’s an awful lot of bullshit to read through… :'(

      Apr 5, 2011 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dulaman
      Dulaman

      @B: “A $150,000 award is probably not unconstitutional in general for a $20 video: if the video is reproduced and sold 7500 times, that would in fact deprive the copyright owner of $150,000 in sales. ”

      Agreed. But in that scenario, which sounds like a traditional case of a pirate churning out large numbers of DVDs and selling them on the street, you would have actual loss of 150K. So whether the plaintiff elected actual damages or statutory damages, the result would be the same ($150K) and no constitutional issue would be raised.

      In file sharing cases, you have a lot of relatively cheap works (singles, old albums, short porno clips, etc.) that get downloaded one time by a single defendant and maybe shared a few times or a few dozen times before it ceases. The actual loss is very small but the plaintiffs use statutory damages to threaten defendants with claims for millions or tens of millions of dollars. I don’t see why the constitutional limits on punitive damages would not apply in this kind of situation. Even at the $750 minimum, you have a serious issue if the actual loss is a few dollars.

      Apr 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 57 · JoshG wrote, “@B: ‘They almost certainly will not review the videos to check for condom use.’ They won’t have to. An internet search will suffice.” But in nearly all cases they won’t do an Internet search either – knowing it is gay porn is all they’d care about (and maybe just that it was porn).

      Then: ‘”The sale or distribution, particularly over the Internet, is not something state or local officials can control due to federal law, although it is a bit muddled.” There are already laws and ordinances on the books in several states and local jurisdictions which is why certain porn companies will not ship to some locations. In any case, you have made up your mind. I am less certain of the consequences. I doubt either of us will be swayed at this point.”

      Read http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/05/BU521IPO2M.DTL – it is about a “do-not-track” bill being proposed by a California state senator. The advertising companies don’t like it and are arguing that the proposed bill is unconstitutional due the Interstate Commerce clause.

      Keep in mind too that shipping to some locations refers to physically transporting some object (a DVD presumably), and the rules are not the same – those rules are set by legislation and some existed before the Internet was used to distribute videos so the wording may explicitly refer to a physical object. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and it doesn’t always anticipate what might be technically feasible in just a few years (Also, a porn company does not necessarily get an IP address of a user that can be tied to a specific geographic location – the user could be using a proxy).

      Also, you should read http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/10/california_porn_condom_laws.php which claims that state and federal laws already require condom use in porn to protect the “actors.” So your claim that OSHA would get involved if a parent found out that condoms were not being used is simply wrong – OSHA (or its California equivalent) is already doing that for other reasons. Apparently Nevada is a bit behind.

      Apr 5, 2011 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in London UK
      Mike in London UK

      @ALT

      If an IP number terminates in a location outside the USA the plaintiff MAY have to apply for a court order IN THAT JURISDICTION to obtain from the ISP the details of the person who allegedly was using the IP number at the time they describe the copyright infraction taking place.

      A USA court cannot usually make any order that is binding on a non-USA corporate entity.

      As I noted yesterday, the list of John Doe / IP numbers they have put into this first batch, appears to contain (through a sample checked against http://www.whois.net to be terminating in USA based ISPs such as Cox Communications.

      Depending on the local jurisdiction of the corporate entity that runs the ISP, the plaintif may find themselves running into a brick wall as they ISP will likely tell them to take a hike.

      Apr 5, 2011 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JoshG
      JoshG

      @giantkingoffairys: Your IP address is on the list, isn’t it?

      Apr 5, 2011 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ALT
      ALT

      @Mike in London UK

      Therefore is it reasonable to assume that any potential copyright infringers in countries with other copyright laws such e.g. “Graduated Response laws” will not receive any sanction other than those planned by local laws ?

      (As it seems very unlikely that any of the said countries’ courts would issue any order overruling laws that have taken years to be passed…)

      Apr 5, 2011 at 11:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BlogShag
      BlogShag

      Pasty homogenous hairless white guys with small dicks and big muscles. Their sexual talent often time is lacking as well. They all look like clones of each other. Yawn. I can get better porn elsewhere

      Apr 6, 2011 at 6:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • peter
      peter

      While in general I have a hard time seeing how the Blue Ribbon of internet freedom covers stealing copy-written materials on bittorrents (as its advocates insist), I’m also one of those party-poopers who think bare-back porn promotes unsafe sex practices and therefor have a hard time feeling sorry for Corbin Fisher, et al, especially as all these sites still continue to insist that these guys are ‘straight’. “I won’t get HIV. I’m ‘straight’ after all and HIV is a ‘gay’ disease!”

      Corbin Fisher used to make really hot porn. Now everybody’s gotten into the ‘straight’ college guys go gay business. I guess they think bareback is how they’ll stay ahead of the curve. These videos are just sending out the wrong message to a bunch of guys who don’t remember what it was like to see half your friends die.

      Apr 6, 2011 at 12:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 66 · peter wrote, “While in general I have a hard time seeing how the Blue Ribbon of internet freedom covers stealing copy-written materials on bittorrents (as its advocates insist),…”

      Researchers have manged to get take-down notices sent when they set up some software to download torrent files but not download any copyrighted material (these torrent files simply tell you which servers to use). Also, there is a question of who is or should be responsible. I don’t think it is reasonable to punish people simply for not understanding how their software works or what a configuration option actually means.

      Keep in mind too that bittorrent has legitimate uses. It is used, for example, to download ISO images for making Linux CDs. That is perfectly legal – Linux’s open source license allows anyone to make a copy.

      Apr 6, 2011 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • George
      George

      Is it only for that one movie? Or is it for any movie downloaded from any torrent website?

      Apr 7, 2011 at 2:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Drew H.
      Drew H.

      This particular suit seems to be for this one movie. However, they claim to have upwards of 40,000 ip addresses. 40,000 people did not share this single file. So I assume this is a ‘preemptive’ strike. I think someone stated earlier that unless they plan to go after 100 people at a time this just seems utterly ridiculous.

      Apr 7, 2011 at 7:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alvin
      Alvin

      @peter: I agree, Peter, the bareback stuff is really irresponsible.

      So, can anyone recommend a site that has no problem with some of their models being openly gay, doesn’t do bareback, doesn’t make their members liable for being hacked and doesn’t risk outing gay teens with lawsuits? Because I have money to spend but don’t know where to go.

      Apr 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nathan
      Nathan

      Boycott this crap company! There are so many other, better I might add – sites out there. Sean Cody(pretty much the same kind of stuff) Dirty Tony(again- meathead porn) X-Tube(if you’re cheap like me) :) The list goes on and on. Let’s put this mean, greedy company out of business.

      DOWN WITH CORBIN FISHER!!!!

      Jul 14, 2011 at 10:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • charles schwartz
      charles schwartz

      Surely there are copy protect techniques that would have prevented the copying of the “work of art.” And, since the complaint alleges the use of experts in all facets of the making, they assumed the risk by not utilizing a copy protect scheme. Additionally, hackers are able to commander other computers for denial of service attacks. Quite possibly, this is how they gained access to someone’s IP address and not through their Wi-fi network.

      Sep 6, 2011 at 7:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B-RAD
      B-RAD

      really BITCHES ALL THOSE HOMO WEBSITES EXPLOIT AND CAUSE DEATHS ARE YOU REALLY CONCERNED WITH A CLOSETED HOMO BEING OUTED REALLY HAHAHA I HAVE TO LAUGH AT THIS SHIT THAT I AM READING YO, YOU DESERVE IT AND I DOWNLOAD SHIT LOADS OF PORN AND IT WILL NEVER STOP AND I AM STRAIGHT DUE TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE NOT MET A GUY THAT IS WORTH FUCKING OR ALLOWING IT TO SUCK MY DICK

      Mar 29, 2012 at 4:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.