Alternative names for Extortion Letters

[Matthew Chan]

ELI has been given grief for using the term "extortion letters" in lieu of "settlement demand letter" or some other sanitized name. So, in the spirit of turning lemons into lemonade, I hope you will humor me in this thread and help me come up with alternative names.

I have heard of:

* Bully letters (so-so)
* Shakedown letters (I like this one)
* Ransom letters (I also like this one)
* Hostage letters (so-so)

Maybe we need to start referring to "extortion letters" as "ransom letters".  Nice ring to it, don't you think?

Examples would be:

Getty Images Shakedown Letter, Getty Images Ransom Letter
Hawaiian Art Network Shakedown Letter, Hawaiian Art Network Ransom Letter

It has a nice ring if you ask me.

[SoylentGreen]

Matt,

What's the rationale in searching for synonyms?

S.G.

[Peeved]

Hope you are not considering changing the name of your site!

I like the term "extortion" just as it is. As per Wikipedia, the word can also be used "metaphorically" (as it is here) to refer to "price-gouging" or when "a person feels indebted against their will to another, in order to avoid legal consequences."

It does not always mean "criminal offense".

I'm quite sure you are aware of the definintion of the word but I'm with Soylent, why change?

[Matthew Chan]

Good question. Aside from simply having fun alternatives (which I was inspired by other websites), it makes for good SEO to mix up the usage.

I saw some creative references and words to describe the "extortion scheme" elsewhere and tried to come up with some other cool, provocative sounding names.

An no, there are no plans to change the name of the website.  I like how the initials coincidentally worked out to be a nice name: ELI.

Matt,

What's the rationale in searching for synonyms?

S.G.

[Peeved]

Well in that case, I always laugh when Soylent uses the term "butthurt".

I suppose it could go the other way around...."Butthurt letters".

lol!

[Lettered]

I found it funny that the "other side" has such a problem with the term extortion.  I think that thier theory is that they are being falsely accused of something illegal. Ironically, some of them don't seem to me to have any problem calling innocent infringement "theft".

Looking at the definition on dictionary.com, I can't see how one could say "extortion" always means an illegal act.  I think that this is especially true when tempered (not necessarily) with, and used in context with, explanations that there is no illegal activity.

It is clear to me that "extortion" as used on this site means "oppressive exaction, as of excessive price". 

From Dictionary.com
"ex·tor·tion
noun
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.


ex·tort
verb (used with object)
1. Law . a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.
b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.
2. to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence extorted their admiration. "

[lucia]

Of the alternatives, I like shakedown.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I prefer "shakedown" as well. A "ransom" usually indicates someone is holding something of value that belongs to you. It doesn't ring as accurate as "shakedown" or "extortion". I also like "copyright trolls" because this practice is so similar to the practice of "Patent trolling" that is currently all the rage. I'm sure it served as a model for copyright trolling.

The only thing these stock companies fail to realize is that a patent troll has nothing to loose. A company like Fictitious Holdings, LLC can sue people like crazy because it doesn't have to maintain a decent image. But when a company like Getty Images starts suing their customers and potential customers, word gets out and it hurts the company. That is why I think we have not seen many cases from them recently. I also think it is only a matter of time until Masterfile comes to this same conclusion.

By the way, thanks for sharing those definitions of "Extortion." It helps make it clear that "Extortion" does not always have to be criminal. (Something Matt and Oscar have said for years.)

[SoylentGreen]

Thus far, the vast majority of copyright infringement demands made by those in the content business have a very weak legal basis.
It's abundantly clear that most of the money that copyright trolling captures comes from those who simply pay out of fear.

Creating "fear" in order to make people scared enough pay is a messy business.
So, I understand that those involved in the copyright trolling business wish to "sanitize" the entire issue.
Both for the business aspect, and so as not to cast one's own professional reputation in a negative light.
While copyright trolling types may not like the term "extortion letter" and might prefer "demand letter", "extortion" and "demand" are in fact synonyms:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/extortion
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/468/extortionsynonym.jpg

It’s important to realize that the trolls want ALL criticism to go away.
Today, it’s the word “extortion”. Next week, it’s going to be “troll”.  The week after that, maybe we can’t mention any names?
Indeed, Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart wants no mention of her name on the site.  But, this is the business that she’s in.
A more productive response to the evidence, opinions and expert commentary presented on ELI would be for lawyers such as Ms Stewart to blog their point of view.
But, she couldn’t “blog” what’s in the extortion letters without damaging her reputation.  That also explains why you don’t see lawyers for the trolls posting here.
You can’t openly post what’s claimed in the letters without looking like a scammer.
So, the only option left is to suppress what they’ve written and signed their name to.
The only exception appears to be lawyer Carolyn Wright, whom I believe has some articles of value.

Righthaven has illustrated how bad it can get.
Also, I don’t believe for a moment that Tylor (affiliated with Hawaiian Art Network) doesn’t know that his photos are offered for free all over the web.
Riddick’s claims were garbage from day one, and I feel sorry for anyone who gave in and paid him.

I believe that anyone who demands monetary damages relating to property that they do not legally own is pulling a scam.
I don’t think “scam” is too harsh a word.  In such cases, the money simply isn’t owed.

I don’t speak for ELI, but it’s my opinion that those who expect it to be ELI’s job to market the actions of copy trolls in the best light possible are out of touch with reality.
If most people received a gas bill of ten-thousand dollars, they’d ask to see the meter reading.  If the gas company said, “we don’t reveal meter readings unless we go to court”, they be screwed in short order.
The same is true for the copyright trolls; what is the actual evidence of the claim?

I hope that the approach on this forum doesn’t go too “soft”.  Listen to Rammstein or Metallica while you post if you have to.

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

Matt and I have certainly caught enough grief over the years over the term "extortion" to the point where I have started collecting  uses of the term colloquially in the media or in court papers to be able to show to those offended by its use. I highly doubt that Matt will ever change the name of the site nor do I think he should.  I also am always amazed at how some are hurt by the term "extortion" yet in their own extortion letters they accuse the end user of "Stealing" and  "theft" without any proof that they stole anything.   

[Matthew Chan]

Leave it to SG to get a chuckle out of me.  It doesn't happen too often but I did chuckle at that one.  "Butthurt" is funny and I am admittedly being sophomoric here with that comment.

Well in that case, I always laugh when Soylent uses the term "butthurt".

I suppose it could go the other way around...."Butthurt letters".

lol!

[Matthew Chan]

mcfilms & lucia, I like "Shakedown Letters" too. I will be adding it to the ELI banner on the main site.  That is one more term the opposing lawyers can get upset with.

Of the alternatives, I like shakedown.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Speaking of Butthurt... if Steve Gibson doesn't get his act together, he's gonna land in jail and be in for some real butthurt!...sorry I could not resist.

How dare SG even think about us "going soft" that is not how we roll around here.

[Matthew Chan]

SG, that was a great post and I cannot agree with you more on all the points you brought up. We are definitely in sync here.

Regarding ELI "going soft", over the years I have mostly attracted people who were "softer" than me in business dealings, partnerships, and relationships. I am guessing because there is some degree of "opposites attract" in business, not just personal relationships.

I have learned that sometimes using a "softer" approach is much more effective than a "harder" approach. Witness the tone of my letter to Bruce Rosen. I could have been much more nastier towards him but I know nothing about him and I know he didn't instigate the letter. My anger in the letter was directed at Julie and I think Bruce (and the ELI community) knows that. Having said that, I cannot predict the tone I will take should Bruce come back with yet another legal "threat" on her behalf. I will likely not be as pleasant because, by now, he has been fully informed of the full context of he is getting himself in. If he engages again, he does so knowingly.  If he is a smart lawyer, he would start perusing the ELI Forums in more depth before he took any actions.

I think it is safe to say as time has progressed, I have gotten a bit much shorter in the patience department. I am also less tolerant and less sympathetic of newbies who want to cry and complain but not do something meaningful in their defense. I cannot help people save them from themselves.  Some are their own worst enemy, so if they decide to cave without a fight, so be it.  Their loss, not mine.

I do not think I will be "softer" but what Oscar and I do agree on and have discussed is the "time suck" of it all. We do our best to avoid the "time suck" factor. But that is the very reason why the concept of ELI has evolved into teams, community, and collaboration.  I have a lot more help now on the forums. I feel I can go away for a week and it is in good hands with buddhapi, mcfilms, and even SG (who knows our history very well).  They "get" my attitude and where I am coming from and they carry that attitude in their posts presumably because they agree with me, not because they want to become Matthew Chan clones (god forbid).

I can better take up the fight against the lawyers and others that would try to silence us or shut us down. I can focus on building and expanding the ELI platform.  Without revealing everything just yet, I am in the process of building a bridge to a couple of other like-minded communities by privately reaching out to my counter-parts there. Stay tuned for that.

I am a big believer in using the "big hammer". But the big hammer most people expect (the legal system) is not really the one I like to use. The big hammer I like to use is a HUGE megaphone with lots of LONG and WIDE tentacles.  So far, we have Twitter, Youtube, Vimeo, Facebook, Google+, and Google search engines.  (The other lawyers were smart enough to let things go before there was too much activity but Julie was too stupid to realize otherwise and just kept pushing and pushing until she went too far.) If I manage to establish solid bridges to multiple other communities with similar tentacles, watch out.

So no, ELI is not going soft.  ELI is evolving but ELI will still be ELI in both spirit and attitude. 

Thus far, the vast majority of copyright infringement demands made by those in the content business have a very weak legal basis.
It's abundantly clear that most of the money that copyright trolling captures comes from those who simply pay out of fear.

Creating "fear" in order to make people scared enough pay is a messy business.
So, I understand that those involved in the copyright trolling business wish to "sanitize" the entire issue.
Both for the business aspect, and so as not to cast one's own professional reputation in a negative light.
While copyright trolling types may not like the term "extortion letter" and might prefer "demand letter", "extortion" and "demand" are in fact synonyms:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/extortion
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/468/extortionsynonym.jpg

It’s important to realize that the trolls want ALL criticism to go away.
Today, it’s the word “extortion”. Next week, it’s going to be “troll”.  The week after that, maybe we can’t mention any names?
Indeed, Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart wants no mention of her name on the site.  But, this is the business that she’s in.
A more productive response to the evidence, opinions and expert commentary presented on ELI would be for lawyers such as Ms Stewart to blog their point of view.
But, she couldn’t “blog” what’s in the extortion letters without damaging her reputation.  That also explains why you don’t see lawyers for the trolls posting here.
You can’t openly post what’s claimed in the letters without looking like a scammer.
So, the only option left is to suppress what they’ve written and signed their name to.
The only exception appears to be lawyer Carolyn Wright, whom I believe has some articles of value.

Righthaven has illustrated how bad it can get.
Also, I don’t believe for a moment that Tylor (affiliated with Hawaiian Art Network) doesn’t know that his photos are offered for free all over the web.
Riddick’s claims were garbage from day one, and I feel sorry for anyone who gave in and paid him.

I believe that anyone who demands monetary damages relating to property that they do not legally own is pulling a scam.
I don’t think “scam” is too harsh a word.  In such cases, the money simply isn’t owed.

I don’t speak for ELI, but it’s my opinion that those who expect it to be ELI’s job to market the actions of copy trolls in the best light possible are out of touch with reality.
If most people received a gas bill of ten-thousand dollars, they’d ask to see the meter reading.  If the gas company said, “we don’t reveal meter readings unless we go to court”, they be screwed in short order.
The same is true for the copyright trolls; what is the actual evidence of the claim?

I hope that the approach on this forum doesn’t go too “soft”.  Listen to Rammstein or Metallica while you post if you have to.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

Oscar is absolutely right. We have gotten enough grief over "extortion" and the ELI name absolutely stays. 

Last thing, I am sorry if I caused any confusion over the intent of this thread.  NO NAME CHANGES was ever intended, only alternative phrasing for SEO and conversation purposes.

Matt and I have certainly caught enough grief over the years over the term "extortion" to the point where I have started collecting  uses of the term colloquially in the media or in court papers to be able to show to those offended by its use. I highly doubt that Matt will ever change the name of the site nor do I think he should.  I also am always amazed at how some are hurt by the term "extortion" yet in their own extortion letters they accuse the end user of "Stealing" and  "theft" without any proof that they stole anything.