ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Anotherextortee on February 07, 2012, 08:50:27 AM
-
Hello Everyone,
New here, and I did do a bunch of research, but was unable to find an answer to a couple of questions I have.
Yesterday the first "certified" letter was sent to a previous address of mine. Naturally the resident of that address refused delivery. I only know about it because I converse with them occasionally. Historically the letters I have received were not certified. Does this indicate some sort of escalation in my case? I am worried of course because I did not see the actual letter. For all I know it could be some sort of summary judgement.
Also, I have seen a 3 year statue of limitations in several places, but have not been able to figure out when the clock start's ticking. Is it from point of discovery? Or from point of use? If the statue has run out, is there any recourse to prevent them from sending further communication?
-
well it's good they refused delivery!, It is probably an escalation notice, I doubt it would be any sort of judgement, as you were never "served" in the first place.
The 3 years is generally from the date of the original letter, it could be a bit sooner depending on how long they had it in their stack, so safely go by the date of the letter. At this point I would not do anything as they don't know where you are..
-
Yes, they can not just win a summary judgment. They would need to serve you first.
If I were you, I'd probably stop signing for certified letters and fed-ex for a while. They can still serve you... they would need to hire a process server and I suspect they won't go through that extra effort and expense.
-
I know that "laying low" isn't a very popular concept on the forum.
But, it`s the first step that everyone should take if possible.
We need to keep in mind what "winning" really means. It means not paying the copyright trolls.
"Facing it head on" as some have previously stated might mean that you get sued (thanks for your honesty!).
Then, you'll end up paying 100 dollars to talk to a lawyer for 30 minutes, paying a retainer of thousands, and 300 dollars hourly (or more for a "good" lawyer) afterwards.
So, now is the time to very careful what you sign for, watch out for "weird" phone calls, and get your workplace info off of LinkedIn.
Others feel that getting their name and story out there has value.
But that only has value if you`re a crusader like Matt, or a figure that the public will have sympathy for.
Besides, we`ve know for years what the trolls have been doing.
S.G.
-
Ok, I will play along on "laying low" a bit. However, I will paint a picture.
Let's say you are an employee that works for some company. If you are in the lower ranks, you can attempt to sanitize the web and expunge all traces of your existence. However, I have personal experience in finding blue-collar, deadbeat tenants, getting them served, winning, and then garnishing them. I don't get all of them but I get quite a few of them.
Yes, they try to dodge service and they succeed for a long while but then one day, they slip up and bam they get found and served. The issue is, for me, it is effortless to ping my people with a phone call or email once every 2 months. But the other side is constantly looking over their shoulders trying to lay low. It is very difficult to be vigilant 24-hours a day, 7-days a week looking over your shoulder.
The above scenario assumes you can stay low. If you are a higher-level managerial type or have a business, it is much more challenging to lay low because they can send things to the workplace or employer. (I've done this too).
Don't fool yourself, process servers work inexpensively around $50-$60 per serve (maybe a bit more depending on where you live). So, the serve itself is not expensive, only the lawsuit filing fee and the lawyer fee is.
What concerns me the most about the avoidance strategy is that it can spur your case on more. I tell people "your case isn't that special" but if you persistently avoid it, you might become "more special". People who avoid me sometimes succeed but I make a point to nail them with EVERYTHING than if they had made it easy for me.
Having said all that, Getty is run by a bunch of hourly collection clerks that have an incentive program. They probably will go after low-hanging fruit. However, misdirected and forwarding addresses aren't difficult to find.
I am not opposed to buying time to help run the clock out or to get educated. But 3 years is a long period of time to try to run out. Certainly, I wouldn't go out of my way to correct the issue but at some point you have to decide if the hidden costs of living underground is worth it.
Believe it or not, I don't like fights or conflict. I do my best to stay out of them. But if dragged into it, I am a big believe of "shock and awe" and using "overwhelming force" otherwise it becomes like Chinese water torture and gets dragged out infinitum.
I most whole-heartedly agree with what you said regarding "winning". So many don't seem to get it. Some want to keep trying to outdebate the other side and force them into submission or acknowledgment. They hate the uncertainty and it eats them up alive. And they end up showing their weakness because they are practically begging the other side for a settlement.
And regarding the "head on" approach, I don't necessarily say "screw you, come and get me" (at least to anyone's face). If you read my responses, I never took that approach. Mine was much more subtle. I certainly didn't invite or challenge anyone to come after me. But I do think some people really do literally say "screw you, if you want me then come get me". That is simply stupid and baiting someone.
I will confess that one rule probably doesn't fit all situations and circumstances. Gosh knows I have heard all kinds of stories and scenarios since 2008.
For me, I guess I don't think I could ever get away with running because I am too easy to find and would eventually get caught. I don't think I could be that vigilant always looking over my shoulders in that way. So, I just tell myself "I will have to face the music". Hence, I feel the need to take things head on.
The original poster probably needs to stay vigilant. His address will eventually get found. I do agree that without that signed first contact, he is in good shape. It should be easy to NOT sign a package or letter without checking to see who it is from first. It is a bit more difficult coordinating that effort if he has family members though that can sign for it. They would have to stay vigilant as well.
I know that "laying low" isn't a very popular concept on the forum.
But, it`s the first step that everyone should take if possible.
We need to keep in mind what "winning" really means. It means not paying the copyright trolls.
"Facing it head on" as some have previously stated might mean that you get sued (thanks for your honesty!).
Then, you'll end up paying 100 dollars to talk to a lawyer for 30 minutes, paying a retainer of thousands, and 300 dollars hourly (or more for a "good" lawyer) afterwards.
So, now is the time to very careful what you sign for, watch out for "weird" phone calls, and get your workplace info off of LinkedIn.
Others feel that getting their name and story out there has value.
But that only has value if you`re a crusader like Matt, or a figure that the public will have sympathy for.
Besides, we`ve know for years what the trolls have been doing.
S.G.
-
I agree with Matt on laying low. The best you can do is make it slightly more expensive for Getty/Han/Corbis etc. to find you. But if they have information that from their POV makes them think it's worth actually filing a suit against you, they have three years to do it in. Given this amount of time, the cost of finding almost anyone who owns or operates a web site and getting them served is just not that great.
-
So, you're saying that the Original Poster in the thread should call up Getty of MF and give them their contact info?
I strongly disagree if that's what you're saying.
In addition, I think that some of the arguments here assume that the trolls will go to the ends of the earth to find you.
That usually isn't the case. It's usually not worth it.
If you're quite difficult to find, it'll go away probably 50 percent of the time. I like those odds.
But, if people feel that they'll get off easier by calling up the trolls and saying "here I am", then that's an option, I guess.
If somebody does that, I hope that they'll report back and tell us what a "good deal" they got. lol.
If you're "laying low", then they "find you", it wouldn't change the material facts of your case.
Now, if you're actually "served" and you "disappear", there could be consequences.
Keep in mind that putting your name "out there" and exposing your communications with the trolls (while amusing) can get you into more heat than "laying low".
I wouldn't bait them too much. If they serve you (even out of spite), you're going to lay out a lot of cash to defend yourself.
If you get sued, you have to file a defence.
But, it's not my money, I guess...
Just my opinions.
S.G.
-
That's one of the great things about this forum! People taking different scenarios, thinking out of the box and sharing this with others. The more time that passes, more options are revealed, discussed, etc.. this all serves the greater purpose of educating the newcomers, so they are better armed to make their own decision on the best way to handle their own situations.
In my case I decided very early to hire Oscar rather than deal with these asshats at Getty, fast forward to today, and I would probably do it differently, now that I am much better armed.
-
I'm on both sides of the fence here. I agree with Soylent that why give up the info, make them work for it! However, if and when you do receive a demand letter, I agree with Matt that you should at least respond and ask questions so that if it does go to court, it shows good faith that you made an effort to try and resolve the issue. I also feel that there is a big difference between someone who is trying to "extort" money from you verses a "tenant" who refuses to pay the rent.
With all due respect to Matt, A lot has changed since Matt's "final response" to Getty in 2008. They now RESPOND to those questions asked regarding "proof" of registration and ownership. Granted, it is B.S. responses such as "those things will be disclosed during the discovery process". So for the "new comers", it appears that they have no intention of backing down with regard to these questions. I also strongly feel that a statement made by Matt in his first paragraph of his final letter made a HUGE impact...
"I have already taken it upon myself to consult with a well-established attorney that is more than familiar with copyright and intellectual property.". BAM.....end of story IMO.
-
I still maintain that in this case the OP has had a warning shot fired across the bow. If it's possible to lay low and make it difficult and/or expensive for his adversary to communicate with him at this juncture, then I say by all means do so. Of course if there has already been some communication via email or if his lifestyle is such that he cannot refuse registered mail, that's different.
This just struck me as an opportunity to make the stock company work for it. And there is the factor that they may just turn their attention to low hanging fruit.
-
@Peeved, I think the general response from getty when asked questions has always been, "we'll show the proof in court", which has always been an empty threat. I agree with making at least an initial contact, informing them the image has been removed and perhaps making an offer of good faith, as this would look good for you IF it goes to court.. I also like Mc's method of maddness, in making them work as hard as possible..all the while burning up time and effort..
-
Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threats" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.
So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all further correspondence after their "empty threats" which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!
;)
-
@Peeved, I think the general response from getty when asked questions has always been, "we'll show the proof in court", which has always been an empty threat. I agree with making at least an initial contact, informing them the image has been removed and perhaps making an offer of good faith, as this would look good for you IF it goes to court.. I also like Mc's method of maddness, in making them work as hard as possible..all the while burning up time and effort..
Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threat" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.
So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all furthur correspondence which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!
;)
Perhaps I should rephrase, up until now it has been largely an empty threat, as they rarely file suit ( as it is now)..
:-* :-*
-
@Peeved, I think the general response from getty when asked questions has always been, "we'll show the proof in court", which has always been an empty threat. I agree with making at least an initial contact, informing them the image has been removed and perhaps making an offer of good faith, as this would look good for you IF it goes to court.. I also like Mc's method of maddness, in making them work as hard as possible..all the while burning up time and effort..
Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threat" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.
So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all furthur correspondence which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!
;)
Perhaps I should rephrase, up until now it has been largely an empty threat, as they rarely file suit ( as it is now)..
:-* :-*
Completely understood and I happen to agree whole heartedly regarding the threats.
:-*
-
I know that "official folks" here can't really say "ignore it", and that's part of the reason that I didn't formally "join".
As for asking questions of Getty, they won't tell you anything other than "we won't provide that unless we go to court", and "you have to pay or we might take legal action".
So, I think that I've saved some people a lot of time with the above statement. Save your breath.
Just be forwarned that once you begin communications with these people, they'll bother you relentlessly.
Then, their lawyers will threaten you, and then they'll send it to collections which will pester you relentlessly.
There's a slim chance that you could be sued. So, now you know what to expect if you come forward.
Many pay just to make the threats stop.
Many people have "blogs" without much identifying info on them.
If you've been simply contacted by email, and they don't know your home address or workplace, I would not come forward.
Keep in mind that they won't know for sure if you're "ignoring them"; they may just think that a spam filter is intercepting their threats.
Had I "come forward", I could have been out nearly six figures by the time legal fees were included in the event of a loss.
Even if I had "won", I wouldn't have gotten my time and frustration back.
Even before court, coming forward would have meant a few different hundred-dollar consultations, a five-thousand-dollar retainer, 200 to 600 dollars for each letter written and 300 to 500 dollars an hour on top of that.
So just think about what kind of "fighting back" that you do.
"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu says "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."
S.G.
-
@SG, you may not have "joined" but make no mistake, you're one of us like it or not!
http://youtu.be/SVpN312hYgU
-
I know that "official folks" here can't really say "ignore it", and that's part of the reason that I didn't formally "join".
As for asking questions of Getty, they won't tell you anything other than "we won't provide that unless we go to court", and "you have to pay or we might take legal action".
So, I think that I've saved some people a lot of time with the above statement. Save your breath.
Just be forwarned that once you begin communications with these people, they'll bother you relentlessly.
Then, their lawyers will threaten you, and then they'll send it to collections which will pester you relentlessly.
There's a slim chance that you could be sued. So, now you know what to expect if you come forward.
Many pay just to make the threats stop.
Many people have "blogs" without much identifying info on them.
If you've been simply contacted by email, and they don't know your home address or workplace, I would not come forward.
Keep in mind that they won't know for sure if you're "ignoring them"; they may just think that a spam filter is intercepting their threats.
Had I "come forward", I could have been out nearly six figures by the time legal fees were included in the event of a loss.
Even if I had "won", I wouldn't have gotten my time and frustration back.
So just think about what kind of "fighting back" that you do.
"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu says "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."
S.G.
Totally concur....if you are NOT going to lawyer up, why waste your time and energy going back and forth with the exception of Mcfilms and Lucia as their cases are very different than the average letter recipient. As long as you have done your homework with regard to possible "registration" numbers and "exclusive rights", I still do not have an issue with responding with questions to show good faith, but completely understand the bottom line here.
Also completely understand that the "MFers" are a whole other ballgame!
;)
-
Lol'd, Buddhapi.
I gotta watch that again.
I'll rent it, not download it, though!!
S.G.
-
I agree with you to not make it easy. I agree with many points you make when you put your points out that way.
The reality is that the chances of being served is very low by virtue of very few lawsuits are filed. And the low-hanging fruit will always be the highest priority.
Regarding whether "coming out" is ultimately good or not is debatable. I had the same question early on. I thought that my coming out might make me more of a target to "make an example out of me". But keeping low also meant I would have to fight alone with very little leverage or opportunity to get help from anyone.
In that regard, it seemed like a "wash" to me. I gained some benefits and lost some.
Having said all that, in the interest of disclosure, I did have many things going my way in terms of my combat and defensive abilities that most people didn't.
Unlike many people, fighting the Getty letter controversy wasn't my first rodeo. I had experience with the Napoleon Hill Foundation vs. MasterMind Forums fiasco from 2000-2002. I led the fight on the CobraCollectionScam.com in my local city in 2007-2008. I did reporting on the sleazy "Incredible Discoveries" infomercial operations from 2007-2009. I did these using my identity. I leveraged my credibility and track record as a business person, publisher, author, and real estate investor into the projects. I did so because I believed it gave gravitas to my message. Building gravitas is important because it makes life easier.
Over the years, I would fight and often win (at least lower the charges/costs) against traffic tickets I would get. I been into court many times as a a plaintiff over landlord or small claims cases. I dealt with many lawyers over the years and so forth.
By the time I got around to dealing with the Getty letter, I had some idea of how to combat this using the Internet, publicity, joint ventures, partnering, etc.
What I am getting at is, there are many merits to what you are saying. You have good sound opinions. I guess in the end, it comes down to personality and style.
So, you're saying that the Original Poster in the thread should call up Getty of MF and give them their contact info?
I strongly disagree if that's what you're saying.
In addition, I think that some of the arguments here assume that the trolls will go to the ends of the earth to find you.
That usually isn't the case. It's usually not worth it.
If you're quite difficult to find, it'll go away probably 50 percent of the time. I like those odds.
But, if people feel that they'll get off easier by calling up the trolls and saying "here I am", then that's an option, I guess.
If somebody does that, I hope that they'll report back and tell us what a "good deal" they got. lol.
If you're "laying low", then they "find you", it wouldn't change the material facts of your case.
Now, if you're actually "served" and you "disappear", there could be consequences.
Keep in mind that putting your name "out there" and exposing your communications with the trolls (while amusing) can get you into more heat than "laying low".
I wouldn't bait them too much. If they serve you (even out of spite), you're going to lay out a lot of cash to defend yourself.
If you get sued, you have to file a defence.
But, it's not my money, I guess...
Just my opinions.
S.G.
-
Another piece of the SG puzzle comes into focus. So it appears that the "lay low" strategy can be effective in certain cases.
By the way, anyone ever notice that in the 70's Charleton Heston was the king of the end-of-the-world type flicks? Planet of the Apes, The Omega Man, Soylent Green...
-
No offense taken in this discussion, so we are all good.
But I am going to hop on my soapbox. (Yes, sigh, again....)
It is very true that many things have changed since I started in 2008. I don't hold my letter responses as being "definitive". I muddled my way through based on my resources and research at the time. But what wasn't muddied was my commitment to the fight.
It was great of Oscar to agree to be part of ELI shortly before my 2nd response letter went out. No question about that. He did help clarify some issues and help with some talking points.
But regarding the sentence you BOLDED about my consulting an informed attorney, I stated that for their benefit because I got tired of them beating that drum on me like I was a GD idiot and I threw it back into their faces.
I understand how different people could interpret the outcome of my case in different ways. I won't claim I am absolutely right but no one in this group except Oscar was there in 2008. Even then, he had no direct interactions with Getty on my behalf.
All of you are trying to imagine the environment in 2008. Let me tell you there was a lot of bitching, ranting, raving, and complaining by anonymous people. There was a dry desert of credible information to work with then compared to today. Maybe I did get lucky in a way as I did muddle my way through. But I also didn't sit on my tail waiting for a solution to fall on me. I actively built ELI and went out to find a "legal partner". If it wasn't Oscar, I was confident I would have eventually found another lawyer. I just happen to hit the right pitch to him at the right time.
At end of the day, I was the guy on the phone and slaved over for hours writing the letters that takes 5 minutes to copy and read. I was the guy in the middle of the night digging out the dirt on them on Google. I dove in the search engines more than anyone else I know AT THAT TIME. (Today, Buddhapi puts me down cold in digging.)
Let us not forget that they could have also thought that if I had consulted an attorney, why then wasn't he representing me? Why would I continue to write my own letters? It might have been a contributing factor but I don't think it was the singular show-stopper.
No one has to believe or accept my interpretation of the events. But it is what I have come up with.
Ok, I am off my soapbox now... :)
With all due respect to Matt, A lot has changed since Matt's "final response" to Getty in 2008. They now RESPOND to those questions asked regarding "proof" of registration and ownership. Granted, it is B.S. responses such as "those things will be disclosed during the discovery process". So for the "new comers", it appears that they have no intention of backing down with regard to these questions. I also strongly feel that a statement made by Matt in his first paragraph of his final letter made a HUGE impact...
"I have already taken it upon myself to consult with a well-established attorney that is more than familiar with copyright and intellectual property.". BAM.....end of story IMO.
-
I don't like to ping-pong for a long time. I eventually make a firm statement to back off or else be prepared for the consequences. Very much like our favorite female Canadian lawyer. She kept on with the threats until I said enough. Then I went on the offense.
If you read my 2nd letter closely, you will see there was a subtle message of what might happen to the individual employees if they continued on specifically regarding Chloe. I personally didn't feel the need to lawyer up because I was going to go on the attack on a different front. It is true it would not necessarily stop a lawsuit from coming my way but I have learned a long time ago to not fight with your opponent's rules. You make up the fighting rules you can win at.
Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threats" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.
So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all further correspondence after their "empty threats" which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!
;)
-
SG,
I take exception to that statement. That is not true, that is your assumption. It is true there are some philosophical similarities with the 4 of us but there are a fair amount of differences too. But no one is being asked to give up their personal opinions or positions by "joining". Oscar and I disagree on things. And I have never asked or even pressured mcfilms or buddhapi to preach a certain philosophy. The subtle differences is what makes us stronger and cover different angles.
If mcfilms or buddhapi want to recommend ignoring the letters, they can do that. I won't respect them any less. Oscar and I simply think a bit differently. And I have conceded that you made some good points in your argument in different situations.
If you want to stay independent as you have been, I have no problems with that. We love to continue seeing and hearing from you But please don't state things that are NOT there.
If I really had a problem with dissenting opinions on these forums, the "delete" link is very easy to click on which I don't do except for very specific and rare reasons.
I know that "official folks" here can't really say "ignore it", and that's part of the reason that I didn't formally "join".
-
No offense taken in this discussion, so we are all good.
First let me say that I'm so glad for that!
;)
Well, I'm so sorry that my statements made you feel that you had to defend yourself as that was not my intention at all. With regard to the "bolded statement", I simply felt that it was actually your Coup de grâce that's all.
I guess the point that I was trying to make is that the game has changed a little in 4 years. Given the fact that most of us do not have your background, experience, and an awesome website, intimidation factors may be a little more difficult to pull off for us little folk. Meaning, to get the trolls to completely "stop" without getting a lawyer, is a lot more challenging for some. That's all.
;)
You make up the fighting rules for which you can win.
Could not agree more with that statement.
:)