ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on June 07, 2012, 02:00:53 PM
-
I have stated many times that ELI isn't a charity service anymore. ELI has to be a self-sustaining business interest for Oscar and I. We don't have to get rich but ELI cannot be a deficit. Oscar, BuddhaPi, and I have a current understanding of how the current ELI model works and stays in existence. I still put in an inordinate amount of time compared to what is paid into ELI.
Having said that, Glen Carner is hanging out with us picking our brains doing the PR thing on the ELI Forums getting all kinds of visibility and huge value. Not to mention, his letter victims come here for help only to see Glen Carner chatting it up with the ELI Defense Team and the ELI Community. It is a weird picture to envision.
Thus far, it has been somewhat entertaining for us to read his posts. However, we were curious as to what he had to say so we let him run with it. However, I am sure it is a little bit more serious for him because of the thorn ELI has been to him. I can promise you that as entertaining as he has been, his ELI involvement is very self-serving. He gains far more benefit than ELI does.
It occurs to me he is burning up my time and jumping into our community and getting all kinds of "free" benefits. For the normal letter recipient, I don't have a problem chiming away but I don't care for the idea of Glen coming here using tapping into the ELI Community Mindshare and the ELI Marketing machine for his personal and business benefit.
Given that, I am going to pose the question to Glen to see how much of a monthly ELI Contribution he will make to hang out here. If the answer is too low, Glen's time on the ELI Forums comes to a very sudden end. I may even delete his existing messages. I normally would not delete other people's messages but his case is very different.
At this time, Glen "owes" ELI nothing but his time of hanging with us on the ELI dime is over. Glen has been here nearly daily so I know he will see this message. If he "conveniently" ignores this message, his ELI account will be terminated.
If Glen agrees to make a "reasonable" monthly ELI Contribution to support ELI as other contributors have done, he can hang with us on a very conditional basis. I will be ruthless in the collections and watching his activities. I will have no hesitation to kill his account and all his PR posts. He will still have to follow the rules. We will always have the right to end his involvement at any time.
Some of the ELI Community members may object to this but Oscar and I have been very open of how we started, grew, evolve, and why we are still around. And given that I consider ELI a valuable resource, for someone like Glen to have free reign to hang out here on ELI for free with the very people he/HAN has extorted from without him paying any price rubs me the wrong way and it will stop.
I have conferred with BuddhaPi and Oscar on my decision and intent and they understand my position on the matter.
If Glen pays a reasonable monthly amount to ELI, he stays. If not, his time is over. No more free rides for Glen when we have other extortion letter recipients having to pay for ELI resources. It is simply twisted to make letter recipients pay to help support ELI and Glen Carner and his ilk get a free ride.
It isn't going to happen any longer on my watch. Glen, it is time to pay up to ELI as your victims have had to do or you need to say your goodbyes today.
-
I sincerely hope that he takes Lucia with him.
S.G.
-
How many thousands was Carner trying to extract from EVNL?
I think that would be a perfect number for his contribution to staying on ELI.
If he doesn't want to pay to play, show him the door. That's my two bits worth.
-
Matthew,
The only thing I feel more passionately about than extortion is free speech. I've always said, your forum, your rules. But if you decide anyone is required to pay money to participate on these forums, I will have to resign as a ELI team member. I was the one that initially emailed and asked Glen to join these forums. We were all quite surprised when he showed up. Now, suddenly he is a huge burden? Frankly I don't get it, but I suspect my goals and those of this forum have somehow diverged.
-
My vote goes with McFilms to some degree, sorry Matt. I understand in some ways Glen is like a spammer (advertiser) but if not too excessive seems ok. Also people here have asked him these questions. Well its your forum and he has the gold rules.
-
Be nice, SG. Lucia is a "regular" contributor. We don't all have to agree 100% of the time.
I sincerely hope that he takes Lucia with him.
-
Matt, I agree with your statements that.....
"Glen Carner is hanging out with us picking our brains doing the PR thing on the ELI Forums getting all kinds of visibility and huge value. Not to mention, his letter victims come here for help only to see Glen Carner chatting it up with the ELI Defense Team and the ELI Community. It is a weird picture to envision."
However, please keep in mind that any "burning up of time" is a "choice" on any member's part. :) Also, any "free benefits" that Mr. Carner may obtain is dependent upon a "willingness to respond". :)
My personal opinion is that I feel a person should have the right to free speech however, I do respect that this IS YOUR forum and business and therefore it is obviously your choice to make.
8)
-
Matthew,
The only thing I feel more passionately about than extortion is free speech. I've always said, your forum, your rules. But if you decide anyone is required to pay money to participate on these forums, I will have to resign as a ELI team member. I was the one that initially emailed and asked Glen to join these forums. We were all quite surprised when he showed up. Now, suddenly he is a huge burden? Frankly I don't get it, but I suspect my goals and those of this forum have somehow diverged.
It would be a shame to lose you or any of our regular team members over a disagreement....agree to disagree ...
-
I'll take a risk at being thrown under the bus for a change of pace..
I will continue to support ELI in any way I can, regardless of what comes of this. And I fully support Oscars' and Matthews' position, but dammit MC did you have to throw the FREE SPEECH thing in there?? This is exactly why I think we have a good community, we all see things from a different perspective.
I'm not completely sold on the idea that Glen is here for his stated and intended purpose, I'm trying to, but all I am seeing AT THIS POINT is a PR multi-pronged campaign, as well as a bunch of questions that have gone unanswered.
Do I really care if he answers?, not really that's on him, and I also really don't care if he stays or if he goes. If he is intent on making changes he will do this on his own with or without our help or hindrance.
so with all that being said perhaps we need to rethink this option.. I hate to back-pedal, but I do need to try to be fair to all involved......
-
I have got a suggestion :
Glen should stay under one condition: As long as he is discussing with us here he has to stop his demand letters for this period of time. If he decides to stick to his program he should leave and stay away.
-
Matthew..."It is a weird picture to envision." Never thought we'd see the day
-
While I like this suggestion, we would have no way of really knowing and quite frankly I'm not so sure I trust him at this point..I would have less of a problem with him being here if he wasn't always trying to spin things to take advantage of the PR that the ELI machine brings...both good and bad
I have got a suggestion :
Glen should stay under one condition: As long as he is discussing with us here he has to stop his demand letters for this period of time. If he decides to stick to his program he should leave and stay away.
-
I side with the free speech folks on this issue. Not because I like Glen Carner or any of his answers, and I despise his non-answers. It's because I believe that free speech is one of the things that is right with this country. And it's not really free if it is only for my friends and those who agree with me.
In this particular case, however, I am not going to resiqn from ELI if Glen is booted out. But that is because I don't believe that Glen Carner is sincere about why he is here. And although I don't agree with everything about this forum (or almost anything else for that matter), I think ELI does a lot more good than harm.
So, with or without you Glen, I am still here - as long as I see the good outweigh the rest.
-
I'm not really sure what to say here. I will continue to communicate with McFilms if he has questions or comments like we have in the past. I appreciate the time you have given me and even though it has been brutal, I knew what to expect when I came here. In general, all of you were courteous and tolerant of hearing the "other sides" views. I am glad to see some of the questions and concerns about my company's spoken to, and regret not clarifying those points earlier.
Please consider this one thing if I am not able to post here any more.
The "ELI Attorney Warning System." What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI. It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate. Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them? They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.
Thank you.
-
Ok Glen. Why is it that you do not send first a " Cease" letter too ????
-
Absolutely Right Khan! I second that.
-
Ok Glen. Why is it that you do not send first a " Cease" letter too ????
EXACTLY my first thought, innocent infringers and others are not getting a "second chance".. any lawyer should know what is over the top and any lawyer should at the very least do a little research into the case...ya know is this image really worth this much?..but again most of these new lawyers only see dollar signs..
-
I'm sure that Matt/Oscar will say that it's not ELI's job to "educate" lawyers.
That's what law school is for, along with all the ethics courses.
In any case, once a lawyer has broken legal/ethics laws, and it lands on ELI's doorstep, the damage is already done.
I see some of the suggestions given on this forum these days, and I really have to just shake my head.
The suggestions of "making nice-sounding phone calls", and "warn lawyers when they cross the line, after the damage is done"?
But, let's just ignore all the laws that are in place?
What planet are these people even on?
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0jz3novys1r8ffrs.jpg
S.G.
-
Glen,
The "ELI Attorney Warning System." What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI. It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate. Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them? They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.
My first reaction is agreeing to would not be fair to letter recipients. One of the difficulties for recipients is that until they recieve a letter, recipients are operating in a total information vaccuum. If they recieve an outrageous letter, they have no way of knowing whether others have recieved similar letters, how the letter they recieved stacks up relative to other letters, or what sorts of outcomes to expect for different sorts of responses. Posting letters fills the knowledge gap for these people, inform them they are not the only ones to recieve these. If all the outrageous ones are kept off the web, letter recipients will have little way learning about the issue.
Another difficulty is you when you request "ELI" contact you, you are actually asking some ELI person to perform an uncompensated service to benefit for you and your attorney.
A third difficulty is that we all strongly suspect that for every letter posted at ELI, numerous other letters are never sent to Matt. So, it's quite possible that the 'first time' offender has sent out several other similar letters. None of use participating at ELI have anyway of knowing.
The fourth difficulty is: This won't work. The reason it won't work is that even if ELI promisses not to post these things, there is nothing to prevent the letter recipients themselves from posting them. After that, people will link saying "look what I posted".
It's true that it may seem harsh to damage the career or a new attorney for life. But these letters are often harsh and can damage the lives and relationships of letter recipients.
I think a better way to protect the newbie attorneys is for clients like you who hire them to take two steps:
1) Inform them of the dangers of sending out letters that are too harsh. Show them examples that went overboard and
2) to review the letters to determine whether the monetary demand is clealry overboard, whether the language is too extreme and so forth. Some letters are sent out on your behalf, and if you are worried about the career of the young attorney who has entered into a business relationship with you, you are the one who needs to take steps to review the letter and make sure that it is not outrageous.
Asking ELI to take on the burden of doing this task for you seems inappropriate.
-
If a certain lawyer is warned, they would most likely not take the case? If they did take the case, would that change the amount of the settlement demand or simply the way it is written. How would this warning assist those seeking collection? This idea would hinder the bottom line $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Warning a lawyer who has ulterior motives to threaten & instil fear for the purpose of making a lot of money $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Bottom line is one must choose to stand for what is ethical & what is right whether he/she is a plumber, teacher, cashier or a lawyer. Why should they be for-warned? All one needs is a conscience not a WARNING!
-
Glen,
The "ELI Attorney Warning System." What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI. It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate. Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them? They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.
My first reaction is agreeing to would not be fair to letter recipients. One of the difficulties for recipients is that until they recieve a letter, recipients are operating in a total information vaccuum. If they recieve an outrageous letter, they have no way of knowing whether others have recieved similar letters, how the letter they recieved stacks up relative to other letters, or what sorts of outcomes to expect for different sorts of responses. Posting letters fills the knowledge gap for these people, inform them they are not the only ones to recieve these. If all the outrageous ones are kept off the web, letter recipients will have little way learning about the issue.
Another difficulty is you when you request "ELI" contact you, you are actually asking some ELI person to perform an uncompensated service to benefit for you and your attorney.
A third difficulty is that we all strongly suspect that for every letter posted at ELI, numerous other letters are never sent to Matt. So, it's quite possible that the 'first time' offender has sent out several other similar letters. None of use participating at ELI have anyway of knowing.
The fourth difficulty is: This won't work. The reason it won't work is that even if ELI promisses not to post these things, there is nothing to prevent the letter recipients themselves from posting them. After that, people will link saying "look what I posted".
It's true that it may seem harsh to damage the career or a new attorney for life. But these letters are often harsh and can damage the lives and relationships of letter recipients.
I think a better way to protect the newbie attorneys is for clients like you who hire them to take two steps:
1) Inform themof the dangers of sending out letters that are too harsh. Show them examples that went overboard and
2)to review the letters to determine whether the monetary demand is clealry overboard, whether the language is too extreme and so forth. Some letters are sent out on your behalf, and if you are worried about the career of the young attorney who has entered into a business relationship with you, you are the one who needs to take steps to review the letter and make sure that it is not outrageous.
Asking ELI to take on the burden of doing this task for you seems inappropriate.
Very very very well said Lucia!
-
If a lawyer is confident that his demand letters are legally, ethically, and morally correct, he should have no reason to fear a public examination of those letters. Of course that presupposes ethical and moral behavior on the part of the attorney, which near as I can tell isn't a given, especially with the copyright trolls in the profession.
None of these copyright trolling extortionists and their lawyers deserve a second chance. They know what they're doing. They're behaving like bullies for a quick buck. They deserve every bit of blow back that comes their way. Every bit. That blow back needs to come hard and fast the minute they dare try to pull off one of their schemes. Send these trolls running and screaming back into their dank and dirty caves where they belong.
-
I'm with Mulligan here.
Law schools cover all this stuff in quite a bit of detail.
We're sort of assuming that these rogue lawyers are somehow nice people that made mistakes.
Law school teaches ALL this stuff. Benefit of the doubt doesn't even come into it.
It's like being a doctor. You can't take out a kidney when somebody has a blown spleen.
There are consequences.
S.G.
-
Agreed!
I can't wait to see Mulligan's "Expose"!
LOL....
;D
-
What?1 you want mulligan to expose himself?! you dirty little peev!
Agreed!
I can't wait to see Mulligan's "Expose"!
LOL....
;D
-
What?1 you want mulligan to expose himself?! you dirty little peev!
Agreed!
I can't wait to see Mulligan's "Expose"!
LOL....
;D
LOL.....leave it to Bob.....
Exposé ...as in......(journalism), a form of investigative journalism
::)
-
AGREED - no warnings!
As Matthew stated, Oscar teaches his students to take on a case if & only they are willing to stand behind it in the public eye.
-
First, I wanted to let everyone know that Matt and I just had a delightful conversation. I always enjoy talking to him, even thought we might not always be 100% sympatico. I'm going to let him update everyone about the "free ride" issue. Let me just say that ELI is a private venture and Matthew is the person responsible for the web site, hosting, maintenance and building it up over the years. It truly is "his house" and he has every right to create the rules on this forum. I'll just say that I'll keep posting on here as long as everybody else is free to do so (or until I'm told to stop :) ).
Regarding Glen's recent suggestion, doesn't it seem like just the sort of thing you'd want to put out there if you were defending a Extortion Letter counter suit? You'd be able to say, "Look, your honor, I am out trying to find solutions to this. I put forth the idea that these ELI people notify an esteemed attorney before they complain about them. Those savages." Seriously?
As has already been pointed out, how about YOU warn the attorney, or better yet, why not calculate a reasonable claim in the first place? And why exactly is posting the information in these demand letters and who is behind them such a big secret that it is capable of ruining reputations?
-
Just so everyone knows, mcfilms (Jerry) and I had a long talk about this. I made my case and shared a lot of things he may not have been aware for. He made his case favoring free speech and I understand his sentiments except that ELI isn't "public property".
At the end of the day ELI is private property (mine) and a private forum that I do my best to open up to most people. But Glen is here to advance his PR cause (HAN & CSI) using the private platform. We engage in a lot of "marketing" efforts here to expand the ELI reach. I do most of the heavy-lifting in that department. If Glen wants to start his own forum at CSI or HAN website, he can and he can post his message to his heart's content. If people want to engage him on his website or private email, I can't stop him.
I put too much of my time and energy into ELI for some "outsider" to come in and to pedal his propaganda however well intentioned it might be. These forums are primarily for letter recipients NOT the letter extortionists. ELI is a huge platform and he knows it. That is why he is here. Otherwise, he could have started his own blog and forum and talk to his community (and still can). He knows we have the readership and this is where it matters. Why should he get a free ride when his letter victims have to pay? That make no sense to me.
I don't think Glen is fundamentally evil but his goals are incongruent with ELI which focuses on reporting and defending against the stock photo industry and similar extortionists. If he cares enough to be here, he will make an ELI contribution. If not, he is all talk which is just fine. But that simply means he wants to resume fleecing extortion letter recipients. Talk is cheap.
ELI requires financial support. Oscar pays, BuddhaPi pays, and I pay to keep ELI running. Why should Glen NOT pay when he represents his own business and stands to gain from pedaling his propaganda on ELI. Plenty of forums to post on, why here?
I told Jerry I did not want to lose him as an ELI Defense Team member. The position admittedly has crappy pay and benefits. No doubt about it. I understood if Jerry would ultimately want to remove his association with ELI but I would rather he didn't.
I promised Jerry I would give this more time until the end of the month and Glen can continue communicating what he needs or wants to for now. That is more than enough time for Glen to get the feedback he needs from everyone and impart whatever message he wants from the ELI community.
That is where I am currently at with this. I have done this out of my high respect for Jerry to not be too impulsive. But I do not see myself allowing Glen to be here past June 30. For me, it is irrelevant if he his here or not. We will continue the mission as we have been.
At some point, I will probably do a video to better elaborate my thoughts. I trust Jerry will chime in soon now that he has spoken with me.
Matthew,
The only thing I feel more passionately about than extortion is free speech. I've always said, your forum, your rules. But if you decide anyone is required to pay money to participate on these forums, I will have to resign as a ELI team member. I was the one that initially emailed and asked Glen to join these forums. We were all quite surprised when he showed up. Now, suddenly he is a huge burden? Frankly I don't get it, but I suspect my goals and those of this forum have somehow diverged.
-
Jerry (mcfilms) has convinced me to slow this down a bit. I have elected to slow it down to June 30 to give enough time for Glen to engage ELI and vice-versa. That is more than enough time to get what everyone needs to be said out there. I cannot foresee going past this date but Jerry and I will be in touch to revisit this in the weeks to come.
My vote goes with McFilms to some degree, sorry Matt. I understand in some ways Glen is like a spammer (advertiser) but if not too excessive seems ok. Also people here have asked him these questions. Well its your forum and he has the gold rules.
-
I really wish that Oscar had more time to chime in here. But I understand that he's busy, and he certainly has no obligation.
It's my personal opinion that some clearly do not understand the concept of law, the law itself, or what it actually means to be a lawyer.
I firmly believe that some of the disagreements here stem from the above misunderstandings.
While "free speech" is paramount, so many of the arguments made here don't hold any weight against what the law says.
It's abundantly clear to me that many of the "suggestions", and "positions" presented here are constructs intended to overcome the problem that most claims do not satisfy the test of law.
Additionally, further "suggestions", and "positions" made are clearly intended to protect some lawyers that have taken shocking liberties in their chosen profession.
A profession that's a privilege, not a right.
I'd like to see more people ask themselves, "how does that satisfy the law?" before they post.
Different methods of doing business in terms of PR/Marketing does nothing to increase legal standing.
S.G.
-
Jerry (mcfilms) advocates for your ability to speak out here. It is only because of my respect for him that I am extending your free ride to June 30. I fully expect that you will be too cheap to pay for the marketing & PR activities you are engaging in. It is a bit interesting but you still happily extract extortionate amounts from the letter recipients to this day.
Regarding the "one strike" issue. I don't recall any letter recipient being let off with a warning. Someone running a stop sign or speeding would have a better chance getting off with a warning from a police officer than from extortionists in the stock photo industry. Even when they don't pursue a letter recipient, they don't have the decency to say "We will let this one go. Don't do it again." They will let them stress for the entire 3 years on the statute of limitations.
Many lawyers constantly brag about how smart they are and they have no hesitation to make legal threats they can't keep. Well, I told you already. I don't like to bluff. We will continue reporting as long as letter recipients keep sending in letters. That is no bluff. Simple as that.
If they don't want to be reported, then maybe they shouldn't piss and upset people so much they feel the need to get help.
I'm not really sure what to say here. I will continue to communicate with McFilms if he has questions or comments like we have in the past. I appreciate the time you have given me and even though it has been brutal, I knew what to expect when I came here. In general, all of you were courteous and tolerant of hearing the "other sides" views. I am glad to see some of the questions and concerns about my company's spoken to, and regret not clarifying those points earlier.
Please consider this one thing if I am not able to post here any more.
The "ELI Attorney Warning System." What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI. It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate. Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them? They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.
Thank you.
-
I trust Jerry will chime in soon now that he has spoken with me.
I did. Just prior to your post. (Just wanted to make sure you saw it.)
-
quid pro quo: What about Glen stop sending any letters out until June 30 8)
-
Seems from Glen's response that he and his constituents are well aware of what the lawyers they retain are doing. It's obvious the trumped up claims with immediate threat of litigation are intended to one thing -- scare people into a quick settlement and hoping they ignore the facts of law at hand. They contain unsupportable misrepresentations (or I guess more bluntly lies) twisted and stated as facts shrouded in legalease, intended to bring a trumped up damage value claim that are completely irrelevant and unsupportable without these lies. They didn't get in there by accident.
But recipients should call them and let them know they made a mistake?
Hahaha.. Come on.. Mistake.. Some of these letters are unbelievable and I am starting to wonder if some states frivolous litigation statues would provide some recourse for defendants in counter-claims to also recover from lawyers rolling the dice with these letters, because clearly they should know and from Glen's response DO know what they are doing. And he comes here and makes a mockery of "help us understand" something they have engineered to be what it is.
The surprising this is the recent round of allegedly better caliber law firms getting tied up in this mix. Makes me wonder if top brass at law firms like Conrad and Sherer know they have staff lawyers participating in games like this? To go from representing George Bush to this crap? I realize the economy is bad, but wow.. If I was considering them or similar lawyers for a large corporate or government project, I'd have to ask myself what was going on over there.
-
For me personally, all of this got much less interesting when the discussions went away from "evidence" and "law", and more towards "let's listen and hear him out", "why would you think that he's a bullshit artist?", and "let's give him the benefit of the doubt".
The latter have nothing to do with whether or not he's owed money.
S.G.
-
Seems like just double downing... The original letters are based on one part fear and a major part gullbility - to believe it because it is written down and a lawyer said it. Now its the same thing again.. Let's see if I can convince this group they have me all wrong.... It's almost like if they are stupid enough to go for it the first time, they probably will go for it this time too.
As soon as he asked for tolerance of engineered, psychologically abusive "legal" (or perhaps "illegal") letters, his "efforts" on here should have insulted anyone reading it. I seriously doubt anyone on here would have ignored a good faith email or call from them to discuss accidental use of an image. Sheesh, after going through expense of having to redo website that used a freely distributed open license image, these guys should be apologizing for letting these be released all over the place and causing this confusion in the first place. I'm sure it's just that they didn't understand what they were doing back then, right.. But all the letter recipients SURELY understood they were "stealing" and "remove copyrights" ... Yeah...
Things like this ultimately come around to bite those involved in the ass.
-
There really is nothing else to say Glen has solved the problem for himself.
From Glen Carner:
" The "ELI Attorney Warning System." What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI. It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate. Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them? They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.
Thank you."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I now change my position and no longer side with McFilms, Now I officially support charging Glen to be on the site along with that "boy" from the Ellis Camp. It reminds me of George Orwell's book Animal Farm. I paraphrase "we are all equal its just some of us are more equal than others" . So now we solve the entire problem by giving the lawyers the benefit of the doubt ?????@!#$%^&*()
Michael
-
Not to diminish the words of pastor Martin Niemöller, but:
First they came for the trolls,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll.
Then they came for the lawyers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a lawyer.
Then they came for the troll supporters,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll supporter.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-
Im not for silencing Glen Carner, for whatever that's worth.
He seems to be looking here for help in figuring out how he can make people feel better about overpaying for accidental infringement. SG's answer is all he needs to know in that regard (no one is going to pay these high fees even if the letter is from kindly Uncle Glen or something to that effect).
The attorney early warning proposal is just absolutely dripping with irony. I suppose that would be OK is he did the same with a "accidental infringement early warning-free strike one". That has nothing to do with maximizing his revenue, so I doubt he would give it any consideration. Why is he worried about lawyer's rep anyway? Is he starting to have trouble finding lawyers that will participate in trolling? Score for ELI!
What would be more interesting from Glen would be to see any proof he might have that no seeding is going on (either intentional or passively permitted). Glen, I challenge you to address this directly and thoroughly here on the forum.
There is probably no need to force him off the forum . . . I think if he keeps getting the message above, he will eventually get frustrated and just stop coming around.