Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Matthew Chan

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 154
736
It's a flat fee program. The prices and information are listed here.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/2012-update-expansion-of-attorney-oscar-michelens-defense-letter-program/

Anyone here used the Defense Letter Program?  What happens next?
I'm kinda scared of what will happen.
If Getty will now only send letters to Oscar, does this mean I'm going to be billed by Oscar everytime he gets a letter? At $450/hour this will be more expensive than just paying Getty's demand.

Would love to hear your experience with the Defense Letter Program and what happens.

737
The time to settle is BEFORE you get sued, not AFTER you get sued.  It gets much more expensive.

If you have a concern of getting sued, you need to get on his Defense Letter Program.  It is a flat fee program and you will be in much better shape than if you wait.

738
http://Defiantly.net is Here!  Matthew Chan Unleashed! The Latest Drama & Controversies That Can't Be Published on ELI!

739
Now that Sony finally caved in to public pressure to release "The Interview", the coward corporate executives at the major movie theatres are complaining that Sony might release the move on video-on-demand (VOD). They don't want to show the movie that independent movie houses are more than willing to take the "risk" on.  Yet, they also don't want the movie shown on VOD.

The cowardice and stupidity of corporate executives during this Sony Hack has been very revealing.

740
The genius of Sony Pictures management is a gift that just keeps giving.  Now, Sony Pictures is threatening Twitter and @bikinirobotarmy for sharing emails that nearly every major news organization has been sharing. 

http://www.cnet.com/news/sony-threatens-to-sue-twitter-over-tweets-with-hacked-emails/
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sony-threatens-to-sue-twitter-unless-it-removes-tweets-containing-hacked-emails
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/22/7438287/sony-threatens-twitter-legal-action-ban-users-leaks

Of course, the difference between news organizations and Twitter is that it is not part of traditional media and the Twitter user is an individual.

Because Sony Pictures went out of its way to silence a Twitter user and its account, I had to go follow the @bikinirobotarmy account to see what I am missing. I am glad this news story hit or I would have never known about @bikinirobotarmy's Twitter account.

Because I am interested in all things media-related as well as the movie industry, thanks to Sony Pictures legal threats which has now been extensively reported, even more people have become aware of @bikinirobotarmy and the Sony emails.

741
And the hits keep coming to Sony Pictures.  After weeks of near silence, the CEO of Sony Pictures finally comes out of their hole in Sony Pictures to say something publicly.  It was only after President Obama embarrassed the crap out of them by essentially they were cowards.  Suddenly, they had the "courage" to speak out against the President because we all know he is so dangerous that he would channel government resources to attack a movie studio.

Sony Pictures (i.e. their dumb corporate drones still in shell shock from having their emails & personal info being outed) makes all kinds of excuses how a billion-dollar corporation can't find a way to release the movie because NO ONE wants to distribute it.  That is a joke. There was no shortage of smaller media websites willing to pay the costs and take on the "liability" of showing the movie.

It was reported by The Hollywood Reporter that George Clooney passed around a petition so that other movie studios could stand in public solidarity but NO ONE would sign it.  NO INDIVIDUAL or employee from any movie studio from the CEO on down would be willing to be THE PERSON to sign the petition.  You see, even if there is a billion-dollar corporation with huge resources, NO INDIVIDUAL dared step out to sign a petition.

As you think about this, also notice that in recent years any article written about Getty Images and its extortion letter program is always quoted by a "spokesperson of Getty Images". No name is ever mentioned. I have no doubt it is at the request of this "unknown" *cough* Lisa Willmer & cohorts *cough* "spokesperson".  Essentially, Getty Images uses "anonymous" spokespeople because with the media because no employee is willing to put their name out there for Getty.  All the while, they cuss at me, Oscar, and the ELI community in their private offices for us being "bad" people for naming names.

But the employees of Getty Images are willing to write "hidden" complaints letters about me and Oscar, right Mr. Bug-eyes? However, that is only because they never expected to them to see the light of day. 

The bumbling idiots of Sony Pictures have been insulated behind their cushy offices and corporate mommies for their entire existence.  That is why people who are much "smaller" and accustomed to putting themselves out there have so much disrespect and laughing at these "powerful" executives who are just cowering in fear and confusion.

All they know how to do is throw money at the problem.  They had to hire famous lawyer David Debois to speak out and "threaten" the media and anyone reporting on the contents of the hacked media.  Dumb.  Now they have hired Judy Smith (woman who inspired Kerry Washington's character in TV show "Scandal") to help "craft a message". (How about just releasing the fucking movie without being yelled at or being called out, you morons. And when your reputation is being raked through sewer, you should do something good and stop worrying about how much money you might lose about releasing the movie.  It is called goodwill, morons!  You win by putting revenues as a second priority.)

The truth of the matter is the Sony Pictures executives are just clueless and gutless wonders who cannot glean what so many people have figured out.  They are worried about "liability". Well, so many smaller movie houses were happy to take on this "liability" but Sony Pictures refused to let them play it. Even the 2004 movie "Team America" was blocked by Paramount from showing at movie houses because it had a puppet of the previous North Korean dictator!  The spinelessness goes way beyond Sony Pictures.

The hack was a way to scare and censor the movie studios.  And because no movie studio dared speak out in support of Sony Pictures, it goes to show that they are the same type of cowards. There is an axiom that the bigger you are, the more you fear losing.  It appears to hold true now.

Recently, Getty Images tried to put on this front that they changed their ways and going to make their letters more reasonable.  Wow, so nice of generous of them.  I am sure the ELI Community had NOTHING to do with this move.  According to Alexa.com, we have nearly 200 well-earned and well-deserved incoming links from other websites. We have never paid or begged anyone for those incoming links.

Getty Images is made up of gutless boobs that cannot survive outside of their corporate mommies. They always talk tough on BEHALF of Getty Images, not expressing their personal opinions.  That is why every individual who tries to extort money from victims should be named and called out.  ELI has never hacked anyone. All the information we have ever published and shared has been legitimately obtained but behind-the-scenes, they try to prevent it.

And to let everyone know, a few years back a manager of Getty Images approached Oscar (instead of me who is the founder, owner, and chief administrator of ELI whom Oscar would ultimately have to approach and communicate anyhow since he has no administrative rights to ELI) about removing the name of the employee I called out and listed on ELI for my extortion letter in 2008.  That ex-Getty Images employee left the company and suddenly found herself at another position in another company and suddenly found her association with the Getty Images "copyright compliance" to be a "problem" for her own career. I agreed to take her name down because she was actually respectful to me during the two times I dealt with her and didn't persist in my case.

A year ago, another ex-employee from Getty Images (an inhouse lawyer) sent an email asking me to remove his name from ELI. Well, too bad. He was an inhouse lawyer of Getty Images and there was nothing inaccurate that was reported except that he ended his employment at Getty Images.

Well maybe these ex-employees of Getty Images should band together and complain to Getty Images for putting their careers in jeopardy. IF someone wants to get into the extortion business over de minimus infringements with sloppy copyright registrations, they should expect people to hate them and get called out on it.  Sure, someone "made" them do it because Getty Images held a gun to their head.

Even if you felt compelled to pay, never give up your right to speak out loudly and name names.  They may get a few dollars from you but the person's name becomes mud online for a long time to come. That is why I say that I may not win every battle that come my way but my enemies will know and remember they have been in a fight with me. I will see it to that there are "scars" to remember. (That was a metaphor, Mr. Screenshot King of Seattle, Timmy-Boy  "Getty Lapdog" McCormack.)

Every time you read about Sony Pictures and how clueless they are, it isn't just the movie studios, it is nearly every corporation that encourages an internal culture of corporate droneheads.  That would squarely include companies like Getty Images.  Their behavior has been entirely consistent with Sony Pictures.  They try to paint a picture like they are all-knowing.  Well, at ELI, we see their "all-fails" and laugh at them. No matter what happens with anyone else, they can rest assure they will always be looked at as losers and hated.

And if anyone disbelieves me, we have a huge database of people (that grows with every passing week) would agree with me that Getty Images and all of their ilk are well hated and wish only the worst for them.

The hits keeping coming. And every time I think of the moronic leadership of Sony Pictures I think of the management within Getty Images.

742
This post may unnerve some people but it goes to the heart of what I've been saying since the early days of ELI. It has been interesting watching the Sony Entertainment Pictures hacker crisis: a powerful, major media corporation being felled by hackers who released a bunch of inside information.  I won't detail the huge financial, cultural, media, and overall influential power of Sony Entertainment Pictures. Anyone can do an online search themselves to get such information but suffice it to say that Sony Pictures, as a media company, is considered an elephant and a big deal in the world of media.  Getty Images, Masterfile, and all these other companies don't hold a candle to how large, powerful, and influential Sony really is.

But I want all extortion letter victims to pay attention and learn the lesson that I have been preaching.  When you fight back or make a stand against an organization much larger and powerful than yourself, always remember they are made of individuals like you and me.  They cloak and hide themselves behind a corporate and organizational veil and attempt to show how big and powerful they are.  This only works if YOU fight back on THEIR terms.

In less than a month, Sony Pictures has literally been brought to their knees by a few hackers.  All the hackers did was release and disseminate private and personal information on the INDIVIDUALS and how they act and behaved BEHIND the corporate veil.  Let me be clear, I believe what the hackers of Sony did was illegal and I would never condone that.  However, I am absolutely certain there are many people who are quite gleeful of what happened to Sony and that many within Sony was brought down from their pedestal.

As a First Amendment advocate, I believe Sony and the movie producers had every right to produce and market the movie "The Interview". But despite all their financial backing and power, Sony was essentially defeated and scared into submission because of the onslaught and damages wrought on the INDIVIDUALs of Sony.  The mighty and powerful Sony Pictures Chairman Amy Pascal and her executives have been attacked in a way never seen before in history.

Despite the fact there has been no outrage or demand by U.S. Citizens to pull "The Interview", Sony Pictures and the movie cinema industry have decided to withdraw "The Interview" despite the fact that this "small" movie starring two comedian actors has gotten worldwide attention in a way never seen before in history.  From a marketing point of view, it is a movie that DEMANDS to be watched, if for no other reason to spite the North Koreans.

The people within Sony Pictures have been brought down by the onslaught of PERSONAL INFORMATION released into the public.  Not just the Social Security numbers, email addresses, passwords, and salaries.  But the emails of what they said and how they behaved behind closed doors. Rumors have it that many stars are living in fear now because much of their personal information was discussed within Sony.  Many of these allegedly powerful stars that so many people revere to unhealthy levels might be shown to be NORMAL human beings with NORMAL human failings.

There is no question that Sony Pictures employees now live in fear.  Many likely took great pride that they made good money and they were employed by this prestigious, powerful, famous, influential company as Sony Pictures.  However, the decisions and responses being made by Sony indicate they are paralyzed by fear and uncertainty.  Not because of any CREDIBLE threats against them on a personal level.  But because the hackers took that information and smartly pointed and informed news organizations of the hacked information.

There is no question what the hackers did is clearly illegal.  But notice how many respectable and credible news organizations are gleefully and enthusiastically going through this private information KNOWING that it was the result of hacked (illegally obtained information) and riding this for all its worth.  And, of course, readers like me who are interested in media, movies, business, etc. are DEVOURING the information as quickly as they are released. All the while Sony Pictures employees are reeling from all of this.

Of course, Sony Pictures in their desperation has hired the legally famous lawyer, David Boies, to send a veiled threat to all the news media and tech bloggers to stop reading and reporting on this hacked and illegally obtained information.  To the best of my knowledge, not one of them have stopped reporting even after receiving the threat letter. They cite First Amendment rights to report on the information and that it is newsworthy.

Of course, anyone who understands the Streisand Effect knows that Sony only made it worse by bringing in David Boies to issue a veiled threat to the news organizations and the tech blogger community.  Nearly all of them went public with their respective letters and the reporting of Sony's private information continues on.

Now, it sounds like I am happy about what happened to Sony Pictures as if I had an axe to grind with them. I don't. I am entirely neutral about it and I have no connection to Sony Pictures whatsoever beyond being a movie and video-viewing consumer.  That is it.  Nothing personal for me regarding Sony Pictures.  But the news, information, and lessons being learned are HUGE to anyone paying attention. 

Watch how fearful the employees of this supposedly powerful company behaves. Watch how quickly the entire movie industry caved in to NOT showing "The Interview" move once hacker attacks were directed to the INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES and not the company themselves.  Watch how so many powerful other movie companies that SHOULD BE Sony allies are deathly silent.  Watch how the First Amendment works and who makes it work for them.  Watch how the Streisand Effect works even with the biggest, powerful companies.  Watch how news gets disseminated and embedded into search engines.  Watch how NOT being authentic and real comes back to bite people.  There is so much to watch and learn from the Sony Pictures ordeal but you have to open your mind to it.

The lessons I have been taking from the Sony Picture crisis is priceless.  And at risk of being boisterous and self-congratulatory, many controversial ideas I have shared on ELI have proven to be true and correct.  AS it relates to ELI, always remember the parties (employees and lawyers) who threaten you are often weak and fearful INDIVIDUALS when called into the light. While I do not condone or endorse hacking because it is illegal, the power of the right information being released and shared can be more powerful than having an army of lawyers on your side.

ELI exists to OPENLY SHARE and REPORT INFORMATION.  Anonymous sharing is allowed.  The First Amendment is fully in effect as well as Section 230 of the CDA. 

My current appeal of Chan v. Ellis now in the GA Supreme Court is about the right to openly share and publicize legally-obtained controversial information.  The lawyers of a poet-author from Marietta, GA and one judge in Muscogee County, GA have tried to shut me and ELI down from talking, sharing unpleasant information, and my using abrasive, harsh language.  However, many supporters of ELI including Attorney Oscar Michelen, First Amendment legal scholars Eugene Volokh, Aaron H. Kaplan, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are fighting for your and ELI's right to continue to make sure the First Amendment and Section 230 of the CDA is alive and well.

ELI is not "just another website".  ELI Community and its members have grown more powerful and have fought the good fight so that YOU the reader and victim have the right to speak out and fight back against those that would attempt to extort money out of you because of minor, de-minimis infringements.  ELI is well entrenched in the search engines which means your voice carries very far.  Any helpful comments, insights, comments you post contributes to fighting against copyright extortionists.

I encourage people to name names and openly share your story of those that would unreasonably threaten you over a minor matter. Show them that you are not going to threaten and take money from you without a consequence. Get educated, get empowered, and get even for receiving a bullshit extortion letter.

Remember Sony Pictures.  They became cowards very quickly.  They are afraid to release an entertaining movie that hurts no one.  They are so cowardly, they have chosen to give up their own First Amendment rights to release the movie.  They were brought down by disseminated information and the First Amendment.  You, with ELI's help, can tap into those lessons and use a bit of that power for yourself to fight back copyright extortionists.

743
I understand Robert's pragmatic position of paying the $100 and just calling it a day because everyone's time is valuable.

But I would be remiss in stating that paying even the relatively small amount of $100 (compared to what we normally see) feeds into the extortion system.

It is too easy for these extortionists to move their model to a $100-$200 per image scam operation and allow them to make unsupportable claims on anyone due to their sloppiness.

From what I see, if the image in question is simply not the image you used and they decide to pursue this aggressively through a lawsuit, they could be on the hook for YOUR inconvenience and legal fees.

When it comes to paying anyone, I scrutinize every bill I pay.  Too many scammer operations trying to steal money from people under the pretext that it is too small to worry about. They get you once and they will come after you again if they know you are an easy mark.

As far as I am concerned, you didn't "admit" to the image in question.  You are, in fact, performing due diligence which is a wise move.

744
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lucia's Statute of Limitations Reached
« on: December 14, 2014, 12:43:47 AM »
It's hard to believe she has "only" been here for over 3-years now. It feels like Lucia has been around ELI forever!  :-)

Not to take anything away from Lucia, but to the people who know her specific case, I think we can agree she had little to worry about given the hot-link nature of her case. It was obviously an annoyance and an unhappy cloud over her head (as with us all including me!).

Although I started ELI in 2008, I still found the cloud of uncertainty during my 3-years quite annoying and unhappy.  So it is easy to relate to everyone's sentiments.

745
The moral of the excellent feedback everyone has provided is that it absolutely pays to research and vet these claims (especially if they are related to the Getty Images/Picscout operation).

Of course, to the average newcomer, they don't generally know where to start. However, fortunately for the Google-experienced, ELI (and all its various free and premium-paid resources) exists for anyone willing to be educated.

I am clearly biased (but I also say it because I believe it), there is no better resource on the Internet than ELI when it comes to photo-related infringement letter issues and knowing how those "incestuous fucktards" (as RK calls them, LOL!) operate.

746
Keep in mind the proportionality of outstanding cases in any given 3-year period (statute of limitations) that most people are not aware of.

There are likely hundreds (if not thousands) of outstanding Getty Images minor (de miminis) infringement cases eligible for lawsuit.  Even if Getty went out and filed 10 lawsuits tomorrow, proportionally speaking, there is still less than a 1% chance of any individual actually being served a lawsuit. 99% of people will have very good odds (except, of course, you are part of that 1%).

And even if that were to occur, legal history shows that these types of Getty Images minor infringement cases don't go far into the process.  Most settle out.  And for the very few that don't settle out, nearly all has been an unprofitable course of action.

There are, of course, exceptions to everything I just stated in matters of egregious infringements such as willful/intentional infringements, not taking images down, continued use of images, 10 or images involved, large commercial usage, high-volume websites, etc.. 

Aside from the flurry of lawsuits filed in Florida early this year, has Getty followed through with any more to anyone's knowledge?? Pacer doesnt seem to reference any, at least that I can find...thanx

747
I give big credit and kudos to Robert Krausankas who discovered and found the true identities of the lawyers behind Sanders Law PLLC. 

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/the-copyright-trolling-firm-of-sanders-law-p-l-l-c/

For any victim of Sanders Law PLLC (to the best of my knowledge only sends email through an alleged paralegal name Stacy Berk (or Berkowitz) depending on the email).

Nearly a year ago, I did some research to find out who worked for Sanders Law PLLC. I found very little online but it never occurred to me that there would be one "law firm website" for the copyright extortion efforts and another one for their "legitimate" business.  Very sneaky. Certainly not illegal but it is actually quite devious and clever.

Robert has outed them from their copyright extortion closet. I wonder who else we can out of the closet? ;)

748
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Free Images of the Week from Masterfile
« on: November 28, 2014, 11:28:45 PM »
As far as I am concerned Getty, Masterfile, and other notorious copyright extortionists are not to be trusted.  They offer these "freebies" to try to stem the tide of badwill they have generated over the years. Also, they will decide if your use is "appropriate" or not. 

For example, you might have a website that starts out as a personal or hobby website. However, in the course of operating and growing your website, you decide you might want to monetize your efforts or offset your expenses by earning commissions, put up ads, sell products, etc. It is simply too easy to forget and stray into "commercial" territory, at which point, you are no longer using the images "appropriately" and then you are now "guilty" of copyright infringement just because you crossed a threshold of what is "appropriate" usage and what is not.

As far as I am concerned, it is a legal trap waiting to happen and not worth whatever "freebies" they might offer.  Getty, Masterfile, Corbis, etc. are not to be trusted and it is not worth the risk or hassle of using any image they offer for "free". Nothing is free, they are trying to suck you in but it is frought with legal risk.

Stay away from any Getty or Masterfile images.  Don't pay or support them even if you are doing it legally. Everyone votes with their dollars.  Your dollars are best boycotted from those two companies.

749
There has been quite a bit of mentions over the years over the possibility of a class-action lawsuit against copyright extortionists.  For us here at ELI, it has been something that has never taken hold because we have never come across any lawyer willing to take on such a task.

Our friends at FightCopyrightTrolls.com has tweeted a link by the Pietz Law Firm that announces that they will be taking on Rightscorp through a class action lawsuit. I have only lightly followed the Rightscorp saga but they appear to be a public company that has taken some hits in their stock shares. In any case, the Pietz Law Firm seem to think that it is a worthwhile endeavor to pursue Rightscorp, so it should be interesting to watch.

To quote that article, Rightscorp allegedly engaged inL "unlawful telephone calls, emails, and letters from Rightscorp’s “DMCA Agents.”  The complaint seeks class damages against Rightscorp for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California’s Rosenthal Act, and Abuse of Process.  The complaint alleges unlawful robo-calls, as well as other unfair debt collection practices, and that Rightscorp has abused the legal process by issuing DMCA Section 512(h) subpoenas that it knew were objectively baseless."

I am not familiar with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or the Rosenthal Act but they appear to be two prominent angles to legally pursue Rightscorp. However, ELI has discussed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as the DMCA process.

750
It appears now Roca Labs is suing a blogger for covering the story and making fun of them.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141118/07134929178/roca-labs-sues-blogger-faces-legal-challenges-ny-florida.shtml

It looks like these guys are determined to follow the path of Carreon and attempt to sue anyone on the interwebs for hurting their feelings, insulting them, and mocking them.

I wonder how many lawsuits Roca Labs is going to initiate for the various people who are writing not-so-nice things about them.

It looks like this Paul Berger, General Counsel, is a serious piece of work here.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 154
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.