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 - JLorimer

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
This is very interesting research.  It's the kind of stuff I really like to see.  I have nothing to do with VKT but I have been following that other thread very closely.  Nice work.

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
« on: June 23, 2014, 02:15:28 PM »
I used my full name.  No dice.  I had a friend try as well.  He used his full name and left an even simpler comment.  Still no dice.  It is nice to see yours got through lucia.

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
« on: June 20, 2014, 04:54:05 PM »
What does it take to be allowed to comment on  I left a comment that was factual and did not flame any party there.  It has not shown up, while others continue to post rude things one after another.

BWP recently won $18,000 in a default judgement against Uropa Media.  This includes attorneys' fees of $6,732.50 and costs of $400, for a total of $25,132.50.

The thing that stands out to me in this document is:

"Finally, BWP requests costs in the amount of $475, representing a $400 filing fee and $75 for the cost of service of process. (Proposed Findings at 3, ¶ 14). However, no documentation has been provided in support of these expenses. Where counsel
fail to proffer documentation, a court may either reduce the amount claimed or decline to award costs altogether. See Zimmerman v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 09 Civ. 4602, 2013 WL 6508813, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013). I will take
judicial notice of the filing fee, but the Proof of Service form was left blank where it calls for the process server’s fee (Docket
no. 3 at 1, 2), and no other evidence has been proffered. The award of costs should therefore be limited to $400."

One common thread I'm starting to notice in BWP lawsuits is that people don't seem to be aware they have been served until it is too late.  Is it possible they are skipping a vital step and getting away with it?

This is encouraging news to me.  It is what I initially thought until someone somewhere else said I should use the date I received the letter just to be safe.

Going by their own observation date, I can now celebrate over one year passed on the statute of limitations.

I agree with you 100% Stinger and my apologies to JLorimer I missed your point or I would have included it in my reply.

To JLorimer's point:  If the letter shows an observation date of six months ago, that is when the Statute of Limitations begins.

Often, you will see quoted on this web site that the safest date to use as the start of the SOL is the first date of any letter you received.  That is the most conservative approach.  The DMCA says they have 3 years from their discovery of the statute.  If someone gave you evidence that they had discovered the infringement 6 months ago, you can certainly make a strong case that that is when the statute of limitations begins.

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re:
« on: May 21, 2014, 11:27:16 AM »
The site looks a lot like VideoBlocks, which I have used.  They offer the same 7 day free trial gimmick.  I can't say much for how they operate from a copyright standpoint, but the 7 day free trial requires you to enter your credit card information.  If you forget to cancel after the trial period, the billing begins.

I would also be interested to hear thoughts on your mitigation point.  The letter that was sent in my case showed an observation date of over six months before the date of the letter I received.  I've always been curious why it would take them 6 months to follow through on what was observed.

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Sanders Law PLLC
« on: May 14, 2014, 10:57:59 PM »
I have dealt with Sanders Law.  They represented BWP Media in my letter.  My initial contact came from Randy Taylor, who is associated with the Copyright Defense League.  Search around the forums here for information about him and Sanders. 

You might also gain some insights from the thread I have made about my own situation with Sanders.  Be sure to read through to the last page to see the progression.

The other major difference with Mizozo is that they received their letter for multiple infringements.  There are at least 10 instances, if not more.

I didn't mean to speak to the innocence/guilt of Mizozo.  It was the new online component that interested me most.  Since they provided the details, I may or may not have logged in using a proxy to check out what is inside  ;)

I was doing my daily search for BWP Media/Sanders Law PLLC today when I stumbled across the following:

It looks like Sanders is changing up their process a little bit.  They are now spamming contact forms found on websites and attempting to direct them to a link to pay online:

I read about this type of scheme being used against IP addresses found in a torrent download swarm.  This is an interesting twist.

I especially enjoy the part where they are attempting to use the SSL that belongs to and it causes my browser to generate an untrusted connection message because of the domain mismatch.

Same here, spicer.  It's getting close to somewhere around 4 or 5 months for me too I think.  I couldn't believe those numbers when she told me.  That is an expensive mistake.

One of my contacts settled with Sanders/BWP for somewhere near $4,000 about a week ago.  She said she had accumulated about $12,000 in lawyers feeds in addition to that.  As I'm sure everybody knows, these guys count on the increasing lawyer fees to push you closer and closer to settlement. 

Here is another interesting quote I found back in January or so:

"BWP filed suit against our site. Haven't been served officially yet but never heard anything from them and then boom a lawsuit is filed. Not very happy about this but apparently these trolls are everywhere now."

I tried to get more information but never received a response. 

Either these people are omitting information about their cases or BWP/Sanders is taking shortcuts somewhere.  Any insight on this aspect of the situation would be appreciated.

I should also clarify.  I believe she was served but she was never aware that she had been served because nobody had made any type of contact with her.

how can there be a default judgement is she was never served? doesn't make sense, she must have been properly served at some point in time.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
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.