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 ... 5 6 [7] 8
91
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: December 01, 2013, 12:57:13 PM »
I really appreciate your reasoning and research.  I attempted to do some of my own but I was confused by pacer.  I wasn't sure if I was even allowed to register for the service.

Did you happen to see the amount that the average person is settling for?  I am curious about those numbers.

How would one hold out until the others go to trial?  What if I would get hit with a lawsuit and the date would be sooner than the earliest you found?  I would also like to see the outcome of the others but I also can't afford to be the case that defines the others either.

92
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: December 01, 2013, 12:28:17 PM »
It is good to hear a different opinion on that situation.  Everybody in that discussion thinks it is over.  That is not the impression I have gotten.  I realized there is a ton of bad advice there.  I was automatically discarding pretty much everything said.  I just wanted to hear the status from Cary himself.

I don't know much about judges and the court.  Should any of these go to actual lawsuit, does it help that the webmaster attempted to either settle realistically or presented a good argument? It bothers me that Sanders basically ignores any evidence and continues to push for a settlement.  It seems to me that Sanders simply ignoring process and reason would work against them, but maybe that isn't how the real world works.

93
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: December 01, 2013, 04:28:37 AM »
Those documents only cover cases for which BWP has gone past threats and decided to file papers to begin an actual lawsuit, correct?  The reason I ask is because there are several accounts online (I'm thinking specifically of Cary Wiedemann from fairfaxunderground.com) where the person seems to have given them a somewhat forceful answer and BWP backs off.

94
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: November 30, 2013, 05:51:38 PM »
I don't have a lot of experience with this stuff but it sounds to me that these guys really drag their feet.  Seems that those who have called their bluff are holding strong.  In a year, it seems that it would grow increasingly harder for them to prove their case if they don't already have enough.  Sanders, etc. don't seem to be all that committed in the end.  I would be interested to hear opinions from all the veterans here who have seen more of this than I have.

95
I think you quoted me from another thread.  These are really separate thoughts even though I'm on here all the time because of what I'm currently going through.  I wouldn't want to try to introduce that at all.  The chance of losing seems that it would multiply significantly.

This thread is here because the more I have thought about the amount of my system resources that may actually have become to devoted to tools like picscout trying to catch me for something, the more upset it makes me all the time.  I mentioned elsewhere that I have literally had traffic problems caused by crawlers, bots, and spammers overrunning my site.  Legitimate users were honestly blocked because of these scummy tools.

96
That's a good read.  I had not heard of that dispute before.

Quote
Note that it's unlikely you have sent any cease and desists to Picscout or other bots. So you haven't worked as hard as Craigslist has at keeping 3Taps out.

That's true.  It would be interesting to see Craiglist come out on top of this one.  I say that only because I find it terrible that a troll can scan your site, disregard DMCA process (as they have in many cases by not sending a proper takedown) and go right to a lawsuit.  But if you would attempt to keep them from wasting your bandwidth and system resources then it would require a cease and desist letter to every bot owner, who would then need to violate a second time.  It seems like an equation that is increasingly hard to balance in your own favor, let alone equally.

Quote
Note that Picscout violating cfaa would not necessarily affect your copyright dispute. It just means you might sue them for violating cfaa, and they might sue you for copyright.

That makes sense.   I was thinking along the lines of illegally obtained evidence being thrown out.  Maybe that only happens on TV.

Part of me was hoping it would create scenarios where you could take the owner of the crawler to court and they would say "our machine didn't read your terms of service" and you could respond like they do by saying it doesn't matter if you read it or not because it is still there and legal.

Quote
My thoughts are it's a legal gray area. Huge gray. But so far: unless you have specifically instructed Picscout to keep out and figured out how to ban their IP, no judge will decree they violate CFAA by visiting.  Even if the judge did, that probably wouldn't affect any copyright violation finding.

It seems a big part of it would also be having enough money to throw away in the process of fighting in court.  That's money I don't have.  I would love to see somebody try something like it though.

97
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA
« on: November 26, 2013, 04:16:48 PM »
Quote
So: I cannot help but believe you know which "angle" applies to your case.  (I can understand why it's in your interest to not say which on this thread. No matter which angle applies in your interest to keep BWP in the dark until such time as you are ready to communicate.  But I should think you know which angle applies.)

Correct.  I know which applies.  I know some of the trolls check these forums.  Just trying to keep some secrecy here in case they would attempt to connect dots.

Quote
I suspect you can very easily convince a judge that you run a multi-user blog. Also, that the blog post was associated with another users.  I'm guessing you have an email of the other  user anyway and so on.  Don't put things retroactively in place. You just want to be able to say what was on that page ane explain the baisis of your knowledge.

I added the logging ability yesterday as part of my general plan to beef up the site and make it more resistant should something ever happen again.  I suppose it doesn't matter one way or another if I don't attempt to bring that into the equation.

Quote
I think actual proof of infringement would require this to be shown in court.  That doesn't mean it has to be in the letter they send a blog owner. But presumably if you took down the post and looked at the html you know whether the html contained a link to an infringing image hosted on your sever. If it did, they may already have that uri, or, if they sue you, they can ask you what you know about the image during discovery and also in court.

Do we know details of any case that has gone to trial?  If so, is there any mention of what means were used in the end to prove the infringement?  I have attempted to look at various scanned documents.  I admittedly understand very little of what I read in legal documents.

98
Getty Images Letter Forum / Terms of Service Prohibiting Crawlers and Bots?
« on: November 26, 2013, 02:41:56 PM »
I apologize if this topic has already been discussed in this capacity.  I tried to search for something similar but it either hasn't been or I didn't try the right combination of keywords.

Since I have been thrown into this whole mess I have been kind of interested in how legally stable it would be to add something to a site's terms of service stating that crawler and bot activity is prohibited.  Say for example that I put the correct meta tags, robots.txt, .htaccess, and additional scripts in place that (at least attempt to) completely block crawler activity.  I would then state in my terms of use that I have made a reasonable and faithful effort to prohibit all types of bots and crawlers and that any such traffic is a violation of my terms and an intrusion into my site. 

As many of us know, crawlers and such can eat up 50% or greater of our system resources.  In periods of high traffic, that literally means that legitimate users cannot access the site.  Some might even call that denial of service.

My thinking is also that if PicScout or something else would find an image and they would attempt to sue, you could question the means by which the image was discovered.  If it was discovered that a banned tool was used, could you then show the terms of service, the methods used to block such a tool, and prove that the means of discovery is considered to be a system intrusion?  I certainly don't desire that type of traffic on any of my sites.  I only allow Google and Bing because they actually bring positive traffic to my site in most cases.  Even in cases where all images are legal I would not want to waste my bandwidth on such a tool that is only seeking to catch me in potential wrongdoing. 

To me it seems like if police were randomly walking down the street and letting themselves into your house to browse around just because you have a standard door and windows on your dwelling.  Sure, you open your house to people who are welcome but you make efforts to lock doors and windows and keep most other people out. 

I realize this would be an extremely gray area because they you might be able to potentially define all kind of other strange things in your terms.  It just seems that something to that effect would be reasonable since there are valid concerns about bandwidth usage.  The fact that you can ask Google, Bing, The Internet Archive, and any other respectable bot not to crawl your site and they will obey your wishes seems that it would also be reasonable. 

Thoughts?

99
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA
« on: November 26, 2013, 02:27:07 PM »
Quote
I understand all they gave you was a screenshot.  But as a blogger, I don't quite know why the fact that all they have is a screenshot affects your ability to know the state of your web page.

You're right, it doesn't affect my ability to know the state of the page.  I think my fear is that the questioning would go something like:

"Did you know this image was on your page before receiving a complaint?"

"No"

"Did you look at the page before you removed it?"

"Yes"

"Did you see an image uploaded to your server?"

"Yes"

"Guilty"

Quote
(unless it gets hacked. And if I was hacked, that might be a defense on a copyright violation!)

I can prove that there have been thousands of attempts to hack my block.  I have bad behavior logs and more that show attempts to log in and break security.  I can't say that anybody did ever successfully get in, but I see that plenty of attempts have been made.

Quote
So I find myself asking: did you look at the html on the day you got the letter? Did the image appear on the page on the day you got the letter? Was there any element on the page (e.g. javascript ads) that might have contained the image they show in their screenshot? You don't need to answer that here. But you seem to want to know what constitutes 'evidence'.

That's a very good point.  I probably have been seeing this a little one-sidedly.  It's a good idea to start seeing just how much evidence I can collect in my own favor instead of just relying on how shoddy theirs may or may not be.

Quote
(or at least before you modified it to remove the image. Except... you didn't remove the image... right?)

I removed everything.  I all files on that page from the server and removed it from my database.  I'm not saying I do or don't have a complete backup in case they would happen to somehow be gleaning evidence from this page.   

Quote
That is: it might buttress you case to say that
(a) You believe you never uploaded anything of the sort and if you ever did, you certainly don't remember it.
(b) You have an archive showing what existed on the day you received the letter and that archive showed that the image was not on the page on the date you received the letter.  (That is: before you modified it to comply with their request.)

I have recently implemented a basic login log.  If nothing else, I would intend to show that the users do in fact log in.  I could potentially match the most recent IP address of the user who posted it, though I don't know if it would matter much since it is a new address and not one recorded on the actual day the complaint was filed.  I can't retroactively put it in place but it may help to be able to present the current state of some things.

Quote
If your memory is fuzzy, you really ought to at least show that the image does not display at your site. That would than put the other side in the position of having to advance a theory of how the images does display in their screenshot.

I can show currently that the image does not display and that the page that contains the image is now gone.

Quote
But if you watch a while, you'll also see that the plaintiff is not expected to have flawless evidence.  Plaintiffs will come in with photos, and judges look askance at defendants whose only counter evidence is "ever hear of photo shop?" Yes. Photos can be faked. But if the plaintiff has a photo, and testifies that they took that photo and it is not faked, that's evidence.

Understood.  I think the question I was really asking was more along the lines of, would it be absurd to produce my own photoshopped evidence as a counter to prove that a screen shot is not sufficient?  I would obviously state that the image is not real and point out the convincing elements of it that would show another screen shot that is just as convincing is not applicable.  I saw a scanned copy of a complaint someone else put online from this same round of trolling.  It is definitely a bunch of screen shots that look terrible.  It seems their evidence, at least at the "pay us now" stage is merely screen shots and urls.

Quote
In this context, if you had an archive of the state of the page at the time you got the letter, your position would be stronger than merely saying "screenshots aren't proof".

That's assuming that the user never uploaded the photo to my page and it really was either hotlinked or displayed by an ad.  I feel pretty safe if that is the route.  I'm coming at this from all angles at once.  The angle I'm trying to figure out is how to deal with it in the event that the image was uploaded to my server and having such an archive would show that it was.

Quote
If they are like Getty, they will volunteer nothing and just maintain that they are right and you are wrong, explain that copyright exists even if they didn't register (which is true, but still not responsive to why you would want to see the registration) and make it sound like they really believe they are the judge, jury and executioner, that they don't have to show you anything at all and that you have to pay.  And it's true that until they sue, they don't have to show you anything. But it's equally true you don't have to show them anything or pay them anything and so on.

Yes, that is the valuable information I have learned from reading all over this forum.  I had no idea that this sort of thing was happening out there.  I was previously living in this happy little bubble where people issued proper DMCA notices and honest parties complied and it was never an issue again. 

Quote
That fact that it can be loaded without loading a page means that when it comes down to brass tacks, I think the proof of infringement is showing the url of the image or images, not the page (or pages) in which the images is embedded.

I would expect that actual proof would consist of the direct URL to the image.  But I deal with rational people who also believe this is useful information.  I have learned that I shouldn't expect so much from trolls.

100
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA
« on: November 26, 2013, 02:03:15 PM »
Quote
I know it is after-the-fact, but I would encourage you to file as a DMCA agent:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/

I am in the process.  It's information I wish I had known in the past.  I was always under the impression that if you had a clearly defined contact area with a DMCA type form and you acted quickly then you would be safe. 

Do you think filing for safe harbor soon after will show good intent?  I'm going to file in any case.  I'm just wondering if a judge would see that as you taking steps in the right direction and that it might help past evidence in light of that.  I guess it could go the other way too in the sense that it looks like you're running for cover for future "infringements". 

101
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA
« on: November 26, 2013, 11:50:12 AM »
Quote
If there is something in your favor you need preserved, preserve it. Some free online archiving systems exist (www.webcitation.org). You can get them to archive pages that show current conditions at least.  If archives of current pages favor you, archive them. And make sure you archive each necessary bit separately. (Example: it will archive whatever page you ask it to. If you need to archive the uri's for images to prove they were hot links-- do that. And so on. I know you are saying you just don't know where the image ever was-- but archiving the page with no image on it would be useful.)

It's not so much that I'm looking to archive it in the state it was.  It's more that I'd like it to be uncertain whether it ever existed in that state or not, especially if all they have is a screenshot. 

Quote
As for the more general question of who ambiguous evidence favors:  would be a civil suit, so the judgement is based on balance of evidence-- that is which person the judge believes more-- so pretty much 51/49 calls favor the person on the '51' side of the balance.  In contrast, a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think it's the difference between civil and criminal that I was trying to understand.  I wanted to determine if evidence needed to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote
Likewise, you could ask them to provide you any html they had, what logs they have, documents pertaining to copyright registrations, contracts with authors and so on.  They can't just keep that all a big super dark secret.

I have not heard anything in response from them yet.  If I do, those are things I am hoping to ask for prior to a trial so that they know I am serious and this is not going to be easy money.  I don't know what they will volunteer initially if they are trying to get a payment out of me.  I will attempt to feel out the situation if we do have further contact.

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, it looks like all the other cases filed so far are against much larger entities.  I'm really just a nobody with a website directed at a very specific and small group of people.  I hope that they discover that and realize there is no money to chase here. 

I have been discussing on another website as well.  This morning I read a comment from somebody who said the notice he received included screen shots.  His CMS sounds like WordPress, in that it must create different image sizes and thumbnails and then push them out to various pages based on categories, tags, post listings, etc.  He said a screen shot of each image, including thumbnail sizes was included and each was listed as a separate infringement.  Do you happen to know how that factors in if it would go to trial?  Could each size and use truly be counted as a separate infringement?  That is where I would think it would be essential for them to have the html on file because then they could compare image names in the html.

102
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA
« on: November 25, 2013, 08:15:20 PM »
First of all, thanks for taking the time to read through all that and give good answers.  I expected some of those things I think.

I recommend ZBBlock because, among other things, it triggers before wp-config.php loads. Standard plugins trigger after. (There is no alternative.)

Yeah, I actually scanned through a number of your threads this afternoon after your name came up.  I saw you encouraging people to use ZBBlock.  I will have to give it a shot.  I hadn't heard of that before so that's valuable information.

Among other things, they need to prove to the judge (not just themselves) that you did infringe. The reason it's difficult to give examples of what is sufficient is this could vary a bit by judge.  The big question to ask yourself is if you were a third party, and heard the argument and counter argument would you consider it proof.

I think I had read in articles about movie and music piracy that judges tend to be at the very far end of the technical spectrum and most don't understand what they are being presented.  That is kind of what worries me a little bit.  To me, I feel like I would be in the clear if I were a judge listening to evidence.  But I work with computers every day so I expect that it wouldn't seem so clear to the average person.

I can tell you if I was the third party, I would not consider a printed screen shot sufficient to show proof. The reason I would not is one cannot tell any of the following:
1) How the screenshot came into being.
2) Even if we figured out how it came into being, you can't tell whether the image is hosted on the server or hotlinked.

That's one of the things I was getting at.  I know for certain that I could easily rip the html of page, add in an infringing image, open the local page in a browser, then type in the url I wanted it to appear the infringing image came from, and then take a screen shot of the whole setup.  It would show no alteration by Photoshop or anything when checking the image.  For that reason alone, I hope a screen shot never counts as sufficient evidence.

That said: if you get sued, any trial will be preceeded by 'discovery' and you would also be asked what you know about the image.  If Getty has the screenshot, and when asked your answer is that yes, your site displayed that image and yes you hosted it and yes, you personally uploaded it, that might be proof of infringement.   One reason is that the facts would not be disputed.  And bear in mind: Lieing is perjury. Refusing to provide information to the judge tends to look like you did display the image and so on.  So, if you did host the image and so on, recognize that this is likely to be known to the judge.

I have no intent to lie or do anything illegal.  I did not upload the image personally and was honestly not even aware of it.  I would honestly answer what I am able.

But beyond that: remember that what Getty shows you may not be all the evidence they have. They have a 'template' letter.  That letter does not show the uri of the image, it does not show html of the page and it does not name any human being who viewed the page and who might testify that he took the screenshot and saw the display with his own eyes. But this doesn't mean Getty does not have such evidence. It only means they didn't reveal it to you in their letter.  (Mind you, they may not have it. And if they don't they would likely be reluctant to file because they don't know whether you hotlinked or not and so on.)

Since this is BWP, and not Getty, I have no idea what they might be using.  I honestly don't know much about the image scouring technologies that these companies use so I am a little apprehensive about that part of the situation.

Human testimony added to teh bot info could be considered authoritative.

How effective is HTML or a URL when presented by them?  I feel that much like a screen shot, those things could be falsified.  I'm not saying that they ever do that or have intent to, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like reliable evidence.  Anybody could whip up a bot that seeks pages with relevant keywords and then inserts copyrighted image links into the html it scraped.  A person witnessing such a bot at work would be no more reliable than the bot itself.

Internet archive could be used.  One again, evidence can be ambiguous especially with images.

So far I have only received one very uninformative DMCA.  I don't know if there will be more.  The Archive has no record of that date because I must have blocked it about three or four months prior without even knowing it.

When you say that evidence can be ambiguous, is that in favor of the accuser?

Depends what exists at the time of any subpoena, right?  They can't  demand something that does not exist be re-created. But bear in mind: They may have evidence they need. You don't know.

That was my thought.  Every day longer it goes, the more likely it is that evidence will be destroyed.  That is also why I'm trying to figure out what they might have.

My guess is they don't keep logs any longer than you do. Storing that data is a nuisance and business cost for them. The real issue is what BWP has already collected and/or what you might reveal or be forced to admit.

Again, what I was thinking.  What types of things do you think someone might be forced to admit?

If it's off your server, don't worry about future discoveries.  Only worry about whether they saved html and so on.  Bear in mind: These companies tend to be very slap dash and count on scaring people. That said, we don't know with BWP.  There are a shit was of cases in the pipeline, but we don't know what ultimately happened.

It's not really future discoveries that I'm worried about.  This situation is changing the whole policy and purpose of the site, should I even decide to continue forward with it.  I believe I received a notice from the Randy Taylor that everyone has talked about here.  It seems his work hasn't always been top notch in the past.  Then I read elsewhere online that it looks like a number of these are actually going to trial.  So I don't really know what to make of the situation.  It's odd that so many are filed and some are going to court because that doesn't seem to fit the usual troll model.

Honestly, I think as long as you don't have a stored version of the old database, you are fine. Hostgator isn't going to be set up to sift through a mountain of data and they might pushback if asked to do so.

Also what I was thinking again.  HostGator is a budget host.  They are set up to do the minimum and take on a ton of people on each server.  Seems it would be too much of a pain to keep that much info.  I think I also read somewhere a few months ago that they had not been quick to turn over information in some case when subpoenaed.

Are you set up multi-author? With each registered person having their own login/email/password?  If yes, you must have a roster or registered authors or contributors. Blog posts would be filed under the authors who wrote them. It's true WP won't keep the IP they used when the wrote that post, but it does keep track of the author of a particular post. (At least my WP does.). Also comments are listed under the commenter. IPs are saved for comments.

It is multi-author.  Each does have a separate account.  There are also about 2,000 registered subscribers.

103
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA
« on: November 25, 2013, 12:46:53 PM »
The site is not a commercial site and is not for generating profit.  Just a hobby.  It is a self-hosted WordPress site.

I have been fighting bots, crawlers, and spammers from very early on.  The traffic from automated things brought the site to an absolute halt for a period of about a full month.  I implemented and experimented with a number of things from Akismet, to Bad Behavior, to Wangguard.  Even though many of those are meant more specifically to stop spammers, it did well to reduce the traffic enough.

I have also played with my htaccess from time to time.  I have mostly always blocked image hotlinking, with the exception of a time where I was experimenting with some rules, accidentally disabled it, and didn't re-enable it until I started to see a lot of indexed images on Google and realized it was missing.

I wonder, are there crawlers that also spoof the referrer?  If so, is there a solid way to fight them?  I am fairly certain I have done referrer spoofing for other projects in my work life.  It's also fairly simple if I remember correctly - about as easy as spoofing user agent.

My questions are more along the lines of what happens should this go to court.  For example, if PicScout is involved and it finds an infringement, is that the end of the line?  Is it trusted as an authority and the data it gathered is correct?  I've been trying to find cases from the past and I can't determine what would be considered actual proof of infringement. 

If bots like that are not considered authoritative, then what is?

I have gone to some length to have my site removed from Google and the Internet Archive completely.  Google has responded very quickly and it seems that within hours it has been completely unindexed.  The Archive is taking its time, however.  Are these things used if evidence is needed?  I'm trying to clear myself on every front so that it shows I have made a good effort to completely clean up on my end.  I'd also like there to be as little record as possible.

If records and things would end up getting subpoenaed, then what would be gathered?  And what is the likelihood it would be able to show guilt, intent, etc.?

My site is hosted with HostGator.  I can only access raw access logs within the last 24 hours.  I have my site set not to archive them, and if they are somehow archived, I have it set to delete them at the end of the week.  Do web hosts usually keep logs longer than this that you know of?  I read through their terms and they state that they keep the minimum amount of data possible.  I'm just wondering how much this is and what it shows.

The WordPress theme I was using also generates 7 images when it crunches a single image that is uploaded via media manager.  This turned out to be a lot of files over the last two years.  As a result, my account exceeded 100,000 inodes and was approaching the 250,000 limit (I have about four or five websites on the account at any give time).  Because of this, full backups of my site were not being made for at least 6 months to a full year.  Since receiving the complaint, I have gone crazy with house cleaning and my site is well below that level of inodes now.  I guess I'm wondering if there is any physical or recoverable proof that any file has ever specifically existed on my hosting.  It seems that hosts retain as little as possible to achieve DMCA safe harbor.  How does this play into all of it?

Also, the day I received the complaint I did some database maintenance.  This involved putting up a static page, pulling down a copy of the database, updating it locally, and then putting it back.  I have since created a new database with the modified data and switched to it instead of the old one.  The old one was completely removed since a newer more optimized version is in place.  I'm wondering, how much, if any, that would affect the ability to find past entries or versions.  Or if it even matters.

I know WordPress does not keep detailed logs of logins and posts.  So I basically have no records of IP addresses or access at that level.  Is it possible to match actions within WordPress to raw access logs - for example, somebody logging in, making a post, uploading a file, and then publishing?  If it is not, am I basically held responsible as the only user of the site, regardless of whether I actually am?

104
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA
« on: November 24, 2013, 10:04:27 PM »
By no means am I asking for professional advice, but I'm curious: what would you personally do if this were your situation? 

After reading and interacting a bit, I feel that I need to take a mixed and cautious approach.  This seems to be more serious than the Getty situations but some of the people involved don't seem to always use solid methods either.  I'm formulating my own thoughts but I'm curious as to how you might handle this.

On another note, I think I bumped into mention of technical talk somewhere else on the forum.  It seemed to indicate that there are some fairly technologically minded people who have experience here.  I would be interested in getting into some of the tech details with them if they are willing.  Do specific discussions from the past come to mind? 

I have quite a range of abilities and I'm trying to do everything in my power to make this difficult, should they pursue legal action and need to find facts.  I don't intend to do anything illegal, just to put them to work if they think they need to take me to court over something that was unintentional and remedied extremely quickly.

105
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need an opinion on a letter I received.
« on: November 24, 2013, 09:57:05 PM »
Implemented.  Thanks again.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 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.