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 - clist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
I almost died right here. LMAO!!!

"CEO and now also PRESIDENT of internet"

You're right.


Go on and replace "committing a crime" with "doing something wrong".

I believe saying people are smart enough to know something is the opposite of condescending.

You are probably right that I underestimate the impact that social media has on some people’s mindset when they infringe.  nevertheless, I still suspect that is a very small percentage who do not know the difference between sharing photos on social media and deploying them on a commercial website.

I believe that the overwhelming number of people who infringe do it based on assumptions that include, it feels like a victimless crime, it is easy to do, the chances of getting caught are small, they think if they get caught they will just get a warning, there are no major consequences if they do get caught, it is cheaper to infringe and deal with the rare consequences that it is to buy and track licenses.    Many of those assumptions are probably true, but none are based on ignorance that it is a violation of copyright.

Regardless of their mental state, I am glad to offer my commentary.

You're right, your assumptions imply that most scenarios involve people who know what they are doing is wrong..

That said, I truly believe that most people are unaware that they are even committing a crime.

You are probably right.  I am sure there are some unsophisticated people running unsophisticated businesses that get themselves in trouble. 

It just seems to me that the overwhelming people who are smart enough to do everything else it takes to start a business and deploy a website should be smart enough to know Google is not a source of free images.

Condescend much?


The truth of the matter is that [insert adjective here] people can launch a website / web based business with close to nothing [for next to nothing] and most likely use images found on the web because they just don't know any better.  Plain and simple.

They probably assume that (1) images that shouldn't be used without consent will have some kind of a disclaimer (eg: an easy to read watermark ~ not some fine print bulls*it) and/or (2) they'll receive some sort of C&D warning about an "illegal usage" before they get an demand letter. 

And lets face it, we live in a time where "sharing" is encouraged [eg: creative commons, facebook sharing, IG reposts, etc.] so its easy for ANYBODY to come to that conclusion.

Unfortunately opportunistic lawyers and copyright trolls with shady business models are having a field day playing the "gotcha" game in which they take antiquated laws from yesterday and hang the people of today out to dry with them..

It really is a sad state of affairs.



This is getting ridiculous.  >:(

On a side note:

If things keep up on this current trajectory its only a matter of time before the RM media / Nick Youngson & Higbee Extortion scheme comes under the gun and income documentation will be subpoenaed.  Once a judge takes a look at licensing income statements vs copyright claim income statements (among other things) this train will can count on it.

The problem with those case is that they depend on the existence of a contract or a license.  Both RM Media’s website terms and the language in the Creative Commons Contract state that no license is granted until attribution is given.   They are conditions precedent to the granting of a license or formation of a contract.   So, I do not think the provisions are relevant. 

If the defendant were to provide the attribution and then remove the attribution, those provisions may govern, as a license would have been granted. However, I think the terms of the Creative Commons license RM Media uses states that the license is automatically revoked if attribution is removed.  How enforceable that automatic revocation is, I don’t know.

The language on RM Media's [Nick Youngson's] website(s) has changed quite significantly since the RM Media / Nick Youngson honeypot scam began.

If one were motivated enough they could easily locate the original site [containing the original site language] via archive sites and demonstrate that the language contained on those website(s) was designed to encourage usage (commercial and non profit) of the "free" image(s) with very little emphasis placed on the "requirement" of attribution. 

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Help Exposing Higbee?
« on: June 27, 2018, 01:33:36 PM »
I think minimum copyright damages for innocent infringement are $200+ something so something close to that might be worth it. Higbee got greedy in his ask of me and added an extra 0, so he’s going to have to earn it from me.

My thoughts exactly.

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee followup
« on: June 21, 2018, 08:53:00 PM »
Notice how Chan does not answer the question about what states Oscar Michelin is licensed to practice in????????

He cannot answer because Oscar Michelin and his law firm Cuomo LLC Law Firm are only licensed to practice law in New York.  See for yourself at   Oscar Michelin has been engaging in unauthorized practice of law when he undertakes representation of people when the claim has no connection to New York.   He and Chan are scam artists.

How long before someone reports Oscar Michelin  and Cuomo LLC for unauthorized practice of law???   Why isn’t Oscar Michelin's name and Cuomo LLC’s name all over yet?

How many minutes before Mr. First Amendment Matthew Chan or one of his mouth-breathing admins delete this post and my account????????????

Well, well well...

When IP addresses get logged in a database trolls are not anonymous as they may think...
I'm sure the site Admin has better things to do but if one were so inclined....  ;)


...A bar overseer reading his blustery letters without a disclaimer that you may want to consult an attorney since I'm threatening the end of the world on you could see an issue.

His letters also have him playing good cop/bad cop at the same time and that can create the impression to the recipient that he is giving them advice when he is their adversary. That confusion can be a perceived conflict of interest and another avenue of violation that an overseer would want him to clarify with the 'speak to an attorney' line...


You may want to proofread this post one more time.

Your business name is listed. 


Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.  That is what three decades of being in the legal practice will do to you.   I do have free time on my hands if Higbee is hiring in south Florida.   Though, I may be a little too defendant friendly and old for their crew.   8)


Everyone who receives a demand letter should definitely take it seriously and get educated.

Can you file a defense for a default judgement? Most judges have common sense and most lawyers can show  evidence of the predatory practice of these websites in one or two pages. If so, would that ruling of a default judgement be filed for others to use as precedence? Could be risky, but could also help put something on the books and potentially force this practice to stop. Another question is could someone just bring in a letter of defense from an attorney asking for personal damages in case the judge rules it's predatory and damaging to the people caught up in it. We have a forum of people here under duress only, because of the practice of this deception and there does not appear to be any stop or change to the paragraph on the webpage?? It appears that the practice is profitable for the company. I don't think any judge wants their name attached to a ruling that allows this unethical deception, but I know nothing.

Now, if the defendant has multiple images and does not take them down, I can see willful infringement and damages. Also somehow Google labels the images free to use commercially as well which means even Google does not understand the terms. Everyone I talk to about this cannot understand how this is legal. I guess it is legal, but it is downright disgusting extortion. It has just never gone to trial. It's cheap enough to pay to go away. Also, I notice lawyers making money on both sides of this, so why would anyone in copyright law want this practice to go away? I am going to meet with the copyright atty., because my friend and him claim that there are blogs and designed predatory advice from this media co. Hard to trust anyone, but those you know on this issue.

I would warn everyone not to just believe lawyers in here or elsewhere on the net regarding this issue. Talk to someone you know and who practices copyright law for a living. It will not be easy for them to get these cases to court especially if more than one with minimal statutory damages as so many were fooled by the language on the website that has never changed while who knows how much money has been extorted from these victims? I can see why it is case by case and everyone has to have their own plan for their own tolerance and wealth situation.

I believe someone with a strong case and the right demeanor (as well a s the financial resources) could take this all the way but I think most just want to "make it go away" and eventually settle because going against the guns typically leads to people catching bullets.. on both sides. With the only real winners here being the Lawyers.

With that said, since I've been active on this site I've seen quite a few people come on strong and then just disappear which tells me either one of two things has happened:

1. They have settled and signed some form of NDA or 2. have just decided to "go dark".

At any rate, you are right about 1 thing. With both sides making money there is no real incentive to change this. So until that day where the laws catch up with this or (a lawyer taking this on for personal reasons) or people learn about assigning a DMCA agent (before getting an Extortion letter) unfortunately this scam will continue to live on...

I'm having a hard time drumming up any sympathy for this defendant, contacted multiple times, yet didn't remove the images in question?

I'm having a hard time drumming up any sympathy for this plaintiff.  >:(

Just out of curiosity, has anyone on the forum checked to see if any of these images are registered in the UK?

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Class action suit against Google?
« on: March 24, 2018, 04:43:43 PM »

So are you saying that because they have a disclaimer 100% of the liability should fall on the downloader even if the image is clearly labeled for reuse?

To me that doesn't seem right.

While I do agree that the downloader has some responsibility, I also feel that sites that facilitate the distribution of (mislabeled) images should foot some of the bill if one is accused of infringing.

It seems like a lot of sites skate by with their disclaimers.

Take for example sites like Pixabay that offer images "for free" and have very clear language that states you can use the images. 

Upon further examination users will be shocked to find out that any one of those images could be uploaded with the intent of snaring victims in these extortion schemes.


Such a dirty game...

On a side note: (correct me if I'm wrong here) mislead innocent infringers can rest easy knowing that if they ever do make into a courtroom and can successfully prove that they were mislead into believing they were allowed to use the image(s) they can walk away only paying $200 for an "innocent infringement".

Is it $200 or $750?

Either way, its a lot less than what most of these lawyers are trying to extract...

Legal Controversies Forum / Class action suit against Google?
« on: March 24, 2018, 12:10:07 PM »
Just curious.

Is this something that has been discussed / executed before?

The way I see it (and I'm sure I'm not alone here) Google is (and possibly the other search engines) kinda helping to facilitate a lot of these alleged "infringements".

Although I'm aware that there is a great deal of people who just take whatever they want from the web, there';s equally a good amount of people who specifically look for "free to use" images and ultimately fall victim to these extortion / infringement traps.


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