Not That Guy - When P2P Sharing Cases Go Wrong ~ Freak and Nitro TV!

Ars Technica brings news of a ladies plight in the United States against the lawyers suing for the illegal downloading of the movie Farcry.

The background:
Uwe Boll now famous for making several movie adaptations of popular games such Farcry, Alone in the Dark, and Postal is also somewhat famous for hiring Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver to sue just about every American citizen who illegally downloads his movies (and apparently some who haven't but we'll get to that).

This is off topic but I find Uwe Boll to be a very interesting person. His method for making money is to buy the movie rights of action games and then make films of them in Germany where they can be produced essentially tax free. His style appears to iconicly superficial if not a bit chaotic. Supposedly, the movies all blow crap, (though postal gets mixed reviews on IMDb, lots of 10's lots of 1's). They are generally poorly received in the market as well. However, with little overhead and nearly no tax he makes a pretty bit of coin. Needless to say I am waiting to watch these on Netflix (Awe postal isn't available).

Apparently now living in Toronto criticizing this man has tended to result in over reactions and publicity stunts, with several of his Canadian criticizers being called to the ring to face him in a boxing match (four of which have happened). So yeah, I like his chutzpah and despite not watching his movies (or maybe as a result of not watching his movies) he is up there on my list of notable producers/authors and I recognize his name when it pops up in the news.

Which brings me to Adrienne Neal who has fallen victim to Dunlaps blanket sueing practices. Dunlap has been tracking IP addresses specifically of those of us who download Uwe Bolls movies via P2P. IP addresses are an ID for online components, your computer has one, your router has one, even your Ipad has one. Generally they are unique. Once Dunlap acquires a US IP, they then make a request to the ISP to provide a real identity that matches the IP. They then send that person a letter that effectively states "give us 2000$ dollars to go away or we will sue you for 30,000$ or more". For Farcry, Dunlap sent out approximatively 2500 of these notices, the joke being that the notices made more money then the movie.

Sounds vaguely like extortion no? Thats what Adrienne thought too. She had never watched or heard of Farcry, and is not well versed in either law lingo or online lingo to understand exactly what she was being accused of. So she ignored it. In retrospect it was likely not the best approach but I can sympathize. Dealing each day with email scams of a similar quality, I can see how she could have dismissed such an outlandish letter. Two weeks later, with no reply Dunlap requested that the court clerk declare her to have defaulted the trial (essentially declaring her guilty) and moved to have her fined for 30,000$. That's when Adrienne finally caught on to what was happening. Unable to afford even basic legal consul she has written a letter, a plea to the court that I thought was rather touching if not a bit unfortunate. If she is telling the truth then this is a case of an incredible failure in court discipline. I have attached the letter below. Enjoy.

I am not a person who breaks the law. In my 37 years I have not even gotten so much as a ticket for jay walking! I am a certified Human Resources Professional who works for an art education nonprofit in downtown Washington that introduces persons with disabilities to the arts. I am also a classically trained singer. These two backgrounds require high moral and ethical standings, which I am proud to say I've carried out throughout both of these careers. I'm very sympathetic to the actual victims of copyright infringements; I know many of them! These are individuals who deserve their cases being heard in your court more so than the efforts of the plaintiff. Why would I try to pilfer someone's work over the Internet, when I know how having their own works infringed upon has hurt my own colleagues. Above all else, I am a taxpayer and an American citizen who is being falsely accused and you cannot afford the luxury of high-priced attorneys such as the plaintiff.

I refused to answer the initial [settlement] letter from the plaintiff's representation, as I thought this was some sort of scam. Just to find out more, I used my employer's assistance program to seek legal consultation. However, I could not afford to employ an attorney's services, as I don't make enough money to go beyond a free consultation. Further, I was preparing to get married and I'm paying my way through grad school. I could not afford to “settle” with the plaintiff's representation for false accusations without causing me to take resources away from my impending nuptials or education aspirations. Finally, I have only been in receipt of the recent proceedings through copies of legal filings that have been filed and sent to my address. Briefings that have been difficult, at best, for a lay person such as myself to fully understand. I was expecting to receive a summons for court appearance where I would be allowed to show my innocence, but I have learned that the plaintiff's representation is seeking to move forward with this case as a default hearing. They are trying to deny me my rights to a fair trial and I cannot continue to be silent!

Notes: Image was taken from Ars Technica. I'm not exactly sure what they are doing with the cross out lettering but it seems to give the impression I was hoping for. Ars has been exceedingly competent at covering this issue for while now and I suggest visiting their site if you wish to learn more or if you just want to read some great articles.