Reefa Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Many thousands of Internet users set to be targeted by an adult content copyright troll can today breathe a sigh of relief. Streaming video portal RedTube, the site where targets were said to have viewed unauthorized content, has obtained an injunction to stop the lawfirm involved sending out any more threats. Company vice president Alex Taylor says such invasions of privacy for monetary gain can never be accepted. Threats to initiate legal action on the basis of petty copyright infringement offenses are one of the scourges of the modern Internet. To date as many as a couple of million households worldwide have been targeted by this potentially lucrative racket.The latest scandal to hit Internet users involves users of streaming video site RedTube. Traditionally those simply viewing content on YouTube-like sites have been considered immune to rightsholder threats, but early December thousands of RedTube users received letters demanding 250 euros to make lawsuits go away.The controversial episode is turning into somewhat of a scandal, not least concerning the mystery of how the lawfirm involved, U & C acting on behalf of a Swiss company called The Archive AG, obtained users’ IP address. RedTube insists it has handed no information to third parties.With U & C warning that its first wave of 10,000+ letters is just the beginning, RedTube has been fighting back and now has good news for its customers. The adult video site has obtained a temporary injunction against The Archive AG from the Regional Court of Hamburg, meaning that no more letters demanding payment may be sent out.“This decision is a victory not only for the users of Redtube, but for every person who visits streaming websites,” says Alex Taylor, vice president of RedTube. “It is a clear message that the use of personal information and invasions of privacy for purely financial interests will not be tolerated.”The injunction is the second major blow for The Archive AG in less than a week. A few days ago the Cologne Regional Court issued a statement which acknowledged that it probably should not have ordered the release of Internet users’ personal details. A full decision is expected during the coming days.Source:http://torrentfreak.com/redtube-wins-injunction-to-stop-anti-piracy-lawsuit-threats-131224/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackieo Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) This is called a Precedent, this decision will have have far reaching influence years into the future !https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrecedentPrecedentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."[1]Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and regulatory law (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies). Edited December 24, 2013 by jackieo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) Just to elaborate the term "Precedent": Precedent is a final decision of the high or highest court/s of any Common Law system that binds following courts in same/similar cases. The highest court can overrule a lower courts decision but not vice versa. i.e. lower courts almost always have to follow higher courts decision but higher courts only follow the highest court's decision. It, however, may also be taken into consideration by other close common law countries. e.g. The High Court of Australia (Highest Court in Australia) does not have to follow any highest court decision of the UK or US courts, but may take a closer look at them, if it wants, when any relevant case comes before it. This case is a lower court decision of a Civil Law country, Germany. Therefore, it is not really precedent, but still may be taken into account.. It is totally up to other countries' high courts. BTW, in Europe, any Highest EU Court (Human Right Court) overrules any common law (e.g. UK court) decision. Blue: Civil Law Red: Common Law Brown: Bijudicial Mixed (Civil+Common Law) Yellow: Sharia (Common Law + Jewish Sharia in Israel) Full List: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems Edited December 25, 2013 by Turk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackieo Posted December 25, 2013 Share Posted December 25, 2013 (edited) Cool, thanks :) we are all about education here at Nsane and I believe that truth over-powers darkness, and absurity!I think this case can be called Un-Precedented, in the fact that ( as far as I know) No one has ever been charged with copyright infringement for simply VIEWING a video online. ( seems kinda silly and absurd doesn't it?)and ya know what? I think each one of those people who got a complaint and charged with the above needs to file a counter-suit against those fuckers to show the whole world that you can't just go around fucking with people! Edited December 25, 2013 by jackieo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts