Woman seeks class action status in lawsuit against 5 porn companies
With the advent of the Internet and porn never any further than a click away, no longer do people have to turn up their collars, duck their heads and swiftly shuffle to their cars holding an oversized paper bag when exiting their local smut shop. But this anonymity and accessibility...
July 11, 2012 at 08:37 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
With the advent of the Internet and porn never any further than a click away, no longer do people have to turn up their collars, duck their heads and swiftly shuffle to their cars holding an oversized paper bag when exiting their local smut shop. But this anonymity and accessibility also presents multiple problems. Not only is pornographic content illegally downloaded on a regular basis, but it also has led to a rise in porn producers suing potential downloaders in order to protect their product.
These so-called “copyright trolls” sue John Does who allegedly have illegally downloaded porn, then contact their Internet service providers to learn the users' true identities. According to reports, hundreds of porn companies have filed lawsuits against or made calls to an estimated 500,000 people since 2007. The representatives of these porn producers allegedly offer defendants easy settlements of $1,000 or $5,000 to avoid facing charges of $150,000 per alleged download and save them the embarrassment of being caught downloading illegal porn.
However, some defendants have begun to fight back. News broke earlier today that a Kentucky woman, Jennifer Barker, is suing five porn companies—K-Beech Inc., Third Degree Films, Patrick Collins Inc., Malibu Media and Raw Films of London—that have her in their crosshairs and is seeking class action status. The five companies named have filed more than 500 lawsuits in 17 states against Jon and Jane Does in the past few years.
Ken Henry, Barker's attorney, claims porn companies have been using this tactic to get quick cash settlements from people who have no connection to any downloaded movie but don't want to have their names besmirched because of an association with porn. He also says that this business model likely is more profitable than selling actual films.
“It's brilliant in one sense of the word,” Henry told the AP. “But, it's wrong. It's just absolutely wrong.”
For more on porn copyright trolls, read the AP report.
With the advent of the Internet and porn never any further than a click away, no longer do people have to turn up their collars, duck their heads and swiftly shuffle to their cars holding an oversized paper bag when exiting their local smut shop. But this anonymity and accessibility also presents multiple problems. Not only is pornographic content illegally downloaded on a regular basis, but it also has led to a rise in porn producers suing potential downloaders in order to protect their product.
These so-called “copyright trolls” sue John Does who allegedly have illegally downloaded porn, then contact their Internet service providers to learn the users' true identities. According to reports, hundreds of porn companies have filed lawsuits against or made calls to an estimated 500,000 people since 2007. The representatives of these porn producers allegedly offer defendants easy settlements of $1,000 or $5,000 to avoid facing charges of $150,000 per alleged download and save them the embarrassment of being caught downloading illegal porn.
However, some defendants have begun to fight back. News broke earlier today that a Kentucky woman, Jennifer Barker, is suing five porn companies—K-Beech Inc., Third Degree Films, Patrick Collins Inc., Malibu Media and Raw Films of London—that have her in their crosshairs and is seeking class action status. The five companies named have filed more than 500 lawsuits in 17 states against Jon and Jane Does in the past few years.
Ken Henry, Barker's attorney, claims porn companies have been using this tactic to get quick cash settlements from people who have no connection to any downloaded movie but don't want to have their names besmirched because of an association with porn. He also says that this business model likely is more profitable than selling actual films.
“It's brilliant in one sense of the word,” Henry told the AP. “But, it's wrong. It's just absolutely wrong.”
For more on porn copyright trolls, read the AP report.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 2Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 3NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 4US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Think About Why You Want the Role, Because It Is Not an Easy Job,' Says Aaron Rubin of Morrison Foerster
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250