this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
79 points (98.8% liked)

News

35724 readers
2837 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When 73-year-old Tom Brown*, a retired police officer from Seattle, received a letter from Comcast, he might have mistaken it for a broadband bill. Instead, it was a subpoena. He had been sued in federal court for illegally downloading 80 movies. Some of the titles sounded cryptic – Do Not Worry, We Are Only Friends – or banal, like International Relations Part 2. Others were less subtle: He Loved My Big Ass, He Loved My Big Butt, and My Big Booty Loves Anal.

Brown, who had spent decades investigating sex crimes, claimed he had never watched any of them. His years “dealing with pimping”, he wrote in a court filing, left him “with no interest in pornography”. He had been married for 40 years, he did not need to download Hot Wife, another title in the list. But the subpoena did not seem like something he could laugh off. It said he could face damages of up to $150,000 per movie – as much as $12m for all 80 films. If he did not respond promptly, the letter said, Comcast would identify him to the plaintiff in the case: a company called Strike 3 Holdings.

Strike 3 is not a name that Brown, or most people outside the world of copyright law, would recognize. The Delaware-based corporation, formed in 2015, owns the intellectual property rights to a catalog of about 2,000 adult films, mostly made by Vixen Media Group, its porn production subsidiary. It had very little online footprint; no social presence to speak of. But its associates were better known. The company was co-founded by Greg Lansky, the French porn director whose recent pivot to the art world has yielded works such as Algorithmic Beauty, a marble reproduction of the Venus de Milo with breast implants taking a selfie.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pageflight@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thousands of lawsuits follow a similar formula: Strike 3 claims to use a proprietary software called VXN Scan to track IP addresses that have downloaded porn they own. The software cannot identify the user beyond a rough geographic location, so Strike 3 files suit against an anonymous John Doe, and subpoenas their internet service provider (ISP) to unmask the user. The ISP in turn alerts the subscriber – which is when most people find out they have been sued.

there remain several open questions about its methods. For one, IP addresses are notoriously fickle; it is easy to spoof an IP address through a virtual private network (VPN) or to use someone else’s address via malware that bypasses passwords. More to the point, as Mitch Stoltz, IP litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, puts it: “In a lot of cases, many, many people are using the same IP address.”

In order to state a claim, the justices wrote, the plaintiff had to allege “something more” – some additional evidence to establish “a reasonable inference that a subscriber is also an infringer”.

Strike 3 found their “something more” – namely, the son’s profile on a uTorrent forum, where he wrote things such as “utorrent is a keeper.” But in this case, that was neither here nor there; they had sued Brown, not his son. Strike 3 quickly dropped the claims, and in 2020, a judge sided with Brown on his countersuit, affirming that he had not infringed any copyright and awarding him $47,777.26 in attorney’s fees. It remains the biggest victory any John Doe has notched against Strike 3, and yet for many critics, somewhat bittersweet.

Sounds like they make a plausible sounding guess, BS that they have evidence, and then with the US legal system being what it is people get scared and pay up.

For Strike 3 defense lawyers, the larger case presents a new opportunity to scrutinize the porn firm’s piracy detection practices because, according to the complaint, the company tracked Meta’s downloads the same way they had the Does’: VXN Scan. If the case proceeds to trial, it may finally let the public look inside Strike 3’s black box.

Sounds like a win win for the public: either Strike 3 is shown up as fabricating evidence, or Meta takes a hit for AI training on others' work.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago

This is what in the biz they call a "vexatious litigant". They should be flagged as such.

[–] tornavish@lemmy.cafe 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’ve spent so much time dealing with pimps, that my booty has no interest in anal

… my ass.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 7 points 3 months ago

I see what you did there!