G
Guest
Guest
- #1
Thread Owner
Doing a little research I've discovered the scheme employed by SC is a recent and now fairly widespread practice. There are numerous companies and law firms who specialize in this legal (although ethically challenged) practice of intimidating people with little understanding of legal due process.
These copyright "legal teams" at the very large firms tend to be comprised of college students and novice law students with an interest in intellectual property law. They are hired through work study programs and internships paying on average $15 /hr. You can find these job postings in the campus work study offices and sometimes online.
The procedure as prescribed includes the following recommendations. Letters that presume the guilt of the recipient, carefully crafted and to include a demand for payment as settlement of a predetermined amount including unspecified "damages" for the alleged infringement.
The "settlement" amounts are specifically set to be low enough that the recipient will be unable to hire a competent attorney. The settlement amount should be set such that it quickly appears "generous" when compared to the hourly fees of the competent expert legal counsel required to reply or defend.
Letters should contain a "deadline" for reply in order to accelerate the sense of urgency and evoke a more immediate emotional response while minimizing the window in which the recipient may obtain relevent public counsel or advice.
The "settlement" or complaint is often presented as a bill or "debt" that must be paid and subsequent phone and written communications address it from that perspective. It deflects attention away from the yet unsubstantiated "complaint" - and on to the perception of this as the collection of a debt already owed.
The entire scheme is designed to elicit a quick financial response through advantage of the recipients anxiety and lack of adequate knowledge of the legal process.
Few cases actually go to court, save for the opportunity for summary judgement against recipients unlikley to contest a case. The statutory damages often cited in the letters tend to be off base. Even in the event of a deafult judgement (meaning you did not contest a case) the plaintiff still has to substantiate these damages in separate heraing. Statutory damages are at the discretion of the court and are supposed to have a correlation to "actual damages." In practice, these amounts have often been less than plaintiff's were seeking.
In cases that do go to court - it is the attorneys who tend too make more money than the plaintiffs. Reasonable Legal fees granted to the prevailing party are actually a bigger concern to a defendant than the actual damage awards.
These copyright "legal teams" at the very large firms tend to be comprised of college students and novice law students with an interest in intellectual property law. They are hired through work study programs and internships paying on average $15 /hr. You can find these job postings in the campus work study offices and sometimes online.
The procedure as prescribed includes the following recommendations. Letters that presume the guilt of the recipient, carefully crafted and to include a demand for payment as settlement of a predetermined amount including unspecified "damages" for the alleged infringement.
The "settlement" amounts are specifically set to be low enough that the recipient will be unable to hire a competent attorney. The settlement amount should be set such that it quickly appears "generous" when compared to the hourly fees of the competent expert legal counsel required to reply or defend.
Letters should contain a "deadline" for reply in order to accelerate the sense of urgency and evoke a more immediate emotional response while minimizing the window in which the recipient may obtain relevent public counsel or advice.
The "settlement" or complaint is often presented as a bill or "debt" that must be paid and subsequent phone and written communications address it from that perspective. It deflects attention away from the yet unsubstantiated "complaint" - and on to the perception of this as the collection of a debt already owed.
The entire scheme is designed to elicit a quick financial response through advantage of the recipients anxiety and lack of adequate knowledge of the legal process.
Few cases actually go to court, save for the opportunity for summary judgement against recipients unlikley to contest a case. The statutory damages often cited in the letters tend to be off base. Even in the event of a deafult judgement (meaning you did not contest a case) the plaintiff still has to substantiate these damages in separate heraing. Statutory damages are at the discretion of the court and are supposed to have a correlation to "actual damages." In practice, these amounts have often been less than plaintiff's were seeking.
In cases that do go to court - it is the attorneys who tend too make more money than the plaintiffs. Reasonable Legal fees granted to the prevailing party are actually a bigger concern to a defendant than the actual damage awards.
