Skip to main content

Home/ Indie Nation/ Group items tagged scam

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
John Lemke

Fraudsters break all records in Japan relief ripoffs - Boing Boing - 0 views

boingboing.net/...fraudsters-break-all.html

woteabout wroteatindienation 2011 fraudsters record scam Japan tsunami fraud fake 2011.03.25

shared by John Lemke on 25 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • John Lemke on 25 Mar 11
     
    Fraudster scumbags have beaten all records in setting up fake Japan relief pages, fielding more than 1.7 million malware pages, 419 scams trading on the Japanese disasters, 50+ fake domains with "Japan tsunami" or "Japan earthquake" in their URLs. MacWorld recommends donating via the Red Cross, or other established charities that you're familiar with.
John Lemke

Surprise: ASCAP and Music Labels Colluded To Screw Pandora | Techdirt - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...-labels-to-screw-pandora.shtml

2014 ASCAP music infringement copywrong copyright law legal litigation scam labels

shared by John Lemke on 13 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • A key part of this was that the major labels, key members of ASCAP, suddenly started "dropping out" of ASCAP in order to do licensing directly. At first we thought this was a sign of how the labels might be realizing that ASCAP was obsolete and out of touch, but it has since become clear that these "removals" were all something of a scam to force Pandora into higher rates.
  • What happened was that ASCAP and Pandora had first negotiated a higher rate than Pandora had agreed to in the past -- reaching a handshake agreement. However, before that agreement could be finalized, these labels started "withdrawing" from ASCAP in order to negotiate directly. As part of that, both ASCAP and the labels refused to tell Pandora which songs had been withdrawn, meaning that if Pandora accidentally played one of the withdrawn songs (again, without knowing which songs were withdrawn),
  • Your Honor, by the time Pandora asked for this information on November 1st, both ASCAP and Mr. Brodsky [Sony Executive VP] had in their possession this very list. The deposition testimony from ASCAP was that this list as is could have been delivered to Pandora within 24 hours were it only to get the go-ahead from Sony to do so. ASCAP never received the go-ahead. We cited much of the internal back-and-forth on this in our briefs... My favorite is the following exchange between Mr. DeFilippis and Mr. Reimer of ASCAP on December 19th, 2013, PX 193. You see the question being asked by Mr. DeFilippis: why didn't Sony provide the list to Pandora? Mr. Reimer's response: Ask me tomorrow. Mr. DeFilippis: Right. With drink in hand. And the inference here is just incredible. This data was sitting there, your Honor, and nobody was willing to give it to Pandora.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • There's a lot more in there, but it seems abundantly clear that these labels "withdrawing" from ASCAP had nothing to do with competition or market rates. It appears that it had little to do with even withdrawing from ASCAP. Instead, it seems to have been designed from the start to basically screw over Pandora, in what certainly smells an awful lot like collusion, by forcing Pandora to pay exorbitant rates or suddenly face a massive copyright liability because no one would tell them what songs were being "withdrawn" from an existing licensing agreement.
John Lemke

Another Loss For Righthaven: Court Explains That Its Demand For Domain Names Is Silly |... - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...nd-domain-names-is-silly.shtml

2011 writeabout indienationnews newmediaorder righthaven law legal litigation copyright copywrong copyrighttroll troll lawsuit frivolous scam

shared by John Lemke on 02 May 11 - No Cached
  • John Lemke on 02 May 11
     
    Righthaven hasn't been having too much luck lately. We've already covered how its having a bad day for a few different reasons, and here's another one. As you may know, in nearly every lawsuit Righthaven files, it also demands that the defendant hand over his or her website, in addition to the $75,000 to $150,000 it usually asks for. This has left a bunch of folks scratching their heads, as there's simply no precedent for saying that if you infringe on someone's copyright, they get your domain. And, now, we have a court making that point clear. Eric Goldman points us to a ruling in Las Vegas by judge Roger Hunt (the same judge who unsealed the filing that may kill off most of Righthaven's lawsuits...), in which he points out that asking for the domain name has no basis in law:
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page