NewbieFan (NF),
You probably won't like some of the answers I will give as they lack some explanation and background info you may want. You will have to accept some of my answers at face value and rely on the high trust and credibility factor ELI has earned over the lat 5.5 years. Unlike our enemies who regularly lie and deceive letter recipients hiding their true identities, we at ELI put our true names and reputations out there and tell it like it is. I am sorry I won't be able to give the explanations you want but you can thank the lawsuit that was filed against me last year by a copyright extortionist to try to shut me up. It fundamentally changed how ELI operated, which is being very open and transparent with our readership. Unfortunately, that openness and transparency is also being read and absorbed by our enemies which is used against us.
Because of this, ELI can no longer reveal or explain everything it knows on this very free and open discussion forum. You will have to rely and accept what some of us say based on our ongoing credibility and reputations.
These are some important points I want to make and I suggest new readers pay attention.
1. No one is going to tell you dollar amounts specifically. It is "forbidden" information but there are a lot of discussions about dollar amounts under different scenarios. Just assume it won't break you and or send anyone into bankruptcy. If it did become exorbitant or rapacious to the client, few lawyers including Oscar would ever agree to an amicable settlement. Regarding Oscar's fee, you sign up for Demand Letter Program is the point of entry for most folks.
2. You are reading way too much into these cases. They were cookie-cutter cases designed to instill the fear and paranoia that you are beginning to exhibit. Those cases were filed with the intention that the news would get out about them helping "motivate" future victims in settling up.
3. Believe it or not I don't always advise people to hire Oscar and neither does Oscar! For me, lawyers are bound by certain rules of conduct that non-lawyers don't have to. For some people, they may choose to burrow themselves and hide out for 3 years. You don't need a lawyer to do that. There are pros and cons to any approach and is largely based on people's dispositions and personalities.
4. I've said this for years and it is still true, statistically speaking, letter recipients have less than a 1% chance of ever getting sued. Thousands (if not ten thousands) of letters go out ever year. Assuming "only" 1,000 letters went out in one year and 10 people were served a lawsuit, That would equate to 1%. Well, very few copyright extortionists have filed 10 lawsuits a year. And just because they do doesn't mean they are "good quality" lawsuits. Most lawsuits are filed for the purpose of "motivating" a settlement, not "go all the way".
5. Most lawyers work on a retainer and high hourly fee basis. This is why all the copyright extortionists tell you to consult an attorney. They know what most attorneys will say and quote. So this is the unwritten rule. "Go consult with a qualified attorney (except if his name is Oscar Michelen)".
While Oscar doesn't work for free, he does things for our clients no other lawyer will for a fixed fee through the Defense Letter Program. Of course, that service doesn't include all the fixings such as a phone conversation but that is where I come in. I don't give legal advice but I know how Oscar's defense letter program and office works and most of the relevant issues.
6. Many of the questions you are asking as to "why" this or that are psychological motivation questions. The copyright extortionists are in it for the easy money, not the pain, angst, or negative publicity of lawsuits. Those lawsuits filed were obviously a "cheat" to anyone who read them. They were cookie-cutter and boiler-plate and laughable. They banked on the fact that there are many people ignorant of the legal process and will roll over. For example, most victims don't realize that a counter-suit can be filed once someone opens that door. A victim did exactly that a few years ago and flipped the tables and filed a counter-suit against the copyright extortionist and then started taking measures to initiate discovery to uncover information and the true nature of their copyright extortion operation. What started out as a "motivational" lawsuit backfired tremendously. They learned and read about ELI and put into practice what was discussed theoretically. If someone files a lawsuit against, you can always file a counter-suit. And even if they are willing to drop their side, you don't have to drop the lawsuit. It was never revealed how it ended but shortly thereafter, that copyright extortionist left the business.
Most copyright extortionists are cowardly. Nearly all hide behind the corporate names, very few want to reveal or sign their true names because then people would start reporting and complaining about them on the Internet and their online reputation would be mud. So they try to secretly get money without having to reveal who they are. They want the money without the pain and aggravation. The front line people are the ones who have to endure the consequences of the ongoing battles.
Regarding your assumption of having to hire a lawyer for a corporation, small corporations have an advantage. A judgment against a small corporation means very little because they have few assets. You close the checking account and a judgment against a small corporation becomes uncollectable.
NF, I don't know your personal situation but you are playing it exactly how Getty wants to with the overt paranoia. Some of your assumptions are terribly flawed because you don't have all the information that we do.
Topic: Latest on Getty Single Image Lawsuits? (Read 4735 times)