What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

[SoylentGreen]

I really wish that Oscar had more time to chime in here.  But I understand that he's busy, and he certainly has no obligation.
It's my personal opinion that some clearly do not understand the concept of law, the law itself, or what it actually means to be a lawyer.
I firmly believe that some of the disagreements here stem from the above misunderstandings.
While "free speech" is paramount, so many of the arguments made here don't hold any weight against what the law says.
It's abundantly clear to me that many of the "suggestions", and "positions" presented here are constructs intended to overcome the problem that most claims do not satisfy the test of law.
Additionally, further "suggestions", and "positions" made are clearly intended to protect some lawyers that have taken shocking liberties in their chosen profession.
A profession that's a privilege, not a right.

I'd like to see more people ask themselves, "how does that satisfy the law?" before they post.
Different methods of doing business in terms of PR/Marketing does nothing to increase legal standing.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

Jerry (mcfilms) advocates for your ability to speak out here. It is only because of my respect for him that I am extending your free ride to June 30. I fully expect that you will be too cheap to pay for the marketing & PR activities you are engaging in.  It is a bit interesting but you still happily extract extortionate amounts from the letter recipients to this day.

Regarding the "one strike" issue. I don't recall any letter recipient being let off with a warning.  Someone running a stop sign or speeding would have a better chance getting off with a warning from a police officer than from extortionists in the stock photo industry.  Even when they don't pursue a letter recipient, they don't have the decency to say "We will let this one go. Don't do it again."  They will let them stress for the entire 3 years on the statute of limitations.

Many lawyers constantly brag about how smart they are and they have no hesitation to make legal threats they can't keep.  Well, I told you already. I don't like to bluff. We will continue reporting as long as letter recipients keep sending in letters. That is no bluff.  Simple as that.

If they don't want to be reported, then maybe they shouldn't piss and upset people so much they feel the need to get help.

I'm not really sure what to say here.  I will continue to communicate with McFilms if he has questions or comments like we have in the past.  I appreciate the time you have given me and even though it has been brutal, I knew what to expect when I came here.  In general, all of you were courteous and tolerant of hearing the "other sides" views.  I am glad to see some of the questions and concerns about my company's spoken to, and regret not clarifying those points earlier.

Please consider this one thing if I am not able to post here any more. 

The "ELI Attorney Warning System."  What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI.  It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate.   Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them?  They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.

Thank you.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I trust Jerry will chime in soon now that he has spoken with me.

I did. Just prior to your post. (Just wanted to make sure you saw it.)

[Khan]

quid pro quo: What about Glen stop sending any letters out until June 30     

[adam]

Seems from Glen's response that he and his constituents are well aware of what the lawyers they retain are doing.  It's obvious the trumped up claims with immediate threat of litigation are intended to one thing -- scare people into a quick settlement and hoping they ignore the facts of law at hand.  They contain unsupportable misrepresentations (or I guess more bluntly lies) twisted and stated as facts shrouded in legalease, intended to bring a trumped up damage value claim that are completely irrelevant and unsupportable without these lies.  They didn't get in there by accident.

But recipients should call them and let them know they made a mistake?

Hahaha.. Come on.. Mistake.. Some of these letters are unbelievable and I am starting to wonder if some states frivolous litigation statues would provide some recourse for defendants in counter-claims to also recover from lawyers rolling the dice with these letters, because clearly they should know and from Glen's response DO know what they are doing.  And he comes here and makes a mockery of "help us understand" something they have engineered to be what it is.

The surprising this is the recent round of allegedly better caliber law firms getting tied up in this mix. Makes me wonder if top brass at law firms like Conrad and Sherer know they have staff lawyers participating in games like this?  To go from representing George Bush to this crap?  I realize the economy is bad, but wow.. If I was considering them or similar lawyers for a large corporate or government project, I'd have to ask myself what was going on over there. 

[SoylentGreen]

For me personally, all of this got much less interesting when the discussions went away from "evidence" and "law", and more towards "let's listen and hear him out", "why would you think that he's a bullshit artist?", and "let's give him the benefit of the doubt".

The latter have nothing to do with whether or not he's owed money.

S.G.

[adam]

Seems like just double downing... The original letters are based on one part fear and a major part gullbility - to believe it because it is written down and a lawyer said it.   Now its the same thing again.. Let's see if I can convince this group they have me all wrong....  It's almost like if they are stupid enough to go for it the first time, they probably will go for it this time too.

As soon as he asked for tolerance of engineered, psychologically abusive "legal" (or perhaps "illegal") letters, his "efforts" on here should have insulted anyone reading it.   I seriously doubt anyone on here would have ignored a good faith email or call from them to discuss accidental use of an image.  Sheesh, after going through expense of having to redo website that used a freely distributed open license image, these guys should be apologizing for letting these be released all over the place and causing this confusion in the first place.  I'm sure it's just that they didn't understand what they were doing back then, right.. But all the letter recipients SURELY understood they were "stealing" and "remove copyrights" ... Yeah...   

Things like this ultimately come around to bite those involved in the ass.

[aimiyo]

There really is nothing else to say Glen has solved the problem for himself.

From Glen Carner:

" The "ELI Attorney Warning System."  What that would be is when you see a "new" attorney whose letter appears extreme or is working for a stock photo agency, that you contact them (or me who would be happy to follow up them) and have a "ELI" (Extreme Lawyer Intervention) to warn them about what they are doing and how if you see another letter from them in the future that it will be posted on Scribe and ELI.  It seems harsh to potentially damage the career of an new attorney (for life on Google) because they sent out a letter you feel is inappropriate.   Wouldn't a "one strike" rule be appropriate for them?  They should at least have the choice of continuing to work for the agency and pay ELI's consequences, or to stop doing this work knowing that ELI will be watching and taking action if they continue.

Thank you."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I now change my position and no longer side with McFilms, Now I officially support charging Glen to be on the site along with that "boy" from the Ellis Camp. It reminds me of George Orwell's book Animal Farm. I paraphrase "we are all equal its just some of us are more equal than others" . So now we solve the entire problem by giving the lawyers the benefit of the doubt ??@!#$%^&*()

Michael

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Not to diminish the words of pastor Martin Niemöller, but:

First they came for the trolls,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll.

Then they came for the lawyers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a lawyer.

Then they came for the troll supporters,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll supporter.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Lettered]

Im not for silencing Glen Carner, for whatever that's worth. 

He seems to be looking here for help in figuring out how he can make people feel better about overpaying for accidental infringement.  SG's answer is all he needs to know in that regard (no one is going to pay these high fees even if the letter is from kindly Uncle Glen or something to that effect).

The attorney early warning proposal is just absolutely dripping with irony.  I suppose that would be OK is he did the same with a "accidental infringement early warning-free strike one".  That has nothing to do with maximizing his revenue, so I doubt he would give it any consideration.  Why is he worried about lawyer's rep anyway?  Is he starting to have trouble finding lawyers that will participate in trolling?  Score for ELI!

What would be more interesting from Glen would be to see any proof he might have that no seeding is going on (either intentional or passively permitted).  Glen, I challenge you to address this directly and thoroughly here on the forum.

There is probably no need to force him off the forum . . . I think if he keeps getting the message above, he will eventually get frustrated and just stop coming around.