I received this on our copyright address today...
| Quote: |
URGENT
A user on your network, who we believe is <redacted>(bitsnoop.com admin) ISP-IP:
<redacted> has been sending abusive messages and has most recently
posted several photographs of a girl (age 15), on your webspace.
Each time I have emailed <redacted> to request that the material be
removed, he has escalated and has become more threatening in his
replies, via email and via his online retaliation.
The girl mentioned is one of the children of a couple we met at a
convention. They had innocently posted their photos on their own
family web page and <redacted> found them and has spread this and
other pictures all over the net, and has altered some of the images,
inciting other child predators to follow in his wake.
I am asking for your assistance in stopping this internet predator.
Please remove this html page and the torrent files, and block the hash:
[isohunt.com]
[isohunt.com]
Thank you for your help (I hope),
Christine Filipak
Monolith Graphics
<redacted>
phone <redacted>
email <redacted>@monolithgraphics.com
The content of this letter is PRIVATE, intended for the recipient
only. Re-distribution or publishing of this content is expressly
forbidden. |
Now, why would Christine send an email like this to our copyright address? Oh, right, to assassinate another person's character by calling them a pedophile. What evidence is there to back up this conclusion? Oh, about 7 posts over at
bitsnoop.com's blog
(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
). If you compare the linked to picture marked (NSFW) in post #5 titled ("Joe,%20Chris,%20Corvis%20&%20Don.jpg") to the filenames in the link Christine sent us, you'll notice a similarity. So, Christine Filipak claimed that photos of herself, with some book author were photos of a 15 year old girl who's allegedly being abused. What? That's not enough proof? Well, how about this:
Borders%20signing%2010-15-05.jpg
... same filename as the first file in the reported link (which doesn't look like a 15 year old girl to me). 7th file down in the complained of link is titled
Joe, Chris, Corvis & Don.jpg
, which is Christine Filipak. Oh, crap, caught publicly in a lie. Good job that.
So, what happened here? Nox Arcana's DMCA agent got upset that one of her
DMCA notifications
was posted online and decided to start a smear campaign against the guy running bitsnoop.com. In most countries, there's a couple legal terms for this degree of
defamation
of character: libel and slander. Libel is defined as: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. Slander is defined as: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another. Given that both html and email are written, and not spoken, this would be identified as libel, since slander is often identified as only being spoken word, not written word. Still, slander and libel are both actionable (meaning you can get sued over). Considering the owner of bitsnoop is identified as living in Russia, it'd be kinda hard for him to sue over this... so, since I don't appreciate being lied to, especially about something as serious as kiddie porn (which, btw, we remove immediately upon receipt of notice, and it's usually not hard to spot kiddie porn from the titles and filename listings).
My hope is that would-be customers of Nox Arcana and Monolith Graphics reconsider spending their money with people who're willing to infer that *we* (us being torrent sites, and you being torrent site visitors) are all child predators/pedophiles (see post #6).
Is this an endorsement by us of bitsnoop.com? Nope
Do we think it's completely unacceptable to dream up some lies about someone just because you're unhappy with something they've done? Very much so, which is why this post is on the front page.
Oh, about that disclaimer, please see
"stupid disclaimers"
,
here
, or
here
. Basically, the jist of what I'm saying is that since I haven't agreed not to disclose the above email, there's no binding contract to that effect, which means that the "expressly forbidden" part of her signature is false and misleading.
Posted by: SecretSquirrel
Comments: 35