Wait, You Can Be Sued For Downloading Dirty Movies, Too?

Senior Contributor
10.01.10 4 Comments

Why are the only movies on the Internet even worth downloading in the first place the subject of lawsuits, when you can find them for free on so many websites anyway?  Why is the government making it harder for you to find an episode of “Glee” without all the ads?  And what does 4Chan have to do with all this?  Answers to all these questions, and maybe some bikini photos if we’re feeling magnanimous, here at Uproxx News.

First up, a follow-up on the story of ACS: Law, which we mentioned earlier without realizing it was about something raunchy.  Turns out that ACS: Law is suing on behalf of the poor producers of pornography, and have been sending out legal threats like rancid pizzas with holes in them, their process servers arriving on the doorstep like a nasty, disease ridden pizza boy who will make you wish you had the money to pay for the pie.  It also turns out that they have poor security, meaning thousands of potentially life-ruining messages were available for the taking.

And, as we all know, computers plus porn plus potential for schadenfreude means 4Chan, the infamous anonymous message board, was on the scene.  4Chan plowed through ACS: Law’s server like Peter North and released the skeevy results for all to see.  Which included a list of content downloaded and the person’s real name.

Between 4000 and 8000 people have been revealed, including future “Maury”-bait such as married men trading gay porn and people begging for their identities not to be revealed.  ACS: Law is now being sued by Privacy International, and presumably the porn sites of the world will find a law firm that defines computer security as something other than “installing Norton Anti-Virus”.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee is attempting to fast-track a bill designed to allow the Justice Department “wide-ranging authority” to investigate illegal file sharing, because apparently America no longer has any terrorist threats or other internal security issues to deal with, and we can start prosecuting moms for downloading the Wiggles without paying.  Basically it lets the DOJ investigate sites, and black out foreign downloading sites, because nobody in America has ever heard of a proxy server.

Needless to say, the music executives who spend so much time defrauding their artists and losing various labor and price-fixing lawsuits were overjoyed, while people who actually care about the Internet and find the idea of the Justice Department passing out censor slips in service to the kind of people who pay millions to adapt toy lines into bad movies troubling complained.  Considering the bill is backed by both political parties, one guess who wins this one.


  • Nudity, trolling, legal incompetence, lawsuits…yep, just another day in enforcing antiquated copyright laws that desperately need revision! (CNet)
  • Hey, speaking of antiquated copyright laws that desperately need revision, here’s another one fresh off the hopper! (Ottowa Citizen. Yes, even the Canadians care about this one.)



  • Meanwhile, in freedom of speech news, noted attention-whoring closet case Fred Phelps and his little band of morons are in front of the Supreme Court in a case that challenges their freedom to assembly. Albert Snyder said he couldn’t walk away from their bile because they were pulling their usual at his son’s funeral. The Supremes start on this one next week. (Yahoo!)
  • And in a case that no doubt will have advertisers going to the Supremes, the Senate just passed a law that requires TV ads to be at the same volume as the program they’re keeping your from watching. Yeah, good luck with that one. (Austin American-Statesman)



  • How many sites does ACS: Law have to shut down? Probably at least 24 million. (Gizmodo)
  • How much does Hollywood lose on piracy? Nobody knows, but indie filmmakers can lose $100,000, easy. The Justice Department cares. Really. (L.A. Times)


Around The Web