Complaint Review: (((8/6/2019 - REDACTED – VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE – CONTENT))) - Elgin Illinois

Editor’s Note:  We thank our users for considering Ripoff Report as a source for information and providing warnings to the general public.  That being said, sometimes, certain situations are brought to our attention and Ripoff Report, where resources allow, will decide to conduct a review of the situation.  Upon review of this particular matter it was discovered that the author filed this report that violated our current Terms of Service therefore we made redactions based on that violation. For more information about what constitutes a violation, please click here to view our  Terms of Service.

While we make NO representations about the facts and statements contained in any posting authored by third-parties, we’d like to provide you with some general standards to remember:

1. Ripoff Report does not condone businesses trying to take advantage of consumers – that’s why our website was started in the first place.  At the same time, we don’t condone consumers, or other business competitors, trying to take advantage of businesses by putting up false and defamatory material in order to gain some advantage in the marketplace.
2. Ripoff Report does not condone harassment and bullying.  Making up or embellishing stories in effort to harm another is wrong!
3. Copying and pasting someone else’s story and trying to pass it off as your own is wrong!  Write your own accurate and true account of your own personal experience.

Be warned that posting false and defamatory material is legally actionable and the First Amendment freedom of speech and the right to remain anonymous does not extend to such material.

PLEASED TO SEE SUCH EFFORTS?  YOU CAN HELP RIPOFF REPORT COMBAT THESE TYPES OF ISSUES:  Ripoff Report, as resources allow, is working towards combatting Cyberharassment, Cyberstalking, Cyberbullying and/or other problems such as what is generically called “revenge posts” that can be riddled with personal commentary and/or allegations that can be serious.   Ripoff Report would love to be able to timely address each and every review request we receive, however, this takes resources.  If you think this is a worth-while endeavor, we encourage you to make a donation so that we can expand the resources that we can devote to this project.  You can make a non-tax deductible donation by clicking HERE NOW or learn a little more by visiting our “Donate to our Efforts” page.  The more resources we have, the more resources we can devote to this project and other forward thinking and positive initiatives like it.

Thank you!

~ Ripoff Report Team

NOW TO THE EDITORIALLY REDACTED POSTING(S):

(((REDACTED))), married to (((REDACTED))), residing a(((REDACTED))) is a porn cam model working on (((REDACTED))) as (((REDACTED))). (((REDACTED))) driver's license number in Illinois is XXXXXXXXX. (((REDACTED))) birthdate is (((REDACTED))) 1986

(((REDACTED))) is owned by (((REDACTED))) and is in very close ties with (((REDACTED))).

(((REDACTED))) is extremely rude and rips off people by demanding tokens, donating to her Amazon Wish List to buy her things and sues people and companies without justification!

(((REDACTED))), known as (((REDACTED))), has several videos that she sells from her porn cam chat room. (((REDACTED))) claims that her videos are copyrighted. However, she distributes her videos by email to customers and members of her chat room and does not transfer liability copyright ownership to the receiver of the video. Thereby, allowing the person that received her video the availibility to upload to various video sharing websites. She then blames the company (ie., YouTube and others) and sues them without first following the websites Terms and Conditions by filing a legal dmca notice and thus, puts no blame on the uploader.

On November 6, 2013 at 5:44 PM, (((REDACTED))) tweeted to (((REDACTED))) "...(((REDACTED))) I'll email ur 2 videos shortly!!"

By distributing her videos, without discretion, she has no idea what happens to those videos once they are sent. Many of the people getting her videos have tipped her (((REDACTED))) tokens to get the videos and they upload the videos to share with others, not the companies. Due to (((REDACTED))) actions, she has diluted any copyright claims because she does not know who has received a copy of her videos that she sent out.

Some of the videos are recordings of her performing in live free open chat room, with no privacy or disclaimer of adult content being broadcasted by (((REDACTED))). These shows are recorded and not copyrighted by the model. Live broadcasts on an open forum are subject to recording by the 1,000+ people in her adult cam chat room. This number alone makes it impossible for (((REDACTED))) to police her video content. Don't do open porn shows in free chat forum!

If (((REDACTED))) knows of her videos on various websites, the legal procedure is to first file a dmca notice to the website, then they will expeditely remove her videos. If they do not remove the videos, then (((REDACTED))) can file against the site to have the material removed. (((REDACTED))) chooses to ignore the validity and legal purpose for a dmca notice, which was made a U.S. law so that people had a means to report their material and have removed. She rather sue first and this is the reason she will lose in court cases against companies. The companies can prove that no legal dmca was filed by (((REDACTED))) and that she is a copyright troll and subject to sanctions and fees.

We have obtained videos of (((REDACTED))) smoking illegal weed, a drug oulawed by the Federal Government of the United States. She is smoking the illegal drug in a live video feed broadcast in her open free cam chat room on (((REDACTED))). It has been brought to our attention that some people will be calling her local police, giving her physical address and report illegal drug use and possession at the residence of (((REDACTED))) The video showing illegal use and a statement will be given to the Elgin Police and the Illinois State Police for investigation.

(((REDACTED))) have helped us and other website companies against false dmca claims and copyright trolls. As of November 2013, it was reported to us that (((REDACTED))) has hired such a copyright troll attorney, who in 2012 was sanctioned by a District Court. (((REDACTED))) reasonably sought sanctions against Stone, (((REDACTED))) current attorney, for such egregious behavior. The court was pretty clear and direct in slamming (((REDACTED))), noting that it "rarely has encountered a more textbook example of conduct deserving of sanctions." (((REDACTED))) appealed, but was found in contempt by the district court for failing to obey the sanctions, and ordered to pay legal fees.  Stone, once again, appealed the whole thing -- and in a new ruling, the appeals court not only details the litany of both ethical and procedural misdeeds by (((REDACTED)))(including completely failing to follow the basic process of appealing such a decision), but reaffirms the sanctions against Stone.  Basically, everything (((REDACTED))) does makes things worse.

(((REDACTED))), are you sure you want your current attorney, (((REDACTED))), helping you on these cases?

If you are a company being sued by (((REDACTED))) current attorney, (((REDACTED))), we suggest you contact (((REDACTED))) at their litigation department and contact (((REDACTED))), known as (((REDACTED))). These organizations have a disdained history with attorney (((REDACTED))) and will submit to the judges about his intentions and actions. (((REDACTED))) is one of a group of lawyers who jumped into the copyright trolling business a few years ago, figuring it was easy money to get info on people based on IP addresses, and then demand they pay up to avoid lawsuits.

Judges are aware of (((REDACTED))) and dislike his actions.

(((REDACTED))) has a wedding video of her marriage to (((REDACTED))). The video at the end claims to be copyrighted by the videographer. This rebuttals claim of ownership by (((REDACTED))).

(((REDACTED))) needs to realize that she does not own claim to copyright to her videos, also noted in a contract between her and her cam website used as a portal to broadcast. And if a video of her is online posted by someone, and not the companies, she needs to file a legal dmca notice and request information about the person that uploaded the video to the website. Companies are not held liable; read their Terms of Service. You sue companies and they have legitimately removed videos, then you are open for a counter-lawsuit and subject to sanctions, fines and fess, especially if you use an attorney as (((REDACTED))). There a re legitimate companies out there and (((REDACTED))) will help them against you, (((REDACTED)))! Be warned!

(((REDACTED))) needs to stop f******* with people and drop her false claims! She will make things a lot worse for her and this report is only the start!

Do things legally and file a dmca notice before you do something stupid!