Is it Possible to Write a Boring Letter About Hard Core Porn?

I never thought so, but attorney Keith Lipscomb pushes the envelope in this impassioned yet detailed and somewhat technical defense of his client, a South Florida porn producer, and its efforts to go after people who may have illegally downloaded their provocative content:

Attorney Keith Lipscomb, with the Miami law firm of Lipscomb Eisenberg, PL, insists that his client Patrick Collins, Inc., says they have a strong legal case against Claudette and the 999 others named in their suit.

"Unless my client enforces its copyrights, the public will come to learn that it can infringe my client’s copyrights with impunity. When that happens, my client fears that it’s business will suffer more or even fail since its primary product is a movie capable of being converted into a digital media file and downloaded illegally through the internet. The way I see it, PCI’s decision to enforce its copyrights is really no different, except that PCI’s store is online, than Home Depot’s decision to prosecute every person who shoplifts from it," said the lawyer whose client is better known as Elegant Angel Productions, which produces hard-core porn videos.

"First, by establishing that the subscriber’s IP address was used to commit the infringement, we have pled a prima facie case for copyright infringement," he wrote me. "If Claudette wants to claim her Wi-Fi was unprotected and someone else used her IP address to download the movie, she will have to prove it. In response to our prima facie case, a Doe can defend on the basis that its Wi-Fi was hacked pleading it in an answer and affirmative defenses," he said.

"Should that defense ever be raised in a litigation then, among other things, my clients would investigate by verifying how far the subscriber’s Wi-Fi signal carries. Most modems don’t project signals far enough to establish a good connection into a neighboring house. If it did carry a signal to another house then we would, subpoena and depose the Doe’s neighbors to ascertain whether: (a) they have a computer, (b) they have internet service, and (c) they have ever used a neighbor’s open access Wi-Fi connection. If the neighbors have a computer and internet then there is no reason to hack."

"Here is the bottom line, however, merely because a Doe could possibly prove that its Wi-Fi was hacked and that it was not the infringer does not make my client’s copyright enforcement campaign overbroad, unlawful or unethical. To underscore the point, let me pose the question back to you: What would you do if your revenue model was pay per download and your articles were being illegally downloaded on the scale that my client’s digital movies are being illegally downloaded? I think you would do the same thing. I know I would and I am personally very proud to be defending my client’s copyrights to the best of my ability."

Ok ok you've made your point, but deposing Claudette's neighbors and seeing whether they tapped into her Wi-Fi to download hard-core porn videos?

Well it is Connecticut, and I'm pretty sure The Ice Storm is 100% accurate and exactly how all wealthy suburban families behave.

Key party, anyone?