You're arguing about what happened in a case the paper clearly doesn't argue against - I was asking for an example of "blackmail" by the papers definition, where it was easy to identify the witness. You provided an example of extortion and definitely not an example of the definition of blackmail provided in the paper, so the whole point is kind of moot.
So instead, going by what the paper talks about, could you come up with an example where it's easy to identify the victim?
Even so, the matter discussed is if blackmailing should be illegal. So here's an example. I go to a doctor who advertises as a specialist in thyroid diseases. Being a doctor myself I can instantly tell he's a quack doctor. Who is the victim if I "blackmail" him by saying he has to pay me $10.000 to not tell the world about it? Is he the victim? He obviously breached contract by selling me something he was not in possession of, so in that case, I'm the victim of fraud, but is he the victim for me seeking restitution by means of blackmail? Well, maybe you could say that the other people who believe him are the victims, but they are not the victims of the blackmail, they are is I was, the victim of his fraud.
Let's take another example where a previous crime was not necessarily involved. I have found you cheating on your girlfried. I tell you to pay me $10.000 not to go tell her. Should making that offer be illegal? Are you a victim when you can simply agree not to? I don't know if you read the paper, but the point made is that asking for an amount of money not to disseminate knowledge shouldn't be illegal. Would you say NDA's should be illegal?
