Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Copyright Trolls’ Category

I believe it is the duty of the copyright holders to “police their own copyrights,” meaning, if a company sees a bittorrent tracker or website hosting an unlicensed copy of their copyrighted work, BY ALL MEANS, issue a DMCA takedown notice to the website or to the bittorrent tracker, and that torrent will be GONE AND UNAVAILABLE for downloaders to take the content.

Rather than doing this, copyright holders hire CEG-TEK to target EVERY SINGLE DOWNLOADER with a letter forwarded by various ISPs, VPN providers, or university IT departments who are cooperating with CEG-TEK (sometimes for profit). Account holders receive “notice of infringement” letters sent directly to them either via an e-mail, FedEx, or a screen pop-up link along with a notification that they have violated the ISP’s terms of service. CEG-TEK’s letters now ask for $250-$300 per download, and they direct the accused downloaders to the “Copyright Settlements” website (http://www.copyrightsettlements.com) with a link which pre-populates the assigned Case Number and Password into the website.

With the cooperation of the ISPs in forwarding CEG-TEK’s letters to accused downloaders, there is no longer an anonymity barrier between the accused downloaders and the copyright holders as there once was when CEG-TEK would need a court order to access the identities of the accused downloaders. Now, since various ISPs and universities (e.g., Charter, Suddenlink, CenturyLink, Giganews/VyprVPN, etc.; NOTE: Comcast, Verizon, and the other big ISPs appear NOT to be working with CEG-TEK for the moment) have been useless in stopping the copyright holders from contacting the account holders, other than hiring a lawyer such as myself to create a buffer between the copyright holders and the accused account holders, bittorrent users should probably be aware of which companies are using this extortion tactic of “we will sue you unless you pay us money for the video you have downloaded.”

Here is a list I compiled from my own records as to which copyright holders are [at the moment] using Ira Siegel and CEG-TEK to “monetize” their “most pirated” copyrights. I want to point out that I am conflicted as to whether to post this list because the list itself can be deceiving — a title “not” on this list can still be monitored, and by no means am I suggesting that someone avoid these titles and download others. Perhaps by listing which companies are enforcing their copyrights using this extortion-type of “settle or else we’ll sue” method, it might shame the companies into doing something a bit more ethical (e.g., by policing their own copyrights and issuing DMCA takedown letters rather than attacking the downloaders as a means for financial revenue):

Axel Braun Productions
– “Batman XXX: A Porn Parody”

Celestial Inc., DBA Lethal Hardcore
– Fuck My Mom and Me 17

Cinderella Distributors Inc.
– Backdoor To Hollywood 6

Coast to Coast Video
– Older Women Younger Men 16

Combat Zone Inc.
– Daddy’s Little Princess #2

Daring Media Group
– Pretty Woman

Diabolic
– Swallowing is Good For You

Digital Sin, Inc.
– All About Ashlynn 1
– Incestuous
– Little Darlings
– My Anal School Girl
– My Plaything Ashlynn Brooke
– Perfect Little Pussy
– The Family That Lays Together
– The Innocence Of Youth #3, #5, #6
– This Is My First… A Gangbang Movie

Echo Alpha, Inc. DBA Evil Angel
– Fetish Fanatic 12
– Fetish Fuck Dolls 3
– Raw 16
– Rocco’s Perfect Slaves 3
– Rocco’s Young Anal Adventures

Fallout Films
– Naughty Girls 2

Froytal Services Limited DBA Babes
– Abrasador
– Amatores
– Dancing With Myself
– Hearts Racing
– Love Encounter
– Raving With Pleasure

Froytal Services Limited DBA Brazzers
– Dani’s Back and Ready to Play
– Driving Mrs. Madison Wild
– I Can Walk!!!
– Miss Titness America
– Mommy Got Boobs 15
– Sharing My Roommate’s Cock (Milfs Like It Big)
– Slutty Sorority Contest
– Teens Like It Big 12
– The Dangers of Working From Home (Kiki Minaj)

Froytal Services Limited DBA Mofos
– Best Vacation Ever! (Ivy Laine)
– Cheerleader Fantasy
– Flashing Gets Her Whatever She Wants
– Fun And Sex Games
– I Make It Rain On Your Tits (I Know That Girl; Dillon Harper)
– Jewels for the Duch-ASS
– Rub a Dub Gimme a Tug
– Swinging Slut Buffet

Froytal Services Limited DBA Twistys
– Burnin’ Luv
– Cum Over And Taste..

GGW Direct, LLC DBA “Girls Gone Wild”
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 1
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 2
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 3
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 4
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 5
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 6
– Baby Bash Live & Uncensored
– Bad Girls 2
– BEACH BABES 3
– BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
– Best Breasts Ever
– BEST BREASTS EVER 2
– Best of Blondes 2
– Celebrity Look-A-Likes
– CO-ED TRYOUTS
– CO-ED TRYOUTS 2
– CO-ED TRYOUTS 3
– DADDY’S LITTLE GIRLS
– Endless Spring Break 3
– Endless Spring Break 4
– Endless Spring Break 5
– Endless Spring Break 6
– Endless Spring Break 7
– Endless Spring Break 9
– Endless Spring Break 10
– Endless Spring Break 11
– Endless Spring Break 12
– Endless Spring Break 13
– Endless Spring Break 14
– EXTREME ORGY 1
– EXTREME ORGY 2
– EXTREME ORGY 3
– FIRST TIMERS
– FIRST TIMERS 2
– Freshman Class
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 1
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 2
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 3
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 4
– GGW – Extreme Sex
– GGW – On Tour 1
– GGW – On Tour 2
– GGW – On Tour 3
– GGW – On Tour 4
– GGW – On Tour 5
– GGW – On Tour 6
– GGW – On Tour 7
– GGW – On Tour 8
– GGW – Sweet Young Sex Maniacs
– GIRL POWER
– GIRL POWER 2
– GIRL POWER 3
– GIRL POWER 4
– GIRL POWER 5
– GIRL POWER 6
– GIRL POWER 7
– GIRL POWER 8
– GIRL POWER 8
– GIRL POWER 9
– Girls On Girls
– GIRLS WHO CRAVE SEX
– GIRLS WHO CRAVE SEX 3
– Girls Who Like Girls
– GIRLS WHO LIKE TOYS
– Horny Cheerleaders
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS 2
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS 3 (PRIVATE TAPES)
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS 4
– Hottest Texas Coeds
– ISLAND ORGY
– MARDI GRAS INVASION
– My 18th Birthday
– Road Trip
– ROCKS AMERICA
– Sex Race
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 2
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 3
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 4
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 5
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 6
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 7
– SEX STARVED PANTY RAID
– Sexiest Moments Ever
– Sexiest Moments Ever 2
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY 2
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY 3
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY 4
– Spring Break 2007
– SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT
– The Perfect Pair
– THE SEIZED VIDEO
– Ultimate Rush
– Usually a siterip or a torrent containing 25+ titles.
– Wild World
– Wildest Bar in America

Giant Media Group, Inc. DBA Devil’s Film
– Ass Full Of Cum 4
– Best Of Gangland Cream Pie
– Cum On My Hairy Pussy 2
– Cum On My Hairy Pussy 16
– Don’t Tell My Wife I Buttfucked Her Best Friend
– Gangland 70
– Gangland 85
– Gangland Cream Pie 24
– Gangland Cream Pie 25
– Gangland Cream Pie 26
– Gangland Cream Pie 27
– Gangland Cream Pie 28
– I Wanna Buttfuck Your Daughter 10
– My Wife Caught Me Assfucking Her Mother
– My Wife Caught Me Assfucking Her Mother 2
– My Wife Caught Me Assfucking Her Mother 5

Girlfriends Films Inc.
– I Dream of Jo 4 True Passion
– Mother Daughter Exchange Club 27
– Poor Little Shyla 2
– Tides of Lust
– Lesbian First Timers
– Lesbian Seductions 46

Intense Industries
– Fucking Your Socks Off

JM Productions Inc.
– Suck Off Races 3

JW Releasing Ltd
– Kinky Business

Kick Ass Pictures Inc.
– Foot Fetish Daily 9

LFP Internet Group, LLC DBA Hustler
– Barely Legal 2
– Barely Legal 16
– Barely Legal 19
– Barely Legal 84
– Barely Legal 100
– Barely Legal 127
– Barely Legal 128
– Barely Legal 131
– Barely Legal 134
– Barely Legal 138
– Barely Legal 139
– Barely Legal 140
– Barely Legal Little Runaways
– Barely Legal: All Stars 5
– New Wave Hookers
– The Opening of Misty Beethoven
– This Ain’t Game of Thrones

Manwin Content RK Limited DBA Reality Kings
– 2 For 1 Pink
– A Lavish Load
– Belle Bottom
– Bouncing Deluca (Big Naturals; Angel Deluca)
– Cum Hard
– Dirty Minds
– Full Figure (Monster Curves; Katie Banks)
– Getting Hardy
– Girlfriends Revenge (GF Revenge 6)
– Hello Alexis
– Leather and Lace
– Licking Lessons – Jasmine Wolff (Moms Bang Teens 2013-12-30)
– Naughty Kennedy – Kennedy Leigh (Moms Bang Teens 2014-01-20)
– Pussy Love (Money Talks – Esmi & Lily)
– Riding Riley
– Ripping Through
– Sexy All Star
– Sexy Stella
– Sweet Veronica
– Tits and Hips
– Ass In Heels – Angell Summers (EuroSexParties 2013-05-30)
– Busty Bikini Babes 1
– Finger Licking Good
– Lick It

Manwin DP Corp. DBA Digital Playground
– Bad Girls 5
– Bad Girls 6
– Bridesmaids
– Code of Honor
– Don’t Fuck My Sister
– For Sale
– Island Fever 2
– Island Fever 3
– Jack Attack 4
– Jack’s POV 2
– Jack’s POV 3
– Jack’s POV 5
– Jack’s POV 7
– Jack’s POV 8
– Jack’s POV 10
– Jack’s POV 12
– Jack’s POV 15
– JACK’S POV 19
– Jesse Jane Fuck Fantasy
– Jesse Jane Kiss Kiss
– Lost and Found
– Nurses
– Pink Slip
– Pirates
– Raven Alexis The Substitute
– Riley Steele Deceptions
– Riley Steele Satisfaction
– The Girlfriend Exchange
– Titlicious 2
– Top Guns
– unSEXpected
– Web Whore
– WHEN DADDY’S AWAY

Marc Dorcel
– Cathy 40 (Cheating Housewife)
– WIFE NEXT DOOR

Marc Dorcel DBA SBO Pictures, Inc.
– Orgy Anthology

SBO Pictures DBA Vouyer Media
– Jack In Me POV 2

SBO Pictures DBA Wicked Pictures
– Daddy Did The Babysitter
– I Was a Mail Order Bride
– Octomom: Home Alone
– Selfies
– Spacenuts
– Teen Ravers

Metro Media Entertainment
– Cute Little Asses

Millennium TGA, DBA Grooby Productions
– Buddy Wood’s Shemale Bedtime Stories

New Sensations Inc.
– Almost Heaven
– Anal Sex Secrets
– Ashlynn Brooke Is Sexy
– Big Bang Theory A XXX Parody
– Big Girls Are Sexy #3
– Double D Vixens
– Friends A Xxx Parody
– I Can’t Believe I’m Doing This (Zeina Heart)
– I Love Asians 11
– I Love Asians 5
– Redheads Are Sexy #5
– Sexy Student Bodies`
– WKRP in Cincinnati: A XXX Parody
– Young Girls With Big Tits 10

Patrick Collins Inc., DBA Elegant Angel
– Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman
– Big Wet Asses #3
– Big Wet Asses #6
– Big Wet Asses #7
– Big Wet Asses 16
– Cuties 4
– It’s A Daddy Thing!
– It’s A Secretary Thing!
– It’s A Secretary Thing! 2
– Massive Facials 5
– Performers Of The Year 2014
– Real Female Orgasms 10
– The A Line
– The Bombshells 5
– The Greatest Squirters Ever! 4

Pleasure Productions Inc.
– Wild Honey 2 (Tera Patrick)

RLD Distribution LLC
– Girls Of Red Light District – Sasha Grey
– I Bang Teens (Megan Salinas)
– White Dicks Black Chicks

Second Phase Distribution Inc.
– Big Butt All Stars – Crystal Clear
– Mama Turned Me Out 3
– Mama Turned Me Out 4
– Mama Turned Me Out 5
– Pigtail Virgins

Third Degree Films, Inc.
– Big Boob Orgy 2
– Curve Appeal
– Illegal Ass 2
– Laid In Lingerie 2
– Laid in Lingerie 3
– Spunk’d 7
– Spunk’d 8
– Top Ten 2

Vivid Entertainment LLC
– Farrah 2 Backdoor and More
– Farrah Superstar: Backdoor Teen Mom
– Kim Kardashian Superstar
– Raven Alexis Unleashed
– Raylene’s Dirty Work
– Tera, Tera, Tera (Tera Patrick)
– Tila Tequila Backdoored and Squirting
– Tristan Taormino’s Expert Guide to the G-Spot

White Ghetto Films Inc.
– Group Sex Junkies

Zero Tolerance Entertainment
– Dr. Ava’s Guide to Sensual BDSM For Couples
– Is Your Mother Home?

Now obviously you will notice a common theme along each of these copyright holders, and that is the “genre” of content they all produce. You will also notice that in this list there are “copyright trolls,” (meaning, companies who in the past have used or use the federal courts to sue individual downloaders for copyright infringement) and there are “not” copyright trolls (meaning, companies who have NOT sued defendants for copyright infringement). You can see which are copyright trolls by either searching the web for their name, or doing a search on http://www.rfcexpress.com to see whether they have sued in federal court.

A few things to note.

1) Many of the larger companies have multiple websites, and do business as multiple entities. For example, Froytal Services Ltd. “does business as” (“DBA”) Mofos and Brazzers (corresponding to their Mofos.com and Brazzers.com websites).

2) Many copyright holders are OLDER COMPANIES and FAMILY OPERATED BUSINESSES. This means that it is common to have former porn companies hire CEG TEK to track and send letters for “vintage” films from the 1970’s and 1980’s. The copyrights for these films ARE STILL IN EFFECT, and the former owners of those companies are now elder individuals who are now enforcing their copyrights from FORTY YEARS AGO. On the flip side, many older couples have been caught downloading a film from their youth thinking that since the titles were so old, it was probably legal to do so.

In sum, all I ask of everyone is to understand that the bittorrent networks are no longer safe, and when you download something, assume someone else is watching you. And, be aware that there are companies out there like Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK Int’l) who are waiting to send you a settlement demand letter.

Read Full Post »

Congratulation to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC defendants who will soon be dismissed from the AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1,058 (Case No. 1:12-cv-00048) case filed TWO YEARS AGO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Seeing that the appellate (circuit) court came out with a ruling this afternoon, I read the circuit court’s ruling with fervor thinking that I was about to write an article entitled “the jig is up, no more copyright trolling lawsuits.” Well, I am underwhelmed.

If you remember the Judge Beryl Howell CREATES A SPLIT in the DC Court article I wrote back in August, 2012, at the time, thousands of “John Doe” Defendants from across the U.S. were being sued in the US District Court in DC, and Judge Beryl Howell was in favor of allowing the mass bittorrent lawsuits to continue in DC, even though other district court judges [not former copyright lobbyists for the Recording Industry Association of America] (notably, Judge Wilkins, now a United States Circuit Judge) wrote opinions questioning the validity of mass bittorrent lawsuits. As a result of this, now almost two year later, we have a circuit court ruling resolving the question of whether “personal jurisdiction” and/or “joinder” are relevant questions for a court to investigate before it signs an order invoking the “machinery of the courts” to force a non-party ISP to comply with a subpoena [asking for them to turn over the private contact information of each subscriber implicated as a "John Doe"].

Judge David Tatel [writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit] wrote a few pointers that we already knew, and in my opinion, the circuit court’s ruling is two years, too late. The ruling is essentially that a court may justifiably force a plaintiff “copyright troll” to establish that it has PERSONAL JURISDICTION over the John Doe Defendants who are implicated in the lawsuit BEFORE it allows that copyright troll to obtain [through discovery] the list of names and addresses belonging to the internet subscribers. His opinion, however, resolves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the hundreds of smaller John Doe (e.g., v. Does 1-20) lawsuits filling the courts’ dockets across the U.S., where the “copyright troll” plaintiffs have figured out that “you sue a defendant where a defendant lives.”

Next point. When requesting the subscribers’ contact information from an ISP, the plaintiffs purpose must be to gather this information for use in THIS LAWSUIT, and not for other proceedings or other lawsuits. Good luck enforcing this one. I have no doubt that we will still see defendants dismissed from one “v. Does 1-20” lawsuit, only to be named and served in his own “v. John Doe” lawsuit. This happens every day. Also, good luck stopping a copyright troll from calling up dismissed defendants and saying, “unless you settle with us, we will name and serve you in your own lawsuit.”

Then after glossing over the “you must sue a defendant in the state in which he lives” rule, thirteen pages later, Judge Tatel discusses joinder (who can be sued together as co-defendants in a lawsuit).

I thought the joinder discussion would be juicy, but it was vague and vanilla, and it lacked explanation. The ruling was essentially that “you can only sue John Doe Defendants together in one lawsuit as long as they were part of the same bittorrent swarm.” This precludes plaintiffs who often sue defendants who did the same “crime” of downloading copyrighted films using bittorrent, but they did so days or weeks apart. In mentioning what is considered the “same bittorrent swarm,” the judge mentioned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as to what the scope of a bittorrent swarm is, and how long one lasts — whether a swarm continues for minutes, days, or weeks at a time — and who is properly connected in a bittorrent swarm to be sued together in a lawsuit.

All I pulled from his discussion is that “if Tom and Dick were downloading at the same time, they can be sued together in a lawsuit; joinder here would be proper.” However, if Tom finished downloading and logged off five minutes before Dick logged on, would this be considered the “same transaction or occurrence” to allow the two of them to be sued together? What happens if Tom finishes downloading and logs off, and by the time Dick logged on to the bittorrent swarm, everyone who was part of that swarm [e.g., all 10 or 20 people] also logged off and new people logged on. If Dick is downloading from a completely different group of downloaders than the group who was online when Tom was downloading, but they downloaded five minutes apart, is this the same bittorrent swarm or a different bittorrent swarm? The judge provided ABSOLUTELY NO ANSWER as to the scope of a bittorrent swarm, so we are still left with uncertainty.

…So you see why I am underwhelmed. The ruling was essentially, “personal jurisdiction, bla bla blah, joinder, blah blah blah.” I learned nothing new from this, and yet the media is jumping all over this as if it is some kind of jewel. NOTHING NEW HAPPENED HERE.

Putting all of this in perspective, if you think about only the issue that Judge Beryl Howell wanted the appellate court to answer, “whether personal jurisdiction and joinder are relevant in a discovery request to obtain information about not-yet-named ‘John Doe’ defendants who are identified merely by their accused IP addresses,” Judge Tatel did exactly what he needed to. He correctly answered, “yes, personal jurisdiction and joinder are relevant when the plaintiff attorneys ‘attempts to use the machinery of the courts to force a party to comply with its discovery demands.'”

Thus, when a copyright troll files a lawsuit against unnamed John Doe defendants, and they seek discovery to force an ISP to comply with a discovery request (e.g., a subpoena forcing them to hand over the contact information of the accused subscriber affiliated with that accused IP Address), issues such as personal jurisdiction and joinder ARE ripe for inquiry before the court grants the copyright troll permission to subpoena the ISP, forcing them to hand over the contact information of the accused “John Doe” defendants.

Read Full Post »

[This is a post about security and privacy.  In this post, I speak about what could go wrong if you do not properly secure your computer, and my thoughts about encryption and privacy.]

I am reviewing a case where a group of “zombie” infected computers have been hacked to work together (a “botnet”), and it appears as if the courts are going after ZeroAccess as the crime ring behind the botnet. In my readings, a federal judge has blocked the IP addresses belonging to ZeroAccess-infected computers because they allegedly directed many of their millions of infected computers to click on a number of paid ads, where the advertisers using Google, Bing, and Yahoo! have paid out an estimated $2.7 Million per month from the ad revenue generated as a result of these clicks. The lawsuit is for what is known as “click fraud,” and it got me thinking about 1) the application to the bittorrent lawsuits, and 2) to privacy and security in general.

While I have NO REASON to think the following is happening, it is completely plausible that one or more “infected” computers could be directed to connect to various bittorrent files without the computer owners being aware of the “zombie” status of their computers (e.g., the software is being run as a service, or minimized without an icon showing on the desktop).  While the connections to the bittorrent swarms are happening, the copyright trolls could be “coincidentally” monitoring the bittorrent swarms as the downloads are happening unbenownst to the computer owner. When the copyright holders (“copyright trolls”) send the DMCA letters to the ISPs, or when they file John Doe copyright infringement lawsuits against the subscribers, the ISPs would correctly confirm and coroborate that it was the subscriber’s ISP who was connected to the bittorrent swarm at that particular date and time, and the problematic conclusion would be that it was the subscriber who downloaded the file. And, when the download was complete, even though the malware would likely “cover its tracks” by deleting all traces of itself, it would be programmed to leave the downloaded copyrighted file in some obscure randomized file folder on the subscriber’s computer to be “conveniently” found by the forensic examiners during the lawsuit. I understand that malware could also actually alter the computer’s logs based on analyzing the computer owner’s past browsing history and program usage (most people do not clean this) to make it look as if it was the ACCUSED SUBSCRIBER who was “at his computer at the time of the download.” This could all happen without the knowledge of the subscriber being aware that the computer was infected with the malware or that the illegal downloads were taking place.

While this feels a bit sci-fi’ish, and again, I have no reason to think this is actually taking place, the technology is certainly around for this to happen.  I have personally watched enough podcast videos on Hak5 demonstrating how this could be done, and I could figure out ways to alter the malware program to gain administrator access to the computer and change the system logs on the computer before deleting itself.  If someone as simple as me could figure out how to do it, for sure the more crafty ones will eventually stumble onto this scheme as well. For this reason, I am writing this article as a warning to take your computer’s security and your online privacy seriously, and here are the simple steps I would take if it were my own computer.

Step 1: Don’t balk, but make sure you have antivirus software and anti-malware software running on your machine. Also make sure your software and virus definitions are up to date. I have my personal favorites as far as software goes, but quite frankly, free or paid software both do their job fine. There are many free anti-malware programs out there, so make sure the one you use is not malware itself. For free malware detection, I find SuperAntiSpyware and MalwareBytes to be sufficient.

Step 2: Protect your identity and your browsing habits. This depends on how much “tin hat” you want to go, but I personally use JonDoFox’s version of the Firefox browser. There is a STEEP learning curve to use it (meaning, the add-ons will initially break most of the websites you use, and most websites need to be configured once before you get it the way you like it), but in my opinion it is worth the effort to learn. You can check your current browser security at http://ip-check.info/ (by the way, I do not use JonDo anonymization software because they charge by the actual usage; rather, I opt for the less secure route of encrypting my traffic using a secure VPN provider). On the flip side, for convenience, I also use Comodo Dragon Chrome which is a faster, less secure browser, but I have many add-ons that I’ve installed (e.g., Scriptsafe, AdBlock Plus, etc.), and I keep the software running in the Sandboxie software. That way, if some critter gets past my defenses (e.g., think, “CryptoLocker,” or other ransomware which encrypts your files and charges you hundreds of dollars in bitcoins as ransom to decrypt them), it won’t get access to my hard drive files.

Step 2.1: This belongs to the previous step, but encrypting your traffic is very important. There is a phrase, “I have nothing to hide… from people I trust,” and I stand by that phrase. With the NSA and government snooping, and the ISPs watching your every move, regardless of whether you are doing something wrong or not, it is a smart idea to not give all of your shopping and browsing activities to your ISP and to Uncle Sam. There are also many commercial trackers and social networks who track you for commercial purposes as well — everything I say above applies for them too.

Step 3: Secure e-mail, secure chat… The best way to protect your e-mail is to encrypt it.  Unfortunately, e-mail by its nature is insecure, and even if you encrypt the contents of your e-mail, the METADATA (e.g., your own e-mail address, to whom you are e-mailing, the time and date of your e-mail, along with the geolocation of you IP address you use to connect to the e-mail server, etc.) remains exposed.  The only foolproof way I know to encrypt e-mail is to use Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) software.  The problem is that it is simply inconvenient.  In order to encrypt your e-mail, you need to not only setup and share your own public and private keys, but you need to find and look up the keyrings of those you want to communicate with.  While there are attempts to incorporate encryption into e-mails (e.g., projects such as gnupg), the average person does not encrypt their e-mails, and trying to get everyone to do so is just an exercise in futility.  Plus, we know that the NSA saves encrypted e-mails for the sole purpose of trying to “break” the encryption because “if you use encryption, you are presumed to be using it for a criminal purpose.”  Thus, I am unhappy with the current state of technology with the adoption of encryption for sending e-mails, but for the time being, this is the way it is.

Secure chat is very easy, and there are many convenient ways to encrypt your instant messages.  Whether you are using the Pidgin software with the encryption plug-in, or whether you are using Cryptocat or any of the secure chat softwares readily available for the PCs, iPhones, and Androids, achieving perfect security is very doable.  For me, I do not encrypt my e-mails, and whenever I have a friend or peer who has the capability to encrypt our chat sessions, I have him do so just for the “geeky” fun excitement of it.

Step 4: Keeping your own computer clean and neat. Your Microsoft Windows operating system keeps logs of pretty much everything you do, and it is specifically the failure to clean up after yourself which can give malware the chance to impersonate you. Similarly, by not regularly cleaning up after yourself, should you one day face a lawsuit, a forensics expert can glean an ungodly amount of information about you, your whereabouts on a certain date and time, and your activities (e.g., whether you were surfing the web or writing a text file, and, which text file you were writing at that particular time and date) just by reviewing your logs. Now I personally do not trust my Microsoft Windows operating system not to “spy” on me, and if I had it my way, I’d run a Linux operating system (I have in the past, and I may in the future), but for the time being, be aware that the “privacy” settings in Windows stops NOBODY from snooping on you. I have not figured this one out yet (especially since most of my law firm’s software are Windows-based), but Windows is simply a minefield of privacy leaks and data you don’t want about yourself recorded and logged.

While this is certainly not even close to a solution, I run CCleaner from Piriform regularly to clean up the logs and to keep my computer relatively clean.  I would love to delve into the depths of my operating system and tweak certain settings to shut off the “phone home” leaks in my system — I simply do not have the time, the “tin hat” motivation, or the skill to do so.

Step 5: Lastly (and there are probably a million other steps I could take, but I like to keep things simple). I encrypt my hard drive data 1) in my computer, 2) outside of my computer (e.g., external drives and thumb drives), and 3) in the cloud. There are many ways to do this, most popularly is the “TrueCrypt” software. If you cannot encrypt your drives (I cannot, since my computer is a Windows 8 machine and TrueCrypt has not figured out how to encrypt UEFI systems yet), then create a large container, and set up your programs (e.g., Thunderbird Mail) to store your files in your encrypted container.  Better yet, install the program onto the encrypted drive so that it is not in your C:\Program Files folder.  That way, if your computer is ever stolen or lost, your programs and your data will remain unusable and encrypted. I often take this one step further and have Windows configured (to the extent possible) to use the encrypted drive to store my “Desktop” and my “My Documents” folder. Thus, if I do not unlock the encrypted drive when I first log in, my computer does not work properly, and I get a blank desktop. Along with this, my computers have log-in passwords which I have activated before the operating systems even boot. I have this running because even little me knows which piece of software one can run to bypass the password on Microsoft Windows machines.

In sum, you could take privacy to an extreme. The best privacy is the “trust no one” type of privacy. For some cases (e.g., our cloud storage backup servers are “trust no one,” meaning not even the company who hosts our data has the keys to unencrypt the encrypted data which is stored on their servers), using the best security is feasible and doable. But there are limits and there are sacrifices to your privacy, and it usually comes at the benefit of having more convenience. Truly, the most secure password is one not stored in a text file, or written on a piece of paper, but one that is in someone else’s head (not even your own).  The best security is not using a computer or connecting to the internet at all. Then again, that is not feasible to most of us who live in the internet. However, learning to take steps to protect your privacy (within reason) can only work towards your benefit.

Read Full Post »

As we near the end of 2013, I expect to see “2013 Year in Review” articles. I decline to write my own here, but it has been a very busy, work-intensive year. I would compare it to using nothing but strength and muscle to push metal against a spinning wheel with the result of seeing sparks flying.

Prenda is dead. Or, is it. Lawyers spent most of the year enjoying the exposure of Prenda Law, Inc.’s failings (or more accurately, “fallings”) where their scams and schemes became unraveled over and over again for all to see. Judges called them on their bluff, brought the principals into court, and ordered them to pay large sums of money. Yet, what was actually paid (and what will actually be paid) is still hidden from our eyes. My guess is that they’ll pay something, but compared to the millions they raked in since 2010, it will only be a tiny fraction of their windfall profits.

It is my opinion that what undid them was greed. Had they continued to sue defendants en masse, and had they continued to “name and serve” defendants and move forward with the lawsuits in good faith (if there ever was good faith), they may still be in business. Thankfully, where there is “rolling in dough,” there is also born greed and corruption. AF Holdings was born, the “Alan Cooper” alter-ego was invented, papers were forged, settlement money was sent offshore to various entities, honeypots were discovered (where it was discovered that Prenda Law Inc. was seeding the pornography they later sued on), and so-called paralegals became the named “owners” of the entities who were suing to enforce their copyrights. If all this (and getting caught) was not enough, they threw their own local counsel attorneys “under the bus,” they sued the internet and bloggers for defamation, and they started a war with the internet service providers (ISPs) and Cable Companies, a fight they could not have won. Why they went after the ISPs, nobody will know, but in my opinion, this was their mistake.

But this article is not only about Prenda, or the Steele|Hansmeier gang, or the Mark Lutz characters of the world (or their many life-altering experiences over the year), but it is also about what has been happening outside the federal courts (“out-of-court”).

A year ago, I wrote a few articles about Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK), a brainchild of Ira Siegel. After his experiences in the Northern District of California, followed by the experiences of his local counsel Mike Meier, Marvin Cable, and for a time, Terik Hashmi, their cases went silent in the federal courts. No new cases were filed, and for a time, all we saw were dismissals of our law firm’s clients.  Then, tens of thousands of so-called “DMCA Letters” began pouring out from various ISPs directing accused internet users to their copyrightsettlements.com website (no link, this is on purpose) to entangle themselves in their settlement system.

There was a moment where I thought the “Six Strikes System” would kill CEG-TEK’s business model because the ISPs would no longer forward their “pay us now or else we will sue you” scare letters, and by depriving the copyright enforcement companies of their ability to contact accused internet downloaders in their homes and out-of-court (without the supervision of a federal judge), this would cause CEG-TEK and their ilk to go out of business, but this was a disappointment.

The “Six Strikes System” ended up being a dud. It only applied to a few of the “elite” ISPs, and those ISPs used the Six Strikes System to demand large sums of money from the copyright owners and sent the notices to their subscribers anyway, but only a truncated version of CEG-TEK’S “scare” letter. Comcast, case in point. I watched as a fight broke out between Comcast and CEG-TEK, where Comcast only forwarded a snippet of CEG-TEK’s letter, but still directed users to their CopyrightSettlements.com website so that the settlements can continue. Then in other letters, they botched the CEG-TEK settlement link alltogether, and then, did not include the link [in their letters] at all. (And, just for “me too” news as of today, “Johnny-come-late” to the game, RightsCorpis reported by Torrentfreak to have experienced the same thing).

In sum, the Six Strikes System did not kill CEG-TEK as I thought it would, nor did it hurt the “copyright trolls” or stop them from filing lawsuits. CEG-TEK merely found other ISPs and universities to cooperate with them by forwarding their settlement demand letters to the ISP’s subscribers, and CEG-TEK’s collection attempts have continued unhindered.

Lastly, there has been little slowdown to the copyright infringement lawsuits. As I predicted a few years back (link), the lawsuits merely got smaller and more focused (link). The days of suing 5000 “John Doe” defendants bunched together in one federal lawsuit are over. Similarly, the smaller lawsuits having just a handful of defendants [where the lawsuits are filed in the states in which the defendants live] are also over. Now, the lawsuits are so small and focused that it is common to have only one defendant in a lawsuit, and this has made it impossible for our firm to watch, read, and report on every case that is filed in every jurisdiction.  Then again, it has made it more expensive for the copyright trolls, and (ugh) more scary for the carefully targeted defendant.

In sum, it has been a year of grinding and a year of watching the effects of previous years of work change, alter, and shape the bittorrent lawsuits to the form in which they are today. Congress and lawmakers have been useless in making this copyright trolling phenomenon disappear, as have been the attorney generals and the various state bar ethics boards, who [with some very notable exceptions] have been sitting on their hands. I do not think the copyright troll problem has been solved in any way. Rather, the plaintiff attorneys have gotten smarter, smaller, and more focused.  As a result, they have flown below the radar of those who have the power to stop them. And, while the lawsuits continue, former copyright troll attorneys (Ira Siegel / CEG-TEK) have continued their efforts, just outside of the court’s ability to monitor, sanction, and control their out-of-court settlement activities. And, I need not say this, but many new copyright trolls have popped up based on the lack of legal supervision, and I am concerned to say that I do not see this going away any time soon.

John Steele and his Prenda Law Inc. gang are down. CEG-TEK is thriving. Old copyright trolls such as Lipscomb & Eisenberg, along with their many local counsel across the US [and their lawsuits] are thriving. Other no-name “baby” copyright trolls are growing up and have learned to navigate the broken federal court system. And most important of all, more and more people are getting entangled into their legal spiderweb of extortion, settlement demands, and lawsuits, both in and out of court. This is grim, I know.

But there are still voices out there — SJD’s Fight Copyright Trolls website, DieTrollDie‘s website, along with organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who, [while they have been rightly so enveloped with dealing with privacy issues, government corruption, secret FISA courts, and fighting NSA police-state-like snooping techniques] are still very helpful in the copyright troll lawsuits with their countless efforts to make the problem go away once and for all.

So please allow me to be the first to wish everyone Happy Holidays, a safe winter, and a Happy New Year.

Warm regards,
Rob Cashman

Read Full Post »

Add Missouri to the list of states unfriendly to copyright trolls. And, congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients who have been severed and dismissed from the Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-91 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02292) lawsuit!

Now what was exciting about this Purzel Video GMBH case ruling was U.S. District Judge Audrery Fleissig’s 1) refutation of the “judicial economy” justification for joinder, and 2) her clarification of the relationship between bittorrent users for joinder purposes (and similarly, what she left open for future rulings by referring to bittorrent transfers as mere “pieces”).

Courts in other federal jursidictions which allow multiple defendants to be sued together in bittorrent cases (pro-joinder jurisdictions) allow joinder of non-related defendants based on the fact that it is easier to have one “John Doe 1-500″ case with five hundred (500) defendants in it rather than to have five hundred “single John Doe” lawsuits. The defendants in these cases are all accused of violating the same copyright laws; the defendants are all accused of using bittorrent to download the same title; the courts are all deciding the same issues for each defendant — whether the court has “personal jurisdiction” over each defendant (whether the plaintiffs sued defendants in the wrong state, depriving that federal court of personal jurisdiction over each John Doe Defendant), and whether the defendants are properly joined together as co-defendants in the same lawsuit.

I suspect that Judge Flessig caught on to the extortion scheme, and she made her ruling with the understanding that everything in the above justifications for “judicial economy” is true… if the plaintiffs are running a settlement extortion scheme. However, if the plaintiffs indeed intend in good faith to move forward with their case “on the merits,” then as the judge points out, the “judicial economy” approach falls apart.

The rule now in Missouri federal courts (binding on other Missouri cases, persuasive in non-Missouri cases) is that suing multiple defendants in a “John Doe 1-X” lawsuit is improper because of the prejudice to the co-defendants and the confusion that will result *if* the plaintiffs actually have a good faith intent on pursuing their claims (e.g., if they are “not” running a settlement extortion scheme).

For example, a rule in federal courts is that every named defendant needs to be provided copies of all documents for the case in which they are accused. The judge points out that it would prejudice Defendant #2 if he started receiving motions and rulings relating to the depositions and interrogatories for Defendant #1. Multiply the confusion that would occur if there are ten defendants, or one hundred defendants, and so on. Similarly, each defendant will end up having his own lawyer. If the lawyer for Defendant #1 makes a motion and the court orders his client to a case management hearing, Defendant #2 will receive a copy of this order and may think that he has to attend the hearing.

This gets even more burdensome as soon as defendants are named and discovery begins to take place. Judge Fleissig points out that every defendant has the right to attend the depositions of the other co-defendants. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if every John Doe Defendant crowds into a small office to hear the other defendants’ depositions. My own addition — imagine if all the accused defendants and each of their lawyers try to crowd into one small courtroom for a hearing.

Lastly, we all know that the justifications for joinder in a federal lawsuit is the “same transaction or occurrence” standard. In other words, courts have ruled that defendants can be joined together in one lawsuit if they were participating in the same bittorrent swarm at the same time — this is known as the “swarm joinder theory” asserted by the plaintiffs in every bittorrent lawsuit complaint.

In plaintiff attorney Paul Lesko’s cases, it is interesting to note that he was trying to extend the definition of a bittorrent swarm to span 18 weeks — from August 5th, 2012 to December 5th, 2012. This would obviously include internet users who never uploaded or downloaded from each other, and it would place them together as being part of the same transaction [big ongoing swarm] or occurrence [the "happening" of the swarm, for as long as "it" stays "alive"].

This secondary swarm theory has no official name, but it could be described as the “temporal swarm theory,” which asserts that defendants who participate in a bittorent swarm can be sued with all other defendants who ever uploaded or downloaded to that swarm (as opposed to a more legitimate “snapshot swarm theory” which joins bittorrent users together in a lawsuit based on who is uploading and downloads to whom at a particular point in time).

However, Judge Fleissig rejected both the “swarm joinder theory” and the “temporal swarm theory” (“snapshot swarms” were not discussed) because in both cases, the bittorrent users did not download and upload from EACH OF ALL the other bittorrent users in that swarm. In other words, a bittorrent swarm consists of many small “transactions and occurrences” between multiple users, and the judge essentially ruled that association with a “bittorrent swarm” does not properly connect [for joinder purposes] one defendant with another defendant from whom or to whom he did not specifically download or upload.

Food for thought for future Missouri federal cases: I want to also mention that Judge Fleissig refers to the accused bittorrent users as merely transferring “pieces” of the copyrighted files to each other rather than the entire copyrighted title [to be found liable for copyright infringement (under the "substantial similarity" prong), courts have ruled that the entire copyrighted file needs to be transferred; not merely "pieces" of it].

I would love to interpret her words as meaning that ‘because no user transfers a complete copyrighted file to any other user (only data bits and “pieces” of the copyrighted file that the downloader’s bittorrent software pieces together into a file), no user can be found liable for copyright infringement,’ but I do not think this is what she was referring to.

Rather, by mentioning bittorrent transfers from one user to another user as mere “pieces” of a copyrighted file, Judge Fleissig leaves open the question (perhaps to be elaborated in a future ruling) whether transferring bits and “pieces” of a copyrighted file (but not the entire file) can constitute copyright infringement.

NOTE: This ruling directly affects as binding upon the following Missouri bittorrent cases* (sorted by filing date):

reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-39 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00895)
Georgia Film Fund Four, LLC v. Does 1-75 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00832)
The Bicycle Peddler, LLC v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00583)
Elf-Man, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00576)
The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00577)
PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00480)
Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-32 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00449)
Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-67 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00450)
Riding Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00430)
Bayou Pictures, LLC v. John Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00433)
The Good Doctor, LLC v. John Does 1-36 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00434)
Maxcon Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-88 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00428)
reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00409)
reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-53 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00408)
Breaking Glass Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-188 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00388)
Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00290)
Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-30 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00020)

*some of these may have already been dismissed on other grounds.

Read Full Post »

I try my hardest to separate out the “photo” copyright trolls from the “bittorrent” copyright trolls when writing articles on this blog, as they are a separate category of trolls with their own rules.

In sum, “photo” copyright trolls search the web for images that are used on websites, often by bloggers, without permission or license from the owner of that photograph. Essentially, a blogger writes (for example) about the topic of “red pepper” vegetables. To make their blog entry more visually appealing, they search Google Images for “red pepper,” copy the first image they see, and they paste it on the top of their blog.

Most bloggers stay away from pictures that have a watermark on it, or from images which have a copyright logo marked on it. The problem is that 99% of the pictures out there have no copyright marking, and are not sold anywhere. Unsuspecting bloggers use these photos or random pictures on their blogs, and unbenownst to them, the owner (or a third party who purchases the rights to the photo with the intention of suing bloggers) begins asserting their copyright interests in the photo. Many accused bloggers who I have spoken to have expressed that they didn’t think they needed a license for a photo for non-commercial activities, and now they are facing threats of a lawsuit for using an image on their website.

Where the waters get muddied is that now Copyright Enforcement Group (a.k.a., “CEG-TEK”, “CEG TEK”, and more recently, “CEG”) is sending out the same DMCA letters that they ordinarily send to my bittorrent clients, but now they are in the “photo trolling” business. Their letters assert that a particular website used a copyrighted photo without a license, and the copyright holder is now asserting his rights for the “theft” that happened to his intellectual property rights. Thus, they are asking for $500 per photo, which in my opinion is obscene considering all their other letters ask for $200 per video shared via bittorrent.

On a personal note, hitting website users with a threat of a lawsuit over an image pulled from a Google image search is simply obscene. I would certainly understand such a letter if the image had a watermark pointing the user to a website where they can purchase rights to the photo without the watermark, or if there was a copyright mark on the image. Yet these photos have none of these, and they are literally trolling old websites and blogs looking for photos which were copied from other websites.

What makes this so obscene is that the photo copyright owners are asserting the same copyright infringement claims as do the copyright holders for the bittorrent cases we deal with daily. Along with the same copyright claims come the same shock of having the law provide statutory damages of $150,000 to the copyright holder who can prove the infringement. $150,000 for a movie download in my mind is an obscene and disproportionate punishment for the “crime” of downloading a copyrighted title. Even moreso for a photo. AND, even moreso for an unmarked and unwatermarked photo freely available on a Google image search.

Now here are the details as they are unfolding. So far, it appears as if the “photo” copyright troll entity asserting the copyrights is a company called “AKM Images / GSI Media.” The letter CEG-TEK is sending out provides a screenshot image of the blog containing the photo (and in a number of cases, the blog is no longer in existence and is only shown in the internet archives on the “Way Back Machine” on http://archive.org). It appears as if even CEG-TEK was unsure if they wanted to go into this area, because many of the screenshots are said to be from last year (2012). And, the so-called DMCA letters are not sent by ISPs, but appear to be forwarded by the website admins who host the various blogs.

6/13 UPDATE: There is some talk about the copyrighted images being posted on the website owner’s website or blog by a third party RSS aggregator. In sum, the accused blogger or website owner in many cases didn’t even post the images themselves, yet they are still asked by CEG to pay $500 to avoid a lawsuit.

Read Full Post »

ID-100157775Image courtesy of @artur84 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Much of the bittorrent world is saddened by the leaked news reports of the recent “Bellwether” case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Malibu Media v. John Does, Case No. 5:12-cv-02088) where at least one defendant is reported to be facing close to $112,500 in damages plus attorney fees for the peer-to-peer downloads he is said to have taken part in. The plaintiff attorneys, along with Keith Lipscomb and others who have a vested interest in seeing bittorrent cases against internet users succeed are drinking champagne and celebrating their victory.

It is both my professional belief and my personal conviction that copyright trolling lawsuits are wrong, and while there is nothing illegal in suing a defendant for copyright infringement, doing so in my opinion is unlawful and morally corrupt. These lawsuits are nothing more than a STAGE SHOW to permit a behind the scenes SHAKEDOWN of accused interent users, whether or not they actually participated in the accused infringement. For G-d’s sake, the “guilty” so-called “criminal” defendant merely clicked on a link, and downloaded a title that was openly shared with thousands of other downloaders. To hit that defendant with a shock lawsuit where they face $150,000 statutory damages for a video that could have been purchased for a few bucks is a disproportionate punishment for the “crime” of downloading copyrighted films. Rather, instead of suing downloaders and letting the piracy continue, why not just end the piracy problem by issuing a DMCA take down notice to the bittorrent tracker? The alternative of sitting in bittorrent swarms and employing tracking software to track the IP addresses of who is downloading to me just seems like an abusive step to what would otherwise be a simple problem of making the torrent files go away so that unsuspecting downloaders couldn’t click on the links.

It is my conviction that copyright infringement lawsuits are wrong because it is simply immoral to shake down EVERY John Doe Defendant (yes, each one) with the threat of having to defend a lawsuit in federal court unless they cough up tens of thousands of dollars for downloads that the John Doe Defendant often did not even take part in. I have personally seen copyright trolls such as Malibu Media, LLC take large sums of money from defendants who did not do the download, but who were pressured into settling simply to avoid being named in a lawsuit. It is no secret that defending a case is sometimes significantly more expensive than settling a case.

Yet even with the pending resolution of this lawsuit, accused defendants across the U.S. in their own lawsuits should understand that this ruling will not be binding on other federal courts in other federal districts. Each federal court makes their own rules as to what constitutes copyright infringement, and what evidence is required to prove a defendant guilty when the so-called infringement happens via a bittorrent download. This is our job as attorneys — to know which districts have rules in favor of bittorrent users, and to know which districts have ruled in favor of the copyright holders. No doubt, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will now become a favored spot to sue internet users accross the U.S. for copyright infringement.

Lastly, on a personal note, this case does not change the way a lawyer handles copyright infringement cases. At least in our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, there is no silver-bullet approach — some defendants choose to settle, and many do not. Considerations as always involve 1) whether the download actually happened and the circumstances surrounding the accused activities, 2) the accused defendant’s willingness to fight and defend a copyright infringement lawsuit, 3) the accused defendant’s aversion to risk of having their name become public knowledge in a court proceeding, and 4) the accused defendant’s financial ability to take each of the various pathways we suggest.

In sum, not all guilty defendants settle, and not all non-guilty defendants fight.  It is simply a calculation and a risk assessment that is based on the client’s desires, the federal district in which the lawsuit is filed (taking into consideration past bittorrent cases filed in that jurisdiction), the judge who assigned to the case (taking into consideration his past rulings), and the plaintiff attorney (or more frequently, the local counsel’s) proclivity towards naming, serving, and taking defendants to trial balanced with their willingness to negotiate an amicable settlement should we decide to go that route.

Bittorrent cases [in their current form] have now been around for three (3) years, and now we have a verdict where a case has been taken to trial — by Malibu Media, LLC surprisingly enough.  When we started, there were no cases taken to trial, and now there is one.  Before the appearance in 2010 of the bittorrent cases, all we had to go on were the old Napster and Grokster cases, combined with the various lawsuits filed by the RIAA / MPAA and miscellaneous copyright infringement files dealing with the internet. Up until now we have been developing case law surrounding peer-to-peer downloads as each case matures. Now we are starting to get some clarity as to the law surrounding bittorrent use.

Read Full Post »

Malibu Media, LLC has been filing lawsuits across the U.S. with a fervor with one change — most of them appear to be “Single John Doe” lawsuits against defendants whom they believe have deep pockets.

In other words, it appears that Malibu is looking at the geolocation data of the various IP addresses of the so-called downloaders, and they are going after defendants who live in towns which have high value residential homes. I know this because based on the individuals who call our office, a disproportionate number of them have commented that they have multi-million dollar estates, and they were wondering whether it was ethical to target high value individuals in their copyright infringement lawsuits.

To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC appears to have incentivized their local counsel with financial rewards for bringing in higher settlements. In the olden days, I could have called one of their contacts directly, and within a few phone calls, I knew what kind of settlement a defendant could get based on how many “titles” or alleged instances of infringement they were accused of downloading. From there, the client and I would decide whether it made more financial sense to fight the case by waiting to be named and filing an answer in court, or whether it made more financial sense to settle the case. Malibu has complicated this process in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy for the courts. Now, they are having their local counsel negotiate the settlements themselves. This would be okay, but it is my experience that local counsel are asking for higher numbers than I know Malibu would have settled for just a few months ago. “The old settlement numbers you used to have with Malibu are no longer in effect,” one local counsel told me as she pushed for higher numbers. “We are doing this ourselves now.”

To make matters worse, when Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader by his IP address, they track that IP address and monitor that defendant to see what other bittorrent files that defendant is downloading (wiretap?). They continue to monitor that defendant downloading non-Malibu Media titles such as “The Walking Dead,” “Homeland,” “Breaking Bad,” often creating a list multiple pages long of “other” infringing activities that defendant has taken part in. Their logic is that because a particular defendant downloaded those other titles, he is a “serial downloader” and thus it is more likely that he downloaded their titles as well. A number of us attorneys have explained to their local counsels’ deaf ears that just because a particular IP address downloaded a number of bittorrent titles does not mean that the accused defendant is that downloader. However, even the best attorney’s understanding of the law can be clouded when money influences that attorney’s understanding of it.

On a positive note, in just a few weeks, we have seen judges rule that the “other” BitTorrent activity listed in their complaints [for works not owned by Malibu Media] is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), specifically Rule 404 on “Character Evidence.” The reason for this is because “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” In other words, proving that a particular defendant is a “serial downloader” is not admissible to prove that on a particular date and time, that defendant downloaded Malibu Media’s copyrighted titles. Shame on Malibu attorneys for not knowing this.

Further, judges have ruled that introducing evidence of “other” downloads is not relevant and is actually prejudicial to the defendant, and thus that so-called evidence is not admissible to prove that the defendant downloaded Malibu Media, LLC’s titles. As one example, Judge Stephen Crocker has frozen all of Malibu Media, LLC’s cases in the Western District of Wisconsin for this very purpose (link).

In sum, messing up on the Federal Rules of Evidence and doing so on each of their “Single Doe” upper-class cases was a big mistake which they might not be able to undo.  And also on a positive note, because they have filed so many “Single Doe” cases across the country, judges across the U.S. are looking deeper into their tactics and their evidence of infringement.  See @Ddragon229’s article on the FCT website, “Winds of change begin to blow on Malibu Media” for details on the character evidence issue.

Despite this, Malibu Media, LLC continues to file lawsuits across the U.S. in alarming numbers, and in each case, they continue to file this prejudicial information of “other” downloads as their “Exhibit C” in each case. A snippet of cases filed in just the last few weeks is pasted below:

Cases filed by Chris Fiore in the Pennsylvania Eastern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02858)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02859)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02867)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02868)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02854-JP)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02855-MMB)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02856-JD)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02857-SD)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No.2:13-cv-02863-PD)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02864-HB)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02765-MSG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02766-MSG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02767-WY)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02768-PD
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02769-RB)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02770-CMR)

Cases filed by Mary Schulz of Schulz Law PC in the Illinois Northern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03726)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03699)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03700)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03703)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03704)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03705)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03706)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03707)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03710)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03711)

Cased filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC inn the Michigan Eastern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.238.205.92 (Case No. 4:13-cv-12231-MAG-MAR)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.185.159 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12210-RHC-MJH)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.4.96 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12213-SFC-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.84.236 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12214-AJT-MKM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.60.140.87 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12216-PDB-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.62.41.133 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12217-VAR-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.14.181.108 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12218-NGE-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.246.89.172 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12220-AJT-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.158.6 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12197-GAD-PJK)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.89.224 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12198-PDB-MKM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.123.7 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12200-GER-MKM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.46.12 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12201-DPH-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.35.2 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12202-PDB-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.170.197 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12204-GAD-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.19.221 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12206-DPH-LJM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.86.4 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12208-MOB-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.172.154 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12209-SJM-MKM)

Cases filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC in the Indiana Northern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 12 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00166-PPS-RBC)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 5 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00164-PPS-RBC)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 9 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC)

PERSONAL NOTE: Even with all these cases, I have only listed 46 cases having 46 defendants. With the hundreds of filings, it becomes impossible to track and report on each case. The more I look at each of these cases, the more I feel as if they have succeeded in preventing attorneys like myself from tracking and reporting on each of their hundreds of cases. Obviously I am still here, and I am still reporting on these cases. My list of cases to track has just gotten a bit larger.

Read Full Post »

houstonlawy3r:

Sometimes there are no words other than silence to best express the thoughts I have about Judge Wright’s order essentially referring John Steele and the Prenda Law Inc. gang to the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for all the settlements on which no taxes were paid. There is one police agency that a criminal organization does not want to be contacted by, and that is the CID.

The $81K in sanctions essentially funds the lead attorneys who spent time on this case. And, the referral to the bar associations means that the principals at Prenda Law Inc. may no longer have their law licenses shortly.

In sum, there is not much for me to comment here, except to be silent, because the judge’s order itself says all it needs to. Copyright trolling may seem profitable for the attorneys filing the lawsuits, but no money can compensate for the loss of freedom that one experiences when what was once a multi-million dollar law practice lands the principles in prison for tax evasion. This should be a lesson to all other copyright trolls out there. Judge yourselves accordingly.

Originally posted on Fight Copyright Trolls:

We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Congratulations to everyone involved, especially Morgan and Nick.

Media coverage

View original 382 more words

Read Full Post »

houstonlawy3r:

For those of you interested in the “chemistry” behind the bittorrent lawsuits and the “SHA1 hash numbers” affiliated with each title allegedly downloaded in each copyright infringement case, Die Troll Die has written up a very simple to understand article on the topic.

His analysis relates specifically to the The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Does 1-155 (Case No. 6:13-cv-00469) and similar cases, however the application of the SHA1 hash number analysis is relevant to any bittorrent lawsuit.

Originally posted on DieTrollDie:

While answering a question for a Doe, I decided to dig a little deeper into the various “Thompsons” cases filed throughout the US.  I apologize for missing an ‘interesting‘ aspect in case The Thompsons Film, LLC, v. Does 1-155, 6:13-cv-00469.   complaint_00469(OR)  The SHA1 hash number I listed was ONLY ONE of THREE hash files in the IP address listing.  I was a bit shocked, as this type of activity is very old-school copyright troll, as well as stupid in my opinion.  John Steele (Steele-Hansmeier/Prenda Law) liked to do this with his early cases.  We had another Troll try this a while back in Louisiana over a year ago – Multiple Hash Files.

TMovieHash1

The reason I call it stupid is because it shows that some of the BitTorrent activity is not related and thus some of the Does are improperly joined with the others Does. …

View original 442 more words

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 112 other followers