Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Florida (FL)’ Category

Congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients and former defendants who were dismissed from the Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-3,932 (Case No. 2:11-cv-00545) case in the Middle District of Florida.

We’ve known that this case has been “dead” since December, when the court denied the plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to name and serve defendants. I was surprised that they did not instantly dismiss the case months ago, but it lagged on with almost no activity.

I suppose the timing of this case is fortuitous for those following the Prenda Law Inc. scandals, because the judge in this case is US District Judge John E. Steele, having no relation to John Steele of Prenda Law Inc.

A few months ago, I referred to this case as an “abandoned, dead floating ship.” Even then I had no idea that the timing of the death of this case by Judge John Steele would coincide so nicely with Judge Wright’s hearing just the day beforehand.

For those that want to know what actually happened here, the politics were very simple. Copyright troll attorney Jeffrey Weaver of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver, PLLC (now “Dunlap Weaver, PLLC sans former partner Grubb”) took this case after his main attorney Nicholas Kurtz left the firm leaving the oldest copyright troll without teeth to go after defendants. Nu Image, Inc. came in wanting to sue, and so Jeffrey Weaver took the case. Almost 300 documents, 79 weeks, and 2 days later, the case is dead.

Congratulations again to all 3,932 defendants who have been dismissed from the case.

Link to the dismissal order.

Read Full Post »

Malibu Media, LLC has been one of the worst offenders in these copyright trolling cases. Instead of waiting for a full download to be complete, it has been reported to me that IMMEDIATELY UPON CLICKING ON THE BITTORRENT LINK (or in other words, as soon as an internet user “joins” the bittorrent swarm, EVEN IF NOT A BYTE OF DATA HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED), ***WHAM!*** Downloaders are tagged and are sued for copyright infringement.

To make matters worse, Malbu Media, LLC is known to sue based on what is called a “Siterip” (essentially meaning that someone ripped a large set of videos from their http://www.x-art.com paid website, and posted a huge number of them into one bittorrent file). We won’t ask 1) if they’ve known about the Siterips, why they have not filed DMCA takedown notices for those Siterips, and 2) whether they were involved in the “leaking” of the various siterips (in my opinion, it is too convenient to have “Siterip #1… Siterip #2… Sitrip #12…”). In sum, clicking on the wrong torrent file link with Malibu Media, LLC as your plaintiff production company can get you sued for 25+ titles, or “hits” as they like to call them.

Now what makes these cases particularly offensive is that unlike the traditional copyright trolls who will only ask for $3,400 and settle for whatever they can get, Malibu Media, LLC will likely ask for at least a $10,000 settlement from each defendant. You see this by looking at the case names below that there appears to be only ONE defendant in each case. The reason for this is that their attorneys will tell the defendant that he’s the only one in the case, and that they’ll amend the complaint, “name” him as a defendant, and serve him with process if he doesn’t settle.

While I am against the concept of suing downloaders for the piracy of a film, I want to note that filing ONE LAWSUIT FOR ONE DEFENDANT is the proper way to do these lawsuits (and the courts will be much more forgiving based on the many filing fees paid to the court, especially since the court will not need to deal with rote procedural issues that have plagued these cases since their inception [e.g., improper jurisdiction, improper joinder]). In sum, in a case such as this one, a defendant must answer for himself the simple questions of 1) can I fight this (the answer is likely yes considering the “snapshot” methods in which they track the IP addresses relating to the downloads, along with the likely-present issues of late copyright filing dates), and 2) how would I like to proceed based on what I know about their evidence against me (based on my own network router setup and/or downloading habits)? X-art films have a very specific style and theme to them, and they attract a very specific genre of married men, one step up from those who enjoy classy soft porn. On top of this, the Keith Lipscomb IP enforcement company representing Malibu Media, LLC as their client does research on most defendants (note their mention below as “Dr. John Doe” in one of their cases to signal to the defendant that they know he has financial resources to pay a large settlement). For these reasons, it is often a simple question of EVIDENCE in determining whether to move forward with what is usually a very good defense, or whether to use that evidence we gather in your favor while attempting to negotiate a deeply discounted settlement on your behalf.

Up front, the local counsel you will read about below — Mary Schultz, Paul Nicoletti, Jon Hoppe, Leemore Kushner, Jason Kotzker, and Patrick Cerillo — are merely paid to file and fight these cases according to the instruction of Keith Lipscomb. They are merely cogs in Lipscomb’s IP enforcement machine, and in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to be talking to them since they likely do not have authority to do anything but gather evidence, argue the cases and move them forward.

MARCH 2013 – 19 NEW CASES

Illinois Central District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01096)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01099)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01100)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01101)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01102)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02058)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02059)

Wisconsin Eastern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00226)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00236)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00238)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00239)

Indiana Northern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media LLC v. Joe Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00085)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00162)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00163)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00164)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00165)

District Of Columbia District Court
Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00268)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00269)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00270)

FEBRUARY 2013 – 103 NEW CASES

New Jersey District Court
Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01179)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.32.191.163 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01176)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.142.2.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01178)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01180)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00214)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-01159)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.35.11.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01104)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.70.130.138 ( 2:13-cv-01106)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01105)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00971)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.54.255.28 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00972)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00973)

Wisconsin Eastern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00217)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00213)

California Southern District Court
Leemore L Kushner of Kushner Law Group

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00433)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00434)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00435)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00436)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00437)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00438)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00440)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00442)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00443)

Florida Middle District Court
M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00467)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00468)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00469)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00470)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00471)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00472)

Florida Southern District Court
M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:13-cv-80178)

Colorado District Court
Jason Aaron Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 63.225.246.31 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00423)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.212.197.251 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00425)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)

Maryland District Court
Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00352)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00353)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00354)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00356)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00357)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00358)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00359)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00363)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00366)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00350)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00351)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00355)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00360)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00361)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00362)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00364)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00365)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00506)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00507)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00508)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00509)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00510)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00511)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00517)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00518)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00512)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00513)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00514)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00515)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00516)

Illinois Central District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01072)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01073)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02043)

Illinois Northern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00863)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00878)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00880)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00883)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00884)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00885)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00888)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Dr John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00891)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00913)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00915)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00934)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00935)

Michigan Western District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00158)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00162)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00163)

Indiana Southern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00201)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00203)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00204)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00206)

Indiana Northern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00055)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00071)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00072)

Colorado District Court
Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.234.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00307)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.250.8 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00308)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.161.234 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00309)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.34.85 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00310)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00311)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.40.151 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00316)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.71.30.155 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00317)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.245.154.142(Case No. 1:13-cv-00318)

P.S. – For those of us who follow these cases as enthusiasts, did you notice that there was no mention of Chris Fiore in this long list of cases? Perhaps he still has his hands full with the bellwether case.

Read Full Post »

URGENT UPDATE: Bait Productions apparently did not like having all of their cases consolidated into one case, so they decided to file their own individual cases against named defendants. In the past two days, they have named 9+ defendants. Will they name all 1,536?

Here are a list of defendants named in the past 48 hours:
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Langston M.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Brad C.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Steven F.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Peggy B.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Charlene V.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Ana V.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Francisco V.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Steve W.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Ruxter L.
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Doe 1

Now obviously, it is apparent that they are immediately suing and naming defendants from their original 25+ cases AS SOON AS THEY RECEIVE THE NAMES OF THE ALLEGED DOWNLOADERS FROM THE ISPs. What is concerning to me is that I know that a number of ISP deadlines were right around the corner, maybe even yesterday or today. For this reason, if you were implicated in any of the Bait Productions lawsuits, then contact an attorney ASAP (it doesn’t matter if it is me or anyone else).  I certainly have a lot to say about your next steps, what your options are (e.g., whether or not to file a motion to quash, etc.), and regardless of what path you choose to take (whether you retain our firm or not), what the expected result would be and the likelihood of each result.

I hate to sound like I’m asking people to call me, but quite frankly, Bait Productions’ actions of turning around and immediately naming defendants changes the game, and I cannot rely on slowly writing blog articles about their cases and waiting for accused defendants to figure out what is going on and educate themselves because maybe many months later what I write about might become relevant to them. This is happening TODAY.

As far as appointments go, when you contact me, you’ll immediately notice that there are not a lot of appointment time slots available. Just e-mail me, and let me know what date your ISP will be handing out your information, and I will prioritize my calls to you based on who’s information is going out soonest.

FYI, below is [for now, an incomplete] list of Bait Productions’ lawsuits before the consolidation:

The consolidated Bait Productions Pty Ltd. case can be found in the Florida Middle District Court under case 6:12-cv-01779.  It applies to the following cases:

Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-81 (6:12-cv-01779)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-96 (6:12-cv-01780)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-40 (5:12-cv-00644)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-36 (5:12-cv-00645)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-82 (8:12-cv-02643)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-95 (8:12-cv-02642)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. John Does 1-26 (2:12-cv-00628)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-78 (3:12-cv-01274)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-44 (2:12-cv-00629)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-71 (3:12-cv-01252)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-31 (6:12-cv-01721)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-73 (8:12-cv-02554)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-41 (8:12-cv-02555)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-52 (8:12-cv-02556)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-66 (3:12-cv-01204)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-73 (6:12-cv-01637)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-42 (3:12-cv-01205)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-70 (8:12-cv-02466)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-54 (8:12-cv-02468)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-72 (8:12-cv-02470)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-36 (8:12-cv-02464)

[NOTE TO READERS: I AM POSTING THIS AS IS, AND I SUGGEST THAT SJD & DTD ALSO PUBLICIZE WHAT HAS HAPPENED. I WILL UPDATE THE BLOG AS THINGS HAPPEN.]

Read Full Post »

As a follow-up to the “Sunshine State: No longer a “Happy” place for copyright trolls” article I wrote on Tuesday, I was surprised to see that one of Dunlap Weaver, PLLC’s cases — this one having 3,932 John Doe Defendants — survived UNSCATHED. It blows my mind that this case is still alive!

Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-3,932 (Case No. 2:11-cv-00545) in the Middle District of Florida was filed back in September, 2011, and our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has been tracking the case since its inception. Jeffrey Weaver of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC (“DGW”) filed this lawsuit after his lead attorney, Nicholas Kurtz left the firm to do who-knows-what.  Having a copyright troll / mass bittorrent extortion outfit with no lead attorney to fight the cases must have been a disaster for the firm, and so DGW partner Jeffrey Weaver took the case.

Now, over two years and 293 docket entries later (yes, watching this docket will max out your PACER payment every time you load the page), the case hangs in limbo.  On December 26th, 2012, Judge Sheri Polster Chappell denied Nu Image, Inc. more time to name and serve defendants.  We would think this would be the death nail for the case, but for some reason, the judge has not yet dismissed it.  (I can only assume this means that she is giving Weaver one last chance to prove that he is not a copyright troll, meaning that he actually has an interest in protecting his client Nu Image’s interests and going after the accused defendants.)  I have seen this firm name defendants before (even out of spite or vengeance when a certain attorney insulted them publicly [no, that wasn't me that time]), so while I wouldn’t be surprised if they pull out an “Ace” and name hundreds of defendants, I really don’t think this will happen for the following reason:

DUNLAP WEAVER, PLLC is lacking local counsel across the country.  While many of us attorneys have been building our local counsel networks across the U.S. (both on the defense side and on the plaintiff copyright trolls’ side), this law firm appears to have been stagnant, perhaps suffering from a bad economy and a failed copyright trolling business model.  They were the first, the biggest, and the oldest copyright trolls, but when they fired a number of paralegals who [unbeknownst to the partners at Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC] were doing most of the “scare” work and settlement negotiations for them, and when their lead attorney jumped ship, I expect they received an unexpected dip in their settlement rates (more like a fall-off-a-cliff wake-up call).

As a result of lacking a significant local counsel network of attorneys, they cannot sue the 3,000+ defendants in their home states.  And, of the 3,000+ defendants, very few of them live in Florida.  Thus, they are no doubt experiencing some legal logistical issues.  This doesn’t mean that they cannot go after defendants.  It simply means that they haven’t gotten their act together to do so, and that they may never get organized in time to do so.

As a funny side note, I wanted to point out that “John Steele” is the U.S. District Judge for this case.  Not the same John Steele that we know from Prenda Law Inc., but another John Steele.

In sum, I am watching this case carefully because I would like to see it go bust like the others.  I am dumbfounded why this case wasn’t killed with the others.

Read Full Post »

A number of copyright trolls hit a snag when the judges in both the Middle District of Florida (FLMD) and the Northern District of Florida (FLND) froze a whole slew of cases, consolidated some, and severed many others. This is just a simple indication that 1) federal judges in Florida are talking to one another, and 2) Florida has caught on to the copyright trolls’ extortion scheme.

In the Northern District of Florida, the mass bittorrent lawsuit West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-581 (Case No. 5:12-cv-00277) was “smoked,” resulting in all defendants [except one] being severed and dismissed from the case. Judge Smoak not only denied plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Weaver of Dunlap Weaver, PLLC (think, “Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver, PLLC” from the olden days) an extension of time to name and serve defendants (as if he would have if he was given the chance) but he also killed Weaver’s lawsuit by severing out all the defendants. Now obviously Jeffrey Weaver can always re-file against individual John Does in their home states, but so far [with few exceptions] I have not seen individual lawsuits from these plaintiff attorneys.

However, here is the problem with the West Coast Productions, Inc. severed case. We know it is severed. You now know it is severed. However, your ISP does not know, and as far as they are concerned, they are still under an order signed by Judge Smoak on 9/4/2012 forcing them to produce the names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mails of the 581 accused defendants. And, based on my conversations with defendants in this case over the past few days, these deadlines are coming up right around the corner.

I would assume that eventually the ISPs would pick up on the dismissal after enough notice, but I want to remind defendants to make sure to give notice to your ISP not to produce your information. This is something you can do on your own, but if you want an attorney to do it for you, I have already taken care of this for my own clients. Remember, your ISP gets paid by the plaintiff attorneys for each name they hand over, so they have a financial interest in producing the names “accidentally,” unless you give them notice. And, Jeffrey Weaver (your plaintiff attorney) will gladly pay your ISP for their accident because he wants nothing more than to get your names so that he can ask for $3,500 from each one of you. For this reason, be smart and follow-up with this, whether you use me to send the letter and documentation to your ISP for you, or whether you do it on your own.

As if the severance is not enough exciting news, in the Middle District of Florida, PRETTY MUCH EVERY CASE HAS BEEN EITHER FROZEN, SEVERED, OR DISMISSED.  Hoo yah!

I am happy to share that many of these cases were frozen in their tracks BEFORE THE JUDGES GAVE ORDERS PERMITTING THE PLAINTIFFS TO RECEIVE SUBPOENAS.  In other words, the ISPs were never subpoenaed, and you — the thousands of John Doe Defendants — never received ANYTHING in the mail!  Here are just a few examples of various cases:

West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-448 (3:12-cv-01277) — STAYED
West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-675 (3:12-cv-00964) — STAYED

Night of the Templar, LLC v. Does 1-23 (6:12-cv-01777) — SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED.
Night of the Templar, LLC v. Does 1-92 (6:12-cv-01778) — SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED.
Night of the Templar, LLC v. Does 1-98 (8:12-cv-02645) — SEVERED AND DISMISSED.

Bait Productions Pty Ltd. cases — CONSOLIDATED; ALL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE COVINGTON AND GIVEN NEW CASE NUMBER (6:12-cv-01779).  This applies to the following cases:

Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-81 (6:12-cv-01779)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-96 (6:12-cv-01780)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-40 (5:12-cv-00644)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-36 (5:12-cv-00645)
Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-82 (8:12-cv-02643)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-95 (8:12-cv-02642)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. John Does 1-26 (2:12-cv-00628)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-78 (3:12-cv-01274)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-44 (2:12-cv-00629)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-71 (3:12-cv-01252)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-31 (6:12-cv-01721)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-73 (8:12-cv-02554)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-41 (8:12-cv-02555)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-52 (8:12-cv-02556)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-66 (3:12-cv-01204)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-73… and so on.

According to @copyrightclerk, “Bait Productions ha[d] 25 active cases in the Middle District of Florida against a total of 1,536 defendants.” Her write up on the consolidation of Bait Productions cases can be found here.

In sum, while Florida might be “the sunny state,” it appears as if a deep cold front has come in and given the flu to the trolls.  I saw a number of Florida cases from other plaintiffs as well that have been frozen, killed, stayed, or severed and dismissed.  It took them over two years, but I am happy they have finally caught on.

Read Full Post »

I am looking at these new cases, and I want each new John Doe defendant to understand that these new cases that I am about to discuss are child’s play. Most of the new attorneys in these cases are newer copycat trolls who are hopping on the success of the bigger copyright trolls we read about daily in the blogs.

While the purpose of this blog is to discuss copyright cases and attorneys who sue John Doe Defendants en masse, I want to point out that this is no reflection on whether or not the attorneys are nice people.  At least one attorney here (Richard Fee) is described to me as being a nice guy, and in the comments section you’ll read about a particular attorney and his sidekick complaining about why I am making a new copyright troll feel ashamed about being a copyright troll.  My response:  Just because an attorney is a copyright troll doesn’t mean he or she is not a nice guy.  Kevin Harrison is a nice guy.  Doug McIntyre is a nice guy, and to many people’s surprise, Mike Meier is a nice guy too.

Depending on who you ask, I’m a nice guy too.  That being said, as soon as these attorneys decide to start filing copyright infringement lawsuits and they start suing defendants rather than focusing on taking down the infringing content which in my opinion is the remedy given to copyright holders by Congress via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), I leave my “nice guy” hat at the door and discuss the cases and their attorneys for what they are — copyright trolls.

Here are a few new cases to give you a taste (pardon the cynicism):

In the Florida Middle District Court:
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-73 (Case No. 8:12-cv-02554)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-41 (Case No. 8:12-cv-02555)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-52 (Case No. 8:12-cv-02556)

Richard Fee of Fee & Jeffries PA (attorney for Bait Productions Pty. Ltd.) — you filed each of these on the same day.  Don’t you think the courts will see that you are copyright trolling and that they will consolidate and dismiss your cases?

Now let’s go to the Georgia Southern District Court: [NEW COURT]
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-80 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00281)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. John Does 1-26 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00282)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. John Does 1-37 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00283)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-45 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00284)

Nathan Belzer (attorney for R & D Film 1, LLC)… Really? Are you really defending your R & D Film 1, LLC client’s interest in stopping piracy? Or in making a quick buck by suing downloaders? Do you even know about R&D Film 1’s other cases? Or did you just take the client thinking that you’ll make a few bucks?

Night of the Templar, LLC v. John Does 1-34 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00285)

Same attorney as above. Nathan Belzer.  I like the name of the plaintiff.

What about the Ohio Northern District Court: [NEW COURT]
Safety Point Productions, LLC et al v. Does 97-177 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02831)

Umm.. what happened to 1-96? Also, the “et al.” in this case includes Voltage Pictures, LLC. Douglas Riddell Jr. (new guy), did you think you would fool us? We have seen Voltage Pictures, LLC cases many times before in D.C.  Do you think you’ll be more successful than Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC was with this SAME PLAINTIFF?

R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 142-162 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02832)

Again, the funny Doe numbering by Riddell. This Douglas Riddell guy is funny. I’m going to enjoy his cases.

Safety Point Productions, LLC et al v. Does 1-96 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02820)

Finally, Douglas Riddell Jr. learns how to count from “1.” Again, Voltage Pictures, LLC is a plaintiff in this case.

And,
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-141 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02822)

Again, Doug Riddell.

Now, let’s go to Illinois Northern District Court:
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-37 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09036)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-92 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09039)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-103 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09041)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-66 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09043)

Todd Parkhurst (of Michael A. Hierl of Huges Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.) must be dym-witted to think that they would succeed with a copyright troll case in the Northern District of Illinois. John Steele killed copyright trolling for this federal district long ago — Todd, did you ask yourself when R&D Film 1, LLC contacted you WHY THEY CONTACTED YOU AND NOT JOHN STEELE (OF PRENDA LAW INC.)? For a copyright troll, Steele would have been a better choice.

Hmmm… Also in Ohio Northern District Court:
Safety Point Productions, LLC et al v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02812)

Did you notice how R&D Film 1, LLC and Safety Point Productions, LLC cases are each filed by the SAME SET OF ATTORNEYS IN EACH DISTRICT? I smell a new IP monetization company behind the scenes.

That’s it for tonight. Back to work on some real cases. If I’ve offended anyone, I’m not sorry — new attorneys shouldn’t be taking on copyright trolling cases.  If you are really interested in stopping piracy of your copyrighted content, then there are better ways to police your client’s copyrights than to let the infringement continue and then sue the downloaders.  Try a DMCA take down letter one day.  You might find that it works.

Read Full Post »

These kind of c-rated b-rated film lawsuits annoy me. Take our new copyright troll production company, Tomcat Films, LLC and their attorney Martin Sipple of Ausley & McMullen (you can read about his medical malpractice and generic intellectual property cases here). I would consider calling Martin Sipple a copyright troll, but no — he has only filed one case, and he seems to be a copycat lawyer who used a copyright lawsuit template to file his lawsuit. Way to go for someone who graduated top of his class.

In the Tomcat Films, LLC v. Does 1-XXX (Case No. 4:12-cv-00261) case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tomcat has sued hundreds of John Doe Defendants (they forgot to list who) in the typical copyright troll fashion in order to recoup the wasted funds in their “Aliens vs. Avatars” 2011 failed film. I don’t even recall seeing this in theaters, but according to Aliens vs. Avatars, a new copyright troll film.” target=”_blank”>IMDb, it achieved a “we wasted everyone’s time and money making this” 1.5 out of 10 stars from 904 users. And, if anyone wants to pay $2.99, they can rent it from Amazon.com for 7 days. After reading the description of the film, “Six college friends find themselves caught up in a cat and mouse hunt with a race of creatures…” I decided to pass.

Another reason I might hesitate to call them copyright trolls is because in the complaint, while Tomcat Films alleges copyright infringement among the usual other elements in their complaint, they seem to want to stop the ongoing infringement of their film (something we don’t see in other lawsuits). I can respect that. What I cannot respect is the “let’s sue hundreds of Does and extort thousands of dollars from each one” approach. This is a reputable firm with reputable clients — in my opinion they have no business filing these kinds of low-life copyright troll cases.

Now as far as Tomcat Films’ other movies (see them here), I would consider thinking twice before downloading them because this company has obviously found the business model of “releasing low budget films and suing for loads of cash” quite appealing.  Quite frankly, with movie titles such as “Robin Hood: Ghosts of Sherwood,” “Captain Battle” (think Captain America), “Rise of the Black Bat” (think Batman), “Thunderstorm of Thor,” and “Jurassic Shark,” and “Street Fighter,” I am surprised that a company like this is not entangled in a whole SLEW of copyright infringement lawsuits themselves.  I would guess “FAIR USE” and “PARODY” are words that are posted on every wall of their office.

UPDATE: The film is now called “Alien vs. Alien” on their website, and all mention of “Avatar” has been removed from their trailer (although it is still up on Amazon.com).  Apparently 20th Century Fox’s lawyers didn’t like the use of their Avatar character in Tomcat’s movies.  

Read Full Post »

Lightspeed Media Corp. has been one of the more aggressive copyright trolls over the past two years. They are intimately associated with John Steele and Prenda Law Inc., and have changed their lawsuits as the case law has changed over the years.

They started out as one of Prenda Law Inc.’s first bittorrent lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where they sued 100 John Doe Defendants in the Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 1:10-cv-05604), of which 99 WERE DISMISSED ON 12/21/2010, with the remaining one shortly afterwards.

Then Lightspeed Media Corp. amended their complaint to sue 1,000 defendants instead of 100 defendants, and as we wrote about in our “Judge Steeles The Life From A Second Torrent Case” article, the judge responded by SEVERING AND DISMISSING ALL DEFENDANTS but one.

Just when we thought this case was dead, John Steele filed an amended complaint on 4/11/2011 and brought the case back to life by suing one John Doe. The funny part, however, was that they continued to send “scare” letters to ALL THE SEVERED AND DISMISSED DEFENDANTS (even though they were no longer defendants in the case). The court picked up on this and berated Steele on 4/19/2011. A few months later, the zombie Lightspeed Media Corp. federal case was DEAD.

Then, Lightspeed and Steele came up with a novel idea — sue defendants across the U.S. for violation of federal hacker statutes, alleging that accused internet users accessed Lightspeed’s websites using stolen passwords (which “through no fault of their own” were “leaked” onto the internet). The twist was that their new lawsuit was filed in the corrupt ILLINOIS STATE COURT (even though the subject matter of the lawsuits belong in the federal courts). In the Lightspeed “Hacker” lawsuit, even if the accused John Doe Defendants used the passwords to access Lightspeed’s websites, THEY WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL STATUTES WHICH WERE ASSERTED AGAINST THEM IN THE COMPLAINT. This is the joke about the case — it simply has no merit, but the case persists. It befuttles me that the state court is still allowing subpoenas to be sent out (even though the Illinois SUPREME COURT has come in and voiced its opinion that this case is a fraud and that it should be shut down). Yet, it persists.

These same Hacker lawsuits were also filed in the Miami Dade, FL state courts (equal in integrity to the Chicago state courts) in the Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Does (Case No. 12-05673 CA 05), and in the Maricopa County, AZ state court (Case No. CV2012-053230). There is a lot that is written about these cases, but because they are taking place in state courts (in which we do not have eyes), we have not been tracking these cases. Essentially, it is important to note that the lawsuits are filed against one Doe Defendant, but implicate HUNDREDS of Doe Defendants as co-conspirators.

Word is that a few weeks ago, Lightspeed Media Corp. has been sold to another company (perhaps to Prenda Law Inc.?), yet the lawsuits continue.

So as you see, Lightspeed Media Corp. is essentially a zombie company that keeps coming back asking internet users for more and more money. If you take a look on http://www.rfcexpress.com, you’ll see that there are a few cases on the books, but they are ALL DISMISSED. Yet, if you asked the internet world how many thousands of internet users are still getting calls or letters for Lightspeed, you’ll get a surprising answer.

FEDERAL CASES FILED ON BEHALF OF LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-9 (CAND; 4:11-cv-02261) [DEAD]
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Doe (ILND; 1:11-cv-00385) [DEAD]
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Doe (ILND; 1:11-cv-00209) [DEAD]
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-100 (then 1-1,000) (ILND; 1:10-cv-05604) [DEAD]

KNOWN STATE CASES FILED ON BEHALF OF LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Doe (Miami Dade, FL Case No. 12-05673 CA 05)
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Doe (St. Clair, IL Case No. 11-L-683)
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. World Timbers, Inc. & John Doe (Maricopa, AZ Case No. CV2012-053230)

Read Full Post »

Umm… Did Judge Wilson just suggest that ISPs fall under the CABLE ACT??

I was just reading DieTrollDie’s article, and looking at Judge Wilson’s ruling [in the Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-18 (Case No. 8:12-cv-01419) case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida], it appears as if he just suggested that ISPs fall under the CABLE ACT (See Order, Doc 14, p. 5 of 7).

ORDER: …3. Each of the ISPs that qualify as a “cable operator” under 47 U.S.C. 522(5) shall comply with 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B), which provides that:

A cable operator may disclose [personally identifiable information] if the disclosure is … made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed.”

Now many of you know that I have wrapped my head around the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (a.k.a., “the Cable Act”) so many times, and it surprises me that now TWO judges have suggested that a law written in 1984 applies to the internet (which was not even in existence at the time the Cable Act was written).

As we discussed on Monday in the “Judge Facciola opens up a can of worms with the Cable Act” article, 1) DC Judge Facciola argued whether an ISP would violate the Cable Act by sharing subscriber information. He concluded that assuming arguendo that the Cable Act did apply [noting that DC has not yet ruled on the issue of whether the Cable Act applies to ISPs], that Cablevision would not violate the statute if it complied with the copyright troll’s subpoena. Now, we have 2) Judge Wilson explicitly ordering “each of the ISPs that qualify as a “cable operator” under the Cable Act to comply with the subpoena.

In its essence, the Florida Middle District just ruled that ISPs WHO ARE ALSO CABLE OPERATORS ARE BOUND BY THE CABLE ACT STATUTES.

This is fascinating to me (especially since these judges would be going against significant case law from other districts stating that the Cable Act does NOT apply to ISPs) because it appears as if Judges are trying to corner the ISPs into the confines of the Cable Act (which makes my May 5, 2011 argument of how to sue ISPs for violating the Cable Act possibly viable). I have not even considered the MANY IMPLICATIONS of what happens if — as a rule — ISPs became bound by the Cable Act provisions? What else would change?

Looking at this logically, it makes sense to me that an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) can be a “cable operator” bound under the Cable Act. Why? Because cable companies (Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon, etc.) *ALL* have taken a HUGE SHARE of the internet subscriber business. Cable companies today offer internet services to their subscribers. Thus, it makes sense that an ISP can be a “cable operator,” and thus they can be bound by the Cable Act.

After all, if hypothetically a huge oil company such as Exxon started selling their Esso Tiger toy dolls (remember these?), wouldn’t they also be obligatged to the laws that govern child safety laws regarding lead paint? How can an ISP say “we’re no longer a cable operator, we’re an ISP” when the same customer who pays for their internet connection pays them for their cable service?

In other words, I am starting to form the opinion that CABLE COMPANIES SOLICITED INTERNET BUSINESS AND BECAME ISPs. THEY ARE STILL CABLE COMPANIES AND THEIR SERVICES SHOULD STILL BE BOUND BY THE CABLE ACT WHICH GOVERNS CABLE COMPANIES.

Wow, this is a can of worms.

Read Full Post »

I am happy to share that the first round of Virginia’s Malibu Media, LLC cases have gone down in flames.

As of this afternoon, I noticed that all of the Malibu Media, LLC cases in the Eastern District of Virginia received the same designation at the end of their case names, “-CMH-TRJ,” indicating that Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr. has taken over and has consolidated ALL of the Malibu Media, LLC cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. This is very similar to what happened in the Northern District of Florida with Terik Hashmi’s cases (also all dismissed as of today), and then in the Southern District of New York with Mike Meier’s cases.

In short, the best way for a judge to take down these smaller cases is to consolidate them, and then have them all stand or fall together. As of this moment, in VA they are:

Virginia Eastern District Court – David / Wayne O’Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm
Malibu Media, LLC v. Does (Case no. 1:12-cv-00159-CMH-TRJ)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-26 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00160-CMH-TRJ)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-26 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00161-CMH-TRJ)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Does (Case no. 1:12-cv-00162-CMH-TRJ)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-15 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00163-CMH-TRJ)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Does (Case no. 1:12-cv-00164-CMH-TRJ)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-27 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00165-CMH-TRJ)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-8 (Case no. 1:12-cv-00166-CMH-TRJ)

Here in short, these cases have fallen. The judge has indicated that all of these cases suffer from improper joinder, and thus ALL Does other than Doe #1 in each case are severed and dismissed from the case. Now there are only eight defendants in Virginia.

Of course, this is terrible news for the eight defendants, and no doubt the plaintiff attorneys will try to scare the b’jeebies out of these defendants, but really, if they are readers of this blog, they should know that the plaintiffs are still probably looking for settlements (although my guess is that they’ll try to punish these eight Doe Defendants, and these eight defendants should make any attempt to settle VERY PUBLIC AND VISIBLE so that the judge sees what they do with them [or, to them]).

On a completely separate note, this is VERY EXCITING news for all of those who have been SEVERED AND DISMISSED from their cases. I have seen some local attorneys jump into the courts naming defendants, but here, Malibu Media’s local attorney Wayne O’Bryan [in my opinion] seems to be a bit on the sluggish side. I would be floored if I started seeing him name anyone. It would simply take too much effort for him, and I’m not sure he’s that hungry to go after everyone as other local counsel would.

So in short, congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients, and to all those who have been dismissed from the case. The judge’s order can be found below for your viewing enjoyment.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 112 other followers