The Sunshine State: No longer a “Happy” place for copyright trolls.

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.

Picture This: “Photo Image” Copyright Trolls?

Our firm has been working in a bubble for over two years now, focusing exclusively on copyright infringement lawsuits as they relate to accusations of piracy through the use of bittorrent (“torrent”) peer-to-peer programs over the internet.

However, it has been brought to my attention that our “copyright troll” problem is bigger than just bittorrent.  People even today are receiving DMCA threat letters for the so-called infringement of other things, such as the unauthorized use of pictures, articles, poems, you name it — even works that are not copyrighted at all.  However, unlike our federal copyright infringement lawsuits, these settlement extortion “scare” letter campaigns take place on a larger scale, outside of the courtroom, and there is no federal judge overseeing an actual lawsuit.  The Copyright Enforcement Group appears to now be doing it, Getty Pictures has been doing it for years, and most recently, non-attorney John Jolin is doing it on behalf of Linda Ellis and her poems.

These new kinds of threat letters are obviously less “sexy” than the six-figure [and sometimes seven-figure] lawsuits in the federal district courts across the U.S. that our law firm has been dealing with, but these smaller copyright trolls need to be dealt with, and they need to be handled with the same harshness as the larger copyright trolls we have been fighting for years now. Maybe it is time for a few of us attorneys to explain to these smaller trolls the definition of a declaratory judgement. If they want to throw around threats of “we might sue you unless you settle,” well, maybe we should bring a few of these threat letters in front of a federal judge and see what they think about this.

On a personal note, I am not sure whether approaching this topic in our “Torrent Lawyer” blog will muddy the waters since our blog has been focused on copyright trolls of the bittorrent kind, but whether we discuss “photo trolls,” “literary trolls,” or “music trolls,” they are still all copyright trolls.

Hundreds of John Doe Defendants Hidden in Steele’s “Single John Doe” Lawsuits

RE: AF Holdings LLC v. Matthew Ciccone (MIED; Case No. 4:12-cv-14442)
Local Counsel:  Jonathan W. Tappan (a.k.a., Anti-Piracy Law Group, a.k.a., Prenda Law Inc.)
Judge: District Judge Gershwin Drain (Magistrate Judge Laurie Michelson) –> case reassigned to Mona K. Majzoub.

Prenda Law Inc. (now formally known as the “Anti-Piracy Law Group”) might be the most prolific copyright troll law firm out there, but they have become quite skilled at hiding their activities, even from the likes of me. In the past few months, I have seen many lawsuits bearing the title, “AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe.” My immediate assumption was that there was just one defendant in each of these cases [about to be named], but no! Just how many John Doe Defendants are in each of these “single John Doe” cases? As of today, the answer is now, “sometimes hundreds of defendants.”

Case in Point: AF Holdings LLC v. Matthew Ciccone (Case No. 4:12-cv-14442) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The title of the accused infringed work is “Sexual Obsession.” For the purposes of this blog entry, I will ignore the fact that this pornography video was copyrighted by Heartbreaker Films and not AF Holdings, and I will also ignore the non-existent [fake] CEO “Alan Cooper,” and copyright assignment issues which have been circulating around the blogs.

At first glance, it looks like yet one more John Doe (Ciccone) defendant was named in one of their many “single Doe” lawsuits. However, buried deep in the lawsuit (in Document 10) is what is known as a “Joint Motion for Expedited Discovery” naming an ADDITIONAL 300 JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS INTO THE LAWSUIT.

Now these 300+ John Doe Defendants are getting subpoenas from their ISPs telling them that unless they file a “motion to quash,” their ISP will be complying with the subpoenas and handing over their information.

On a personal note, I have been dealing with copyright trolls such as the Anti Piracy Law Group for almost two years now. In the olden days, their lawsuits used to look like “AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1,040” where it was obvious how many defendants were in each lawsuit.  With this new information, now I need to delve back in to what appeared to be “single John Doe” lawsuits and see whether there is really one defendant or hundreds in each lawsuit.

One point for you, John Steele. I didn’t see this one coming.

MORE AND MORE TROLLS…

I would think that when someone creates and copyrights a film, the purpose of creating that film is to attract viewers to purchase tickets to view that film either in the theaters, or by selling DVDs of that film.

It boggles my mind that more and more, I am seeing B-rated film companies release garbage films that nobody would watch, and instead of promoting their film to attract viewers, somehow those films are “leaked” onto the internet, only to see the production companies then sue internet users for $150K for each internet user who downloaded their films.

Earlier this week, my kids were watching Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood on PBS, where Fred Rogers was quite a bit older than I remember him being when I was younger. To show them the “Mr. Rogers” I remembered, I searched around and found an older version where his hair was black and he was quite a bit younger.   The video was obviously copyrighted, but it was also uploaded and online for all to see.  Was I wrong for playing this video for my kids?  Or, should I have contacted the Rogers’ Foundation and acquired a license to purchase a copy of this video [noting that there is likely nowhere to purchase this black-and-white video]?

My point is that the copyright laws as they apply to individuals needs to be changed.  Production companies should make quality videos THAT SELL TICKETS (and DVDs) rather than trying to cash in on the end user that happened to view that video online without permission.  As I mention in my policy letter to lawmakers, if a production company really wanted to police their own copyrights, they are already given a legal remedy, and that remedy is to file a DMCA takedown notice with the website owner — and the unlicensed (“pirated”) video is quickly and effectively taken down by the website owner, or else the website owner can be found liable for copyright infringement himself.

If the Rogers Foundation wanted to stop me and my kids from viewing a 1968 version of Mr. Rogers, then they could have easily sent a one-page takedown request to YouTube.com where that and many other similar videos are hosted.  There is no reason for them to come after me, my kids, or any of the other thousand viewers, unless stopping “piracy” for copyright trolls is not the their real intent.

Back to the lawsuits and the new copyright trolls I am discussing in this article.  One new copyright troll is Canal Street Films, Inc. (link) who is suing 117 John Doe Defendants in two lawsuits in Washington for the download of their “Scary or Die (2012)” horror film.  The attorney suing is David Allen Lowe of Lowe Gram Jones, PLLC (link). The lawsuits are:

CASE FILED BY DAVID LOWE IN THE WASHINGTON EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Canal Street Films Inc v. Does 1 – 13  (Case No. 2:13-cv-03001)

CASE FILED BY DAVID LOWE IN THE WASHINGTON WESTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Canal Street Films, Inc. v. Does 1-104 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00007)

Also suing in the Washington Western District Court are new copyright trolls Kintop Pictures, Inc. and their attorney, Richard J. Symmes of the Frontier Law Group.  It appears that each lawsuit was for the download of the title, “Tucker & Dale v. Evil (2010)” film (link).  The strange thing about these six cases is that they were all filed at the same time in December 2012, and with ZERO explanation, just a few days ago, they were ALL DISMISSED.  I wonder if this copyright troll or their attorney grew a conscience, or whether they just needed to get their copyright paperwork in order before they reared their ugly head and started suing defendants again.  Nevertheless, because they sued internet users directly using the “bittorrent swarm joinder theory,” I am listing their cases in this site.

CASES FILED BY RICHARD SYMMES IN THE WASHINGTON WESTERN DISTRICT COURT:

Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-78 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02162) [DISMISSED]
Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02159) [DISMISSED]
Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-37 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02161) [DISMISSED]
Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-40 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02163) [DISMISSED]
Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-79 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02164) [DISMISSED]
Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-70 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02165) [DISMISSED]

Then in the Missouri Eastern District Court, Paul Lesko is still at it filing copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of his new clients, PHE, Inc. and Purzel Video GMBH, both for the download of pornography titles.  The lawsuits are:

CASES FILED BY PAUL LESKO IN THE MISSOURI EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-91 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02292)
PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-96                      (Case No. 4:12-cv-02296)

On a side note, I hear that there was some controversy as to whether Lesko was pressured by the president of his alma mater to stop representing porn companies in copyright infringement actions, but apparently the attempts fell on deaf ears.  On 12/11/2012, Lesko filed a lawsuit in the Missouri Eastern District Court on behalf of his new client, “Purzel Video GMBH” for the download of their porn video, “Chubby Teens 1.”  Then on 12/12/2012, he filed another lawsuit on behalf of PHE, Inc. (the “Adam & Eve” adult sex toy company) for the download of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer XXX: A Parody.”  I wrote about PHE, Inc. here in my “Nice try, PHE, Inc. – a failed copyright troll” article.  In short, Lesko is still at it.

Lastly, in my own neck of the woods, I saw two cases filed against 400+ defendants by new copyright troll Studio West Productions, Inc.  The lawsuit is for the download of the film, “In the Name of the King: Two Worlds (2011)” (link), and even though the copyright troll attorney is John W. Raggio of the Raggio Law Firm, P.C. in Dallas (5 hours away from the court), after some research, it occurred to me that Raggio is merely local counsel to Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC (now, Dunlap Weaver, PLLC).  I am frankly surprised that they are still suing defendants, as they are one of the older copyright trolls out there, but they lost most of their litigation power when their attorney Nicholas Kurtz and a number of their paralegals left the firm after an internal shake-up early last year.

CASES FILED BY JOHN RAGGIO (A.K.A. DUNLAP WEAVER, PLLC) IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
Studio West Productions Inc. v. Does 1-237 (Case No. 4:12-cv-03690)
Studio West Productions Inc. v. Does 1-205 (Case No. 4:12-cv-03691)

All I have to say about these two cases is that they are in my back yard, so I will be happy to be there at the hearings and report things as they evolve.

As for all the other cases out there, I am still watching out for them, and if I see anything of interest, I will be happy to share what I find.  Obviously if anyone has any updates or questions about these cases, you know where to find me.

VISION FILMS, INC. — NEW COPYRIGHT TROLLS??

Nothing smells like “copyright troll” to me more than a new local counsel filing multiple copyright lawsuits against hundreds of John Doe defendants ON THE SAME DAY.  Then, to avoid having all the cases be assigned to the same judge (so that the cases do not all fall on one bad ruling from a hostile judge), this new copyright troll cunningly manipulates the legal system by splitting the lawsuit into smaller “John Doe” lawsuits, each one having less than 100 defendants.  Each lawsuit is randomly assigned to a different judge in that district.

Vision Films, Inc. (link) appears to be not a production company, nor does it appear to be the copyright holder for the film(s) upon which it is suing.  Rather, it appears that this is a distribution company that acquires the rights to license titles to third parties on behalf of the production companies (the ones who have the copyrights).  Copyright trolling (e.g., suing hundreds of internet users for the downloading of their films) appears to be part of their business plan as well.

Welcome new copyright troll, “Vision Films, Inc.”  And a hearty welcome to Vision Films, Inc.’s new copyright troll attorneys, Matthew Lee Stone of Schneider & Stone (in the Northern District of Illinois), Joan M. Swartz of Law Office of Joan M. Swartz, L.L.C. (in the Missouri Eastern District), Stamatios Stamoulis & Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (in the Delaware District Court), and Van R Irion of Law Office of Van R. Irion, PLLC (in the Tennessee Eastern District Court).  It is clear that Vision Films, Inc. has chosen top notch attorneys from big and powerful law firms.  …For the solo practitioners they chose, I could have recommended better copyright trolls for them in seconds just by looking at the courts in which they filed.  

Anyway, here is the list of cases, separated out by jurisdiction:

CASES FILED BY MATTHEW STONE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS:
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-70 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00064)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-63 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00065)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-70 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00066)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-73 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00067)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-67 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00068)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-43 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00071)

CASE FILED BY JOAN SWARTZ IN THE MISSOURI EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-30 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00020)

CASE FILED BY STAMATIOS STAMOULIS & RICHARD WEINBLATT IN THE DELAWARE DISTRICT COURT:
Vision Films Inc. v. John Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:12-cv-01746)

Since these cases were just filed on Friday 1/4/2013, some of them are too new to be seen even on PACER/ECF.  However, from what I have been able to glean from the complaints that were online, each lawsuit appears to be for the same film, “Blood Money,” (the title is coincidental with the type of extortion they plan to foist on their defendants).

On a personal note, I really wish these attorneys would have done some research before accepting cases such as these.  Vision Films, Inc. may be suing for the downloading of their non-pornographic movies, but inevitably, they and their lawyers will become synonymous with the other cases.  Further, the bittorrent joinder swarm legal theory is a faulty theory full of holes which cannot survive on the merits.  I don’t know why any reputable law firm would assert this theory unless they are planning on using the federal courts and the legal system as a weapon to be one of the “me too” copyright troll settlement factories.  Anyone who has stepped foot in the Northern District of Illinois should know that the judges don’t play that game anymore.

“Nice try, PHE, Inc. – a failed copyright troll.”

In a laughable attempt at a new copyright troll attempting to join the “me too” copyright infringement lawsuits that have been filed across the U.S., copyright troll attorney Sanjin Mutic [of the Mile High Law Office LLC; also on the board of the Triskele Foundation (thanks to SJD who did a good write-up on this)] stepped foot into the Colorado District Court without checking whether other more prolific copyright trolls (e.g., Jason Kotzker) have made a mess of cases in those courts already.  Within days of filing his “PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-105 (Case No. 1:12-cv-03342)” lawsuit against 105 defendants, U.S. District Judge William Martinez killed the lawsuit by severing and dismissing defendants 2-105.

This lawsuit would have been PHE, Inc.’s first attempt to extort thousands of dollars from each defendant who would have been accused of downloading “Buffy the Vampire Slayer XXX: A Parody.”

It should be noted that PHE, Inc. also appears to be the same entity that runs the “Adam & Eve Adult Sex Toy Store” (you can scroll to the bottom of the page to see the connection between them). Why a company as reputable as “Adam and Eve” would venture to produce parody pornography and open themselves up to lawsuits by the Buffy copyright holders is beyond me.

The judge’s opinion speaks for itself:

“This case is part of an ‘outbreak of similar litigation…around the country in which copyright holders have attempted to assert claims against multiple unknown defendants by joining them, in often large numbers, into a single action.’”

My favorite part:

“Our federal court system provides litigants with some of the finest tools available to assist in resolving disputes; the courts should not, however, permit those tools to be used as a bludgeon.”

Nice try, PHE, Inc.

P.S. – I thought it was funny that Paul Lesko of Simmons and Browder, LLC was also trying a PHE, Inc. case in the Missouri Eastern District Court.  That case is the PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-96 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02296) case.  

P.P.S. – Sanjin Mutic is an interesting copyright troll himself.  He is the attorney for the West Coast Productions, Inc. Colorado cases, specifically, West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-38 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02642 with Judge Heagarty) and West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-37 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02644 with Judge Watanabe).   The Triskele Foundation of which he is on the board of directors is focused on helping high school drop-outs; perhaps he helps them find jobs in the lucrative billion-dollar industry in which he thrives.  NOTE TO SELF: Was this comment offensive? Or is there just an inconsistency between someone who “helps high-school drop-outs” and who (at the same time) advocates for the porn industry?

UPDATE: 1/7/2013 – Techdirt article: “Company Behind Adam & Eve Discovers Quickly That Courts Are Now Hip To Copyright Trolling.”

DING, DONG, THE HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS CASE IS DEAD!

I don’t know how to say this other than in my field of work, it is not often that I am shocked.  I often speak to local counsel who get excited that they are handling a “porn” case.  Just a few days ago, I called one of Steele’s (a.k.a., “Anti-Piracy Law Group”) local counsel.  When I introduced myself, he said to me (with a boyish excitement), “Aren’t you the porn lawyer?” to which I responded, “Aren’t YOU the porn lawyer?!?”

Anyway, I cannot help but to generalize these cases into “okay, one more production company suing a college kid or husband for clicking on a link and viewing copyrighted materials.”  What I often forget is that there is usually some guy behind the scenes who has trailed so far into the world of pornography that he has opened up his own company, produced some porn videos, and now is suing defendants for their download.

The motive is usually the same.  Instead of “let’s punish these pirates” as they would like you to believe, their motive is rather, “let’s hit up as many people for thousands of dollars each until we get shut down by the courts.”  In my opinion, this was the motive of the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. lawsuits.

Digressing, the epic news of the day is that the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01741) case has been dismissed.  Congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC defendants who have been released from this case.  

I don’t need to go into details about the case history — it has been riddled with controversy since they started suing internet users 2+ years ago.  As far as the legal issues were concerned, this was a typical copyright infringement lawsuit plagued with the same procedural issues that most of the other cases of its time suffered from — improper joinder (defendants were not part of the same “swarm”), and improper jurisdiction (defendants were sued in a court which did not have personal jurisdiction over them because the DC court’s reach could not decide the case against most of the defendants who were implicated in the lawsuit because they lived outside of the court’s jurisdiction).

What surprised me about the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. case was not Hard Drive Productions, Inc., but the District of Columbia judges who made a political mess of these cases.  Judge Beryl Howell came on the scene making pro-copyright troll rulings, such as 1) “you don’t need to decide jurisdiction or joinder until a defendant is named and served in a lawsuit,” 2) an ISP cannot file a motion to quash on behalf of their subscribers, and 3) accused John Doe Defendants cannot file motions to quash until they are named as defendants in the case.  Mind you, she was a copyright lobbyist before she was appointed a federal judge.

Then in February, 2012, Judge Facciola came in with a ruling in the West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,434 (Case No. 1:11-cv-00055) case which I was sure was going to kill the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. case and all the other bittorrent cases in DC.  In his order, he ruled that “a defendant who does not live in the District of Columbia cannot be sued in the DC court because the DC court lacks jurisdiction over those defendants.”  However, at some point, it appears to me as if the RIAA/MPAA copyright lobby (probably by using Judge Beryl Howell as their mouthpiece) pressured Judge Facciola into giving into the copyright lobby’s pressure, and with a few contradictory rulings, he transitioned over to being Judge Beryl Howell’s sidekick in these cases.

Judge Bates also came in appearing to protect the procedural rights of the accused defendants who lived outside of DC, but once again, after what appeared to be some pressure from the RIAA/MPAA copyright lobby (once again, my educated guess is that Judge Beryl Howell was the force behind what happened), he was removed from the case which Judge Facciola took over.  Then, after some time, it appears as if Judge Bates too eventually caved in to the RIAA/MPAA copyright lobby (some refer to them as the “mafia,” or the copyright police), and on my September 27th, 2012 post, Judge Bates reversed his decision in Hard Drive Productions, Inc. case and let the “extortion” of the John Doe Defendants at the hands of John Steele and Co. (a.k.a., Steele Hansmeier PLLC, a.k.a., Prenda Law Inc., and now a.k.a., the ”Anti-Piracy Law Group”) continue.

So.  The story with this dismissal is not necessarily a Hard Drive Productions, Inc. story, but a story of the forces behind the public interest groups and lobbyists who pressure Washington to always rule in favor of the copyright holder, regardless of whether the copyright holder is a pornography company, or whether the copyright holder is involved in making B-movies.  Bottom line, these lobbyists insist that WASHINGTON MUST CONTINUE TO BE PRO-COPYRIGHT AND MUST CONTINUE TO RULE IN FAVOR OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS, regardless of who the copyright holder is, or at what cost.

So as things stand in DC, there is still a split as to the rights of unnamed John Doe Defendants between the rulings of Judge Wilkins (relating to the “motion to compel” lawsuit by Prenda Law Inc. against Comcast relating to their Millennium TGA, Inc. cases [BTW, dismissed last week]) and the rulings of Judge Beryl Howell, because as you read, Judge Howell certified an interlocutory appeal to answer questions relevant to these cases, but it appears to me that someone is dragging their feet there in DC and hoping for a dismissal so that they don’t have to decide the issues.

Lastly, there is a lot of activity on Twitter as to the 28 or so defendants who have settled their case, and some anger directed at these anonymous defendants who have settled.  Quite frankly, they are not all anonymous.  What happened with these is that without warning, Prenda Law Inc. turned around and sued one of these defendants (or threatened to imminently sue these defendants) in lawsuits in their home states.  I understand that many, if not most of the defendants in the “Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. John Doe” cases which were filed towards the end of 2011 probably settled (I’ve listed a few of the named defendants in the “At What Point Does a Copyright Troll Stop Being a Troll” article.)

In closing, people are asking me whether I think Hard Drive Productions, Inc. is dead, or whether this is just the next logical progression before a slew of defendants being named.  I must note that Hard Drive Productions, Inc. got their butts kicked quite a few times, especially with the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. John Doe, 3:11-cv-05634-JCS (Seth Abrahams) case and the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. John Doe, 4:11-cv-05630-YGR (Liuxia Wong) case, both in California.  If you look at the http://www.rfcexpress.com website, there have been ZERO filings since March, 2012.  A defendant must also understand that with the egos of these copyright troll attorneys, there is the saying, “As the ego of the attorney inflates, so does his hourly rate.“

We also know there have been squabbles between Prenda Law Inc.’s local counsel and Steele, and we know that their own attorneys have been jumping ship (and in some cases even testifying against Prenda Law Inc. in their attempts to withdraw as local counsel.)  Thus, there are problems all around, so my best advise is to watch the http://www.rfcexpress.com website and see whether Hard Drive Productions, Inc. starts a flurry of lawsuits across the U.S. or not.  And remember — behind every lawsuit there is a person (joking using the term “person” to mean a human, a fictitious person (who might not exist), or an offshore entity) who needs to pay Steele’s legal fees so that he can pay for his Las Vegas lifestyle of traveling the country “not” representing his clients in these matters.