Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Federal Judges’ Category

This is a follow-up article to the “What to do about the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does case (TX)” article I wrote last week.

I did a bit more digging into the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and I learned more about their software, and more about where some of the John Doe defendants are coming from.  What I also learned was that this is not the first time they have sued defendants for copyright infringement.

The Siemens Product Lifecycle Management (“PLM”) software being sued over is known as the Siemens NX software.

According to Wikipedia, “NX, formerly known as NX Unigraphics or usually just UG, is an advanced high-end CAD/CAM/CAE software package originally developed by Unigraphics, but since 2007 by Siemens PLM Software… NX is a direct competitor to TopSolid, CATIA, Creo, Autodesk Inventor, and SolidWorks.”

The Pirate Bay shows 9 torrent files for “Siemens NX” software (below).

062016 Siemens PLM NX

Surprisingly, for version 9, there are only 3 seeders (uploaders).  For all others, there is only one seeder.  For a program that takes on average 1GB-5.7GB to download, a download like this could take forever to complete.

Looking at version 10 (the current stable release; version 11.2 is probably a fake), there is one seeder (uploader) and one leecher (downloader).  See attached.

062016 Siemens PLM NX 10

As dry as this post may be, the point is that my suspicions were correct — even though the bittorrent file provides a serial number (probably a valid, but likely an OLD registration code), and even though there is an “activator” which modifies or “cracks” the pirated file to allow the software to accept the old serial number [it likely does this by blocking the “authentication” feature when the software checks with the server to verify the registration key], the software looks to the user as if he has successfully registered the software.

However, through the CASUAL USE of the software, the activator software is likely not persistent, which means that after the software is registered using the old key, it restores the software’s executable (.exe) file to its original state.  Then, when using the software, it connects to Siemens’ servers for whatever purpose (to download an update, to check for new features, etc.), and this is how their copyright enforcement / IT department can identify the IP address of the individual using a pirated copy of the software.

In sum, what this means is that Robert Riddle and the Siemens copyright holder likely knows how long the software has been in use, and which IP addresses have been using an old or invalid serial number.  This will likely be a consideration when discussing the matter with the plaintiff attorneys on behalf of my clients.

What all this means for you — 1) June 22nd appears to be the date that Comcast will be ordered to hand over the names and addresses of the 100 accused John Doe defendants, so there is no anonymity and the John Doe defendants will be exposed to being named and served as defendants in the lawsuit. 2) If you have been using the software, they likely know more details than you would like as to what you have been doing with it.  3) Speak to an attorney (me, or anyone else) about what options you have to get out of this, whether you were the downloader, the purchaser (of a pirated copy of the software), or whether you have absolutely no idea why you have been implicated as being one of the John Doe defendants in this case.

 

Read Full Post »

For those of you involved in Keith Vogt’s Cobbler Nevada, LLC cases, a huge ambiguity showed up yesterday on the court’s docket which I needed to clarify. I actually needed to call the clerk because at first glance, it looked as if all of the Cobbler Nevada, LLC cases in the Southern District of Texas were dismissed.

To back up just a bit, Cobbler Nevada, LLC suffered a large setback when on August 10th, 2015, Judge Alfred H. Bennett CONSOLIDATED all of their Texas cases into one case (TXSD, Case No. 4:15-cv-01308). As soon as we heard this, [especially after writing the “Dallas Buyers Club, LLC is a modern-day Icarus Story” article relating to this same plaintiff attorney], champagne glasses were clinked, and cheers rose up from the homes of many Texans who were caught up in what was often the streaming and/or download of the “The Cobbler” movie using Popcorn Time.

As a general rule, consolidations are ALWAYS* a good thing for bittorrent cases because:

1) they take each of the cases and place them under the direction and control of one judge (meaning that there will be no conflicting orders where one judge allows something whereas another judge forbids it, or more specifically, where one judge gives a copyright holder free reign to do whatever he wants [granting extension after extension, ignoring procedural violations, etc.], and another judge clamps down on the copyright holder forcing him to observe the rules, eventually dismissing his defendants because he missed a deadline or violated a federal procedure or local rule, etc.), and

2) having so many defendants bunched together in one lawsuit changes the dynamic of the lawsuit from having an aggressive “copyright troll” attorney to having a more passive plaintiff attorney who tiptoes around the court, who avoids filing documents in fear that one misstep (such as the one that happened to his Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases with Judge Hughes) might cost him his entire batch of defendants.

For a plaintiff attorney, losing 20 John Doe defendants in one case is a tolerable defeat. Losing 400 defendants who have been consolidated into one case creates a “china shop” mindset for the plaintiff attorney, where the “don’t touch it or else it might break” rule suddenly becomes relevant when handling this newly large and fragile set of defendants.

Well, as of yesterday, “Document 70” showed up on Vogt’s Cobbler Nevada, LLC consolidated case, and the document was entitled “ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS.” When I reviewed the document, it purported to dismiss John Doe defendants from a number of Keith’s older cases (e.g., 4:15-cv-01322 through 4:15-cv-01333), but it also appeared to dismiss EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS FROM EVERY COBBLER NEVADA CASE FILED IN TEXAS [AND WHICH ARE CONSOLIDATED INTO THIS ONE CASE].  Essentially, ALL of the defendants from the consolidated case itself, 4:15-cv-01308, appeared to have been dismissed.

010516 CobblerNV Doc70

At first, I shouted “woo-hoo!” because the case was dead. But then, I took a second look, and the order was originally written by Keith Vogt himself in November (Document 58), and there is no way he would dismiss his entire golden goose of defendants.  Plus, the case itself wasn’t marked “closed” by the clerk [as it would be if there was a mass dismissal], so there was an ambiguity. Reading the document, I asked, “if the defendants from this consolidated case were dismissed, did this dismissal also include the many, many defendants from ALL THE OTHER TX COBBLER NEVADA, LLC CASES which were all consolidated into THIS case!?”

After calling the clerk and eventually calling Keith himself, I confirmed that the case itself is still alive, and sadly, the John Doe Defendants are still John Doe Defendants. In short, nothing has changed, move along, there is nothing to see here. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if the wording of the order in such an important case tripped me up, it probably confused a few other attorneys, and for this reason, I have written this article.

So yes, for now the Texas Cobbler Nevada, LLC cases still lives, and the next court date for this case (which affects every TX Cobbler Nevada, LLC John Doe Defendant) will be on 2/10/2016 at 10am in Courtroom 704 in Houston, TX.  If anything relevant happens at the hearing or in the meantime, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Known Cobbler Nevada, LLC cases in the TXSD:
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02060)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02061)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02046)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02053)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02047)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02045)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02062)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02059)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02048)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02050)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02043)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02058)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02041)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02051)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02055)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02044)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 4:15-cv-02057)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01332)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01322)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01333)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01323)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01327)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01324)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01325)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01328)
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:15-cv-01308)

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases in the TXSD (also affected):
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-19 (Case No. 4:15-cv-00050)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:15-cv-00049)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:15-cv-00047)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-7   (Case No. 4:15-cv-00044)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:15-cv-00046)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-18 (Case No. 4:14-cv-03389)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:14-cv-03387)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 4:14-cv-03388)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-19 (Case No. 4:14-cv-03393)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-03394)

*NOTE: I mentioned above that case consolidations are ALWAYS a good thing for mass bittorrent copyright infringement lawsuits having multiple John Doe Defendants.  Nothing is always the case, and one can usually find strong exceptions to the rule.

For example, the judge which consolidated all of the cases in a district under his or her control might mishandle the case (as we saw with the Malibu Media, LLC bellwether cases from 2013 where the judge forced cases into what ended up being a “show trial,” because the defendants selected for trial already came to an arrangement with the plaintiff), or, as we saw a few years ago in DC, the judge can be biased towards one side or another, or she could even be a former lobbyist for the MPAA as we saw with the Judge Beryl Howell rulings from 2011-2012.  Similar-minded judges from other districts more recently have been causing problems as well.  So, no, case consolidations are NOT ALWAYS a good thing.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Read Full Post »

It is difficult to track the activities of a copyright troll such as Malibu Media, LLC, especially when they are filing hundreds of “single John Doe” lawsuits across the U.S.  However, when there is a momentous ruling by a federal U.S. District Court Judge such as the one we saw yesterday in New York, then the story begins to reveal itself.

A few weeks ago, I noticed that there was a shift in the locations where Malibu Media, LLC was filing their cases. Cases began to shift into Ohio (OHND, OHSD), Virginia (VAED), and Pennsylvania (PAED) federal courts (courts which I refer to as “safe haven” courts because of past rulings by judges who allowed Malibu’s cases to proceed unhindered), however I did not understand why.

It was only until a recent conversation with one of Malibu’s local counsel that I understood that they were already aware that this ruling was coming down, and so they shifted their filings into other federal courts in other parts of the country to counterbalance what could be a shift in the law of the New York federal courts.  Call this the dirty word “forum selection,” or call it whatever you would like, but there is a pattern which can be graphed like birds flocking across the U.S. based on rulings that happen in the federal courts.

In sum, in my jaded view over the past five years of dealing with nothing but these bittorrent cases, there is no way to shut down the Malibu Media, LLC copyright infringement / “extortion” machine, as this requires participation from every judge in every federal district court. And, it is a difficult task to break the “my court, my world, my rules” mentality that so many appointed federal judges have (where their appointments often have political leanings or where there is a loyalty to a certain belief system or group).

Specifically, even with an appointed federal judge with a political proclivity to a certain viewpoint, it becomes even more difficult to break the lobbyists’ (such as the MPAA / RIAA copyright anti-piracy lobby) grip, which whisper in the judges’ ears (rich with funding and which no doubt influence decisions across the U.S. [and I dare not bring the question of whether the judges are influenced by bias or “gifts” from these lobbyists (legal or otherwise), and I say this because there have been more than a few questionable rulings which suggest to me that at the very least, certain federal judges have a leaning towards one side or the other and where the law is clear, they still differ to allow the copyright holder to prevail]).

In sum, we have a legal system where when a judge upholds the law, he is lauded and congratulated as if he did something wonderful, when upholding the law was the job in which he was appointed to do and which he took an oath to uphold.

There are easy solutions to wipe out Malibu Media, LLC, and every other copyright troll out there who abuses the legal system in order to extort massive settlements from their defendants, however, the country appears not to be ready to address the issue. Senators, congressmen, federal judges, I don’t have anything to say except to do the right thing. And in the merit of judges such as District Judge Hellerstein, Judge Wright, and many other lone wolf judges who do uphold the law, you have my respect and my continued devotion.

Below are the most recent 100 Malibu Media, LLC filings, filed literally only in the past few weeks. You’ll notice, not one of them was filed in the Southern District of New York (or ANY New York federal court. I wonder why.)

OHIO NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT (Yousef M. Faroniya of Law Office of Yousef M. Faroniya)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01340)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 5:15-cv-01341)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 5:15-cv-01343)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01342)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01345)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01346)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01339)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01344)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01316)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 4:15-cv-01312)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 5:15-cv-01319)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01317)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 5:15-cv-01315)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01314)

OHIO SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT (Yousef M. Faroniya of Law Office of Yousef M. Faroniya)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00235)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02516)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02518)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02515)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02477)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00236)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02517)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02519)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00435)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02456)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00230)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00423)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02453)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02454)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00422)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02455)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02457)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00224)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00224)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00228)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-02452)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00420)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00421)

VIRGINIA EASTERN DISTRICT COURT (William E. Tabot of William E. Tabot PC)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00855)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00851)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00859)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00860)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00852)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00862)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00865)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00856)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00853)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00861)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00857)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00863)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00866)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00850)

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COURT (Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-03598)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-03600)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-03602)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-03604)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 5:15-cv-03599)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-03601)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-03603)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-03605)

MARYLAND DISTRICT COURT (Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01851)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01864)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01865)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01855)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01861)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01862)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01869)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01854)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01866)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01868)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01859)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-01858)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01871)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-01863)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01853)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01867)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01870)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01857)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-01856)

NEW JERSEY DISTRICT COURT (Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04307)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04309)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04276)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04305)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-04287)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-04288)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04308)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04304)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04275)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04278)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04310)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04272)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04273)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-04269)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04230)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-04232)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-04243)

MICHIGAN EASTERN DISTRICT COURT (Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti Law PLC)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-12293)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-12294)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-12274)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-12283)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-12290)


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Read Full Post »

Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York just did the right thing in denying “expedited discovery” which would allow Malibu Media, LLC to send a subpoena to the Time Warner Cable ISP, thus preventing Malibu Media from learning the identity of the John Doe Defendant.

The copyright troll blogosphere is no doubt about to erupt with this story — in fact, the Twitter feed is already bustling with comments from Sophisticated Jane Doe (@FightCopytrolls), Raul (@Raul15340965), and other bloggers. Bottom line, a United States District Court Judge just said “no” to allowing Malibu Media’s extortion scheme to proceed.*

Judges are the gatekeepers of the law, and the reason these cases have been allowed to fester and infest our legal system is because judges [until now] have been asleep. They have blindly allowed the plaintiff copyright trolls the ability to wreak havoc on the accused downloaders by allowing the copyright trolls access to them so that they can intimidate, harass, embarrass, and threaten to deplete all of the funds of the accused defendant’s [sometimes life] savings in order to avoid the costly alternative of litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit.

For the purposes of this article, I am focusing on two points which I found to be interesting in today’s Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04369; NYSD) ruling (see Judge’s order here).

RULING 1: OBSCENE PORNOGRAPHY MIGHT NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION.

This ruling (based on Judge Marrero’s Next Phase Distribution, Inc. v. John Does 1-27 (Case No. 284 F.R.D. 165, 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)) case is the “third rail” issue in copyright troll litigation. Do copyright rights extend to pornographic materials? What if they are considered “scenes a fair,” or scenes which contain the same “roles” and “characters” as in other films — are these considered copyrightable (keep the same story, scene, genre, and roles, but switch the actors)? Are these works considered art? And, what happens if the copyrighted film violates one or more obscenity laws — does that film still have copyright protection?

These are just questions, and to date, they are unresolved. However, the fact that Judge Hellerstein brought it up means that he is seriously considering whether this should be a basis to deny copyright infringement claims against John Doe Defendants.

Reference: See my 8/14/2012 article entitled, “How to make bittorrent cases go away once and for all…” (Reason 3)

RULING 2: MALIBU MEDIA ACCUSES A JOHN DOE DEFENDANT, BUT PROVIDES **NO EVIDENCE** THAT THE “JOHN DOE” DOWNLOADER IS THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. THUS, THERE IS **NO BASIS** FOR SUING THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OR IMPLICATING THE ACCOUNT HOLDER AS BEING THE “JOHN DOE” DOWNLOADER DEFENDANT IN THE LAWSUIT.

This has always been a blatantly simple, and yet tough argument to describe. But when you think of it, the simplicity — once it jumps out at you with the “aha!” moment — is charming and unforgettable.

In short, Malibu Media can prove that SOMEONE downloaded one or more of their titles. However, they do no prove (or even assert any evidence) to indicate that it was the account holder who downloaded the copyrighted film… so what legal basis does Malibu Media have to sue the account holder?? Judge’s answer: None.  In order to make a “prima facie” case that would convince a judge to rubber-stamp a subpoena permitting the copyright holders to force an ISP to turn over the identity of the account holder (whether or not he is the actual downloader), the copyright holder needs to provide some “link” identifying the actual downloader as being the account holder. No link is ever provided in Malibu Media’s pleadings, and thus in legal terms, the pleading “fails” and the copyright holder’s request for expedited discovery should be denied.

That’s it.  My two cents, for what it is worth.

Congratulations to District Judge Hellerstein for a brave and correct ruling on the law. Now if all of the other judges in the Eastern District of New York would fall in line with this ruling and abandon the “my court, my world, my rules” mentality, we can put an end to these cases once and for all.

Additional Reference:
Fight Copyright Trolls (SJD): Citing previous Malibu Media’s sheer abuse of court process, New York judge denies early discovery

*UPDATE (7/7, 6:30am): I am surprised that there are not more articles on this topic.  This should be all over the news for other NY judges (and judges in other federal district courts) to see.  Unfortunately, if other judges do not see [and act on] this ruling, then it gathers dust and it has little-to-no effect on future Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits. …and the scheme continues unhindered.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

OTHER RECENT MALIBU MEDIA (NYSD) CASES:
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04713)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04717)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04720)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04725)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04728)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04729)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04730)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04731)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04735)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04736)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04738)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04732)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04733)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04734)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04741)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04742)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04743)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04739)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04740)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04744)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04745)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04367)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04374)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04370)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04377)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04368)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04369)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04371)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04373)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04378)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04380)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04381)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04382)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03130)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03135)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03137)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03138)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03143)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03144)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03134)

Read Full Post »

Manny Black EyeIt appears to me as if the Manny Film LLC bittorrent piracy lawsuits in Southern Florida have just received their first black eye.

The Federal District Court in Florida has been grappling these past few years with the question of whether geolocation software is sufficient to identify the accused downloader. In short, federal venue rules (according to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(a)) state (in the context of a bittorrent piracy lawsuit) that in order for a copyright holder to file a lawsuit against a John Doe Defendant, the copyright holder must assert that the accused John Doe Defendant a) lives in the federal district in which the lawsuit is filed, and b) that a substantial part of the downloading and/or uploading happened in the federal district. The purpose for this is so that the defendant is sued in the right court.

However, in following the “bouncing ball” of the legal argument at play, the Florida federal court has realized that the plaintiff and all of its complicated geolocation software cannot prove the identity of any defendant. Not even one.

The Manny Film plaintiff can prove an IP address was connected to a bittorrent swarm that was downloading and distributing an unlicensed copy of the copyrighted film. They can prove that the IP address can be traced to a location (e.g., the accused downloader’s house). However, there is a logical gap between knowing the location where the download happened, and knowing that the accused defendant [most frequently, the account holder] was the downloader.

HERE’S THE KICKER… if the geolocation software cannot assert who the downloader is, how can the Manny Film LLC copyright holder assert 1) that the accused downloader was the one who was using the computer to download the copyrighted film (they have not placed him at the keyboard at the time of the download), and 2) if the Manny Film LLC copyright holder cannot bring any proof through their geolocation software — their only source of evidence — to determine who the accused downloader is, how can they competently state for the purposes of satisfying the venue requirement that the the accused downloader (whoever he or she might be) lives in the state in which the lawsuit is filed?

“Judge, I don’t know who the downloader is, but if I did know, he would live in your district!” – Copyright Troll

This brings me back to this nuanced argument where I was trying to frame it in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Here is an e-mail that I wrote on November 8th, 2012 (remember, our older articles are still relevant even today):

I don’t know how to put this more plainly, and I HATE a “silver-bullet” argument, but I fail to see the weakness in a [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)] motion for failure to state a claim where the plaintiffs only know a) that an IP address downloaded the stuff, and b) that the named defendant is the account holder. It’s a fine point [which in my mind can be hammered home in the courts] but I understand the argument to be that assuming everything in the plaintiff’s complaint to be true, there is nothing that implicates the named defendant to be the person who did the download. In other words, there is no conclusive link [perhaps I need to do more research as to how strong the link needs to be to survive a 12(b)(6) motion] between the real defendant as referenced in the complaint [or who this person should be], and the named defendant [the ISP account holder].

Two analogies — 1) someone makes an incriminating phone call; there is no proof that the person who pays the phone bill (subscriber) made the call; 2) someone’s car does damage — [barring the negligence claim, which other attorneys here have done a wonderful job of killing] is the owner liable for torts that are committed with his car if the plaintiff cannot prove that he was in the car when it caused the damage?

In short, an IP address is NOT a person, and proving that an IP address did the download does not prove that the subscriber was the one who did the download. 

So, turning back to the Manny Film LLC (Case No. 9:15-cv-80290) case in the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman references various Malibu Media LLC films lawsuit orders, and in turn orders the Manny Film LLC plaintiff to answer the same questions which killed the Malibu Media v. John Doe (Case No. 14-cv-20213) case and related cases.  In the Malibu Media, LLC 14-CV-20213 case, (just for completeness,) Judge Ungaro stated “there is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district.”

The plaintiff has until March 31st, 2015 to do so, or else his Manny Film LLC cases filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida will all be in jeopardy (remember, a ruling in one case in a particular district is BINDING on other cases in that district).


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Also see: Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.” (3/13/2015)

OTHER AFFECTED MANNY FILM LLC CASES:

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (FLSD)
Plaintiff Attorney: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PLLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60454)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.175.83 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60455)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.236.20 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60456)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.147.5 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20923)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.2.226 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80306)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80307)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20924)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80301)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80302)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.177.255 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80303)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.122.227 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20920)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.203.201 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20921)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.226.21 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60444)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.99.53 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60445)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.229.140.101 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60446)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60447)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20905)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80298)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60448)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20907)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80297)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60453)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60438)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60440)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60441)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60442)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.56.69 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20894)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.157.43 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20895)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20896)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20899)

In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (FLMD)
Plaintiff Attorney: Daniel F. Tamaroff & David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00262)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No.3:15-cv-00263 )
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00265)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00266)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00366)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00368)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00370)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00371)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00373)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00374)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00377)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00378)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00380)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00381)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00382)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00264)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00365)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00367)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00369)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00372)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00375)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00379)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00506)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00507)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00508)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00509)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00510)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00495)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00496)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00497)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00498)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00499)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00500)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00501)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00502)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-00145)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00503)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00504)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00505)

In the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (NJD)
Plaintiff Jordan Rushie sometimes misspelled on the court record as, “Jordan Rusie of Flynn Wirkus Young PC”

Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01497)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01498)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01529)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01530)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01531)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01533)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01534)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01539)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01564)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01565)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01482)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01483)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01484)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01487)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01488)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01495)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01503)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01504)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01517)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01518)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01520)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01521)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01522)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01523)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01528)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01532)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01535)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01536)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01537)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01538)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01540)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01541)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01542)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01489)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01490)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01545)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01552)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01553)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01554)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01557)

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED)
Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01157)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01156)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01158)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01159)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01163)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01164)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01165)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01166)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01167)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01168)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01170)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01171)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01172)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01173)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01174)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01175)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01176)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01178)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01179)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01180)

In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (OHND)
Plaintiff Attorney: Yousef Faroniya

Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00465)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00466)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00467)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00463)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00464)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00461)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00462)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00451)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00460)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00444)

Read Full Post »

After my “Dallas Buyers Club, LLC is a modern-day Icarus Story (TXSD)” article on August 13th, I called Keith Vogt, the plaintiff attorney for Dallas Buyers Club. In our call, I ascertained his motivations regarding how he plans to approach Judge Hughes here in Texas, and what he plans to do with the other cases (duck and run, or push forward).

As I suspected, he expressed no “duck and run” mentality (not even privately), as we have seen in similar past cases with other past “copyright troll” plaintiff attorneys. In fact, Vogt appeared to be undeterred considering the outcome of the case, mentioning that he has NINE (9) other cases alive and well in the Southern District of Texas, seven of which were in their INFANT STAGES and all current cases are assigned to judges other than Judge Hughes.

Below is a list of those new cases:

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02119)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02120)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02121)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02124)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02217)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02219)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02220)

and of course, the two older cases:

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-31 (Case No. 4:14-cv-00248)
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. John Does 1-45 (Case No. 4:14-cv-00815)

Each of the newer cases were filed on either 7/24 or 8/2 (before Vogt’s problems with Judge Hughes surfaced). I have been watching these cases, and the judges in most of them have granted permission for Dallas Buyers Club, LLC to send subpoenas to the ISPs to ascertain the identities of the John Doe Defendants. These people will be receiving letters from their Comcast Xfinity Subpoena departments in the coming days and weeks.

Two interesting items to note: Plaintiff attorney Vogt has roughly 175 potential defendants, each of whom will likely be asked for a settlement of thousands of dollars. He has also not filed any new cases since the August 13th debacle with Judge Hughes, likely understanding that they will be assigned over to him, and this may or may not be a fight he wants to instigate just yet. On a more concerning note, on Thursday, Vogt named and served eight (8) John Doe Defendants in his 4:14-cv-00815 case. This is one of his older cases, and I understand that he needed to do so because Judge Gray Miller was pressuring him to do so before the upcoming hearing. Instead of posting the names of the named and served defendants, I have pasted a screenshot of the docket which lists the named defendants — you can see the named defendants referenced below in Documents 21 & 22.

Named and Served Dallas Buyers Club, LLC defendants

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC attorney Keith Vogt names and serves defendants in the 14-cv-00815 lawsuit.

In sum, on August 13th, I commented to a friend that I did not think the judges in Texas spoke to each other. I am still of the opinion that federal court judges appear to lord over their court as if their court is their own sovereign territory. It would be nice if one judge poked his head into another courtroom once in a while.  If he or she did, they would notice that the proper answer to cases such as these is CONSOLIDATION.

In a perfect world, Judge Hughes would consolidate all of the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases into one case, since all of the cases relate to the same common questions of fact.   Doing this would prevent contrary rulings from neighboring judges, and it would create a common rule of how to handle, facilitate, and ideally to dispense with all forms of “copyright trolling” cases in the federal courts.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Read Full Post »

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC Texas-based lawsuits in my opinion tell a modern story of Icarus who flew too close to the sun with wings of feathers and wax and got burned. The reason for this is because these cases have caused one Texas federal judge to rule against their fictitious name “John Doe” lawsuits.

There was news today that affects the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases filed here in the Southern District of Texas (TXSD). The news is not only a black eye for the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC attorney, but as a result of today’s news, Dallas Buyers Club, LLC might never again file here in Texas.

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases have been rather docile here in Texas. Until ten days ago, they only filed two cases:

Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-31 (Case No. 4:14-cv-00248), and
Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-45 (Case No. 4:14-cv-00815).

Strategically, until now, the plaintiff attorney did not have local counsel, and it was almost certain that he would not fly down to Texas to appear for the hearings, so there was really nothing to talk about with these cases. Yes, of course he could have appeared by telephone, but I’ve been at those hearings, and they almost never end well for the absent attorney.

However, here the plaintiff attorney did hire local counsel and ten days ago, they filed Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 4:14-cv-02218); the case was assigned to Judge Lynn Hughes.

Now I’ve seen Judge Hughes rule in a number of cases. While many Texas judges typically allow bittorent cases to sit on their dockets for months at a time, I don’t think Judge Hughes had any interest in allowing this case to sit for any length of time. My understanding is that Judge Hughes was very aware of the copyright trolling problem from the previous copyright troll adult film cases we were fighting back in 2011-2013, and the new filings by Dallas Buyers Club, LLC across the U.S. was a problem that threatened to turn into a Malibu Media, LLC problem.

My guess is that Judge Hughes immediately identified the “John Does” copyright infringement case [filed by an out-of-state attorney] on his docket as a cookie-cutter copyright troll lawsuit. The complaint even read almost identical to the pornography cases we tried against Prenda Law Inc. and their local counsel Doug McIntyre just two years before this.  Within four days, Judge Hughes ordered the plaintiff to identify the defendants, I assume because he was not about to tolerate yet another “John Doe” lawsuit against fictional characters and putative defendants on his docket for months while the attorney shook down each putative defendant for thousands of dollars a piece.

The problem is that the plaintiff did not yet have the names of the putative defendants from the ISPs, and so when ordered to remove the fictional “John Doe” character names, he could only identify them as “Internet User (IU) subscribers having a particular IP address” thinking that would satisfy the judge. It didn’t.

For the rest of the story details, I invite you to read Sophisticated Jane Doe’s article on the case. What I can contribute, however, is that as a result of this case, any Dallas Buyers Club, LLC case filed in this district is ordered to be assigned to Judge Hughes, which suggests that it will die upon arrival. Similarly, moving forward, I suspect that the plaintiff attorney will likely be dismissing all cases which are assigned to Judge Hughes, which will no doubt raise suspicions of not “forum shopping,” but rather, “judge shopping,” a tactic that Prenda Law Inc. got in trouble for exploiting years back.

In sum, starting in 2010 with the Larry Flynt Production (LFP Internet Group, LLP) cases in the Northern District of Texas, and now ending with the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases in the Southern District of Texas, it is becoming apparent that Texas judges no longer tolerate copyright troll bittorrent-related cases.

On a personal note, I understand that this most recent Dallas Buyers Club, LLC filing was supposed to be one of many more cases to be filed here in Texas. And, just as Icarus flew too close to the sun, it was inevitable that this copyright holder would stumble upon a judge who dealt with the predatory bittorrent pornography cases we dealt with a few years ago. It was just a matter of time.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »