Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Peer-to-peer’ Category

I am not licensed to practice law in Canada, and my knowledge (as far as I am able to share) is limited to U.S. Copyright Law, and the states in which I am licensed.

That being said, I have received more than just a few inquiries from those of you who have received “DMCA Copyright Infringement Notices” from your ISPs in Canada and Australia, and I thought it was time to clarify which ISPs appear to be “working” with Ira Siegel (CEG-TEK), and what their capabilities appear to be.

HOW CAN CEG-TEK SEND OUT LETTERS TO CANADIAN CITIZENS, AND WHICH CANADIAN ISPs APPEAR TO BE WORKING WITH CEG-TEK?

So far, infringement notices began to be sent out to Canadians under a loophole which allowed U.S. copyright holders to send infringement notices to Canadian subscribers.  While many have received these notices, it appears to me that CEG-TEK is focusing on the following ISPs:

Bell Canada
Rogers Communications (a.k.a. Rogers Cable)

Shaw Communications Inc. (a.k.a. Shaw Cablesystems G.P., or “sjrb.ca”)
ACN Canada
Electronic Box Inc.
TELUS Communications Company
Start Communications (a.k.a. “start.ca”)
TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

Now obviously there are others out there, but these seem to be where the focus of the letters seem to be going out.  Also, remember that CEG-TEK spends a large amount of time recruiting ISPs to sign on to their “cause” to eliminate piracy.  I remember how happy they were when in the U.S., they got COX Communications to start working with them.  No doubt, they are working to recruit more and more ISPs every day, and these few ISPs seem to be the Canadian ISPs that CEG-TEK appears to be regularly using to send out the DMCA settlement demand letters.

WHAT DO THE CANADIAN ISPs [WHO WORK WITH CEG-TEK] APPEAR TO BE PROVIDING THEM?

Originally, I expected that because of the Canadian loophole, that CEG-TEK was sending these “blind,” meaning, not knowing who the downloader is.  But, because of recent trends (where CEG-TEK is now picking up “additional cases” which were downloaded by that same user sometimes weeks or months ago), I am now understanding that certain Canadian ISPs (my best guess, Bell Canada, Rogers, Shaw, and possibly the others) are working with CEG-TEK to provide them 1) geolocation data as to where the downloads are taking place, and/or 2) lists of past IP addresses which have been leased to that internet user / subscriber over the past twelve months (or, whatever that ISPs “IP Retention Policy” before they purge the IP address data for older records).

Thus, Canadian CEG-TEK cases are starting to look and act more like U.S. CEG-TEK cases as far as them having the ability to identify who the subscriber is, and being able to “look back in time” to see what other bittorrent downloads belonging to their many clients [that their bots tracked on the bittorrent networks realtime weeks or even months ago] these subscribers participated in.

 

EVEN IF THEY KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THEY WILL SUE YOU IN CANADA?!?

A few months ago, I was concerned that copyright holders might start suing Canadian account holders who ignored the DMCA settlement demand letters that were sent to the ISP.  They even shared details about the Canadian lawyer that they were going to hire to sue defendants in Canadian courts.  But that never happened, and I know why.

Copyright infringement in the U.S. carries statutory damages of $150,000 USD per instance of infringement.  In Canada, there is a legal cap of $5,000 CAD for many instances of infringement.  And then if they obtain a judgement against an internet user in Canada (whether that lawsuit was filed in the U.S., or whether it was filed in Canada), what are the chances that a U.S. based copyright holder would spend the time to enforce a judgement in a Canadian court in order to seize the bank account or garnish the wages of a defendant who was found guilty of copyright infringement?!?  My best guess is zero, simply because the laws in Canada are different than the laws in the U.S., and it is simply not worth it financially to pay a Canadian attorney “go after” the bank accounts for what would be a maximum amount of $5,000 CAD (or, $3,500 USD).  The attorney would cost that much alone just to succeed in collecting the funds.  For this reason, there is absolutely no reason why it makes sense to 1) sue a Canadian for copyright infringement in Canada, and even if they did sue and win, 2) there is almost no likelihood that they would pay a lawyer to enforce the judgement against the Canadian and/or seize their bank accounts and/or assets in local Canadian courts… not for $3,500 USD.

Thus, if a Canadian citizen is concerned that they will be sued in Canada, and that they will have their assets seized, they are probably better off ignoring the DMCA letter rather than settling it.  I really don’t think any U.S. based copyright holder will spend all that effort to sue and collect against a Canadian citizen.  It is simply too costly.

Similarly, I am not even worried about a Canadian being sued in the U.S. for copyright infringement, because even if the copyright holder sues AND wins a judgement of $150,000 USD in a U.S. federal court, what are the chances that 1) the copyright holder will go through the effort to enforce that U.S. judgement to seize the assets of a Canadian citizen in a Canadian court, and 2) since there is such a large difference in penalties between the laws governing copyright infringement in the U.S. and in Canada, what are the chances that a CANADIAN JUDGE (with knowledge of the disparity between the laws) will enforce a $150,000 USD judgement against a Canadian citizen?!?

HERE IS THE ONLY REASON A CANADIAN MIGHT CONSIDER SETTLING THE CLAIMS AGAINST HIM/HER:

If the Canadian accused of downloading copyrighted materials via bittorrent is concerned that maybe they will be named and served as a defendant in a U.S. federal court, and they have a reputation that they must preserve (meaning, they have little-to-no risk tolerance of having their name become associated with being part of a pornography or piracy lawsuit), AND THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS A “COPYRIGHT TROLL,” (meaning, they have sued John Doe Defendants in the U.S. courts, or they have made known that they intend to sue defendants who ignore the DMCA copyright infringement letters that are sent to accused internet users), ONLY THEN does it make sense to settle a CEG-TEK claim against you.

Why?  Because as soon as an individual is named and served as a defendant in a U.S. lawsuit, there are many “spiders” and “robots” which comb the U.S. District Court (federal) court cases, and report and index the names of the court cases on the various search engines.  That way, if someone (e.g., an employer, a creditor, or someone who wants to dig up information on a particular person) does an internet search for that person’s name, then that person’s name and his involvement in the lawsuit will show up as one of the top entries on the search engine’s results, along with the case information.

And to make matters worse (which is why I would like to see some discretion on the part of the websites NOT to index the names of defendants in search engine results), even if that accused defendant did not do the download, or EVEN IF THAT DEFENDANT FIGHTS THE CHARGES AND WINS — FOREVER, THAT NAMED DEFENDANT WILL HAVE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE IMPLICATED IN A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT FOR PORNOGRAPHY OR PIRACY attached to their search engine results.

This is the most powerful leverage a copyright holder has over an accused defendant, namely, that even if he fights the case and wins, his reputation will forever be tarnished, and for this reason alone people settle the claims against them, even before there is a lawsuit.  I have spoken to hundreds (if not thousands of accused defendants) over the years, and this is the primary reason people (even U.S. citizens) settle.

[Personally, this is why I would like to see the laws changed to make it a crime (or more likely, very heavy civil fines, penalties, or sanctions) to name and serve a defendant without having a higher threshold of evidence (e.g., “clear and convincing” rather than “more likely than not”) that it was them who did the crime they are accused of.  Too many families have had their reputations ruined because some overzealous attorney accused them of a crime they did not commit.]

Because of the leverage a copyright holder yields over an accused defendant that they may sue, this is why I read the press releases and follow the financial lives of many of the copyright holders — so that I can properly predict what they will or will not do in the future.  This is also why I make such a large distinction on this blog and when discussing cases with potential clients of distinguishing those copyright holders who are “copyright trolls” (those who have sued in the past, or are likely to sue in the future) versus those who have not yet sued in the U.S. federal courts, and those who (in my opinion) will never sue.  That way, at least I can properly advise clients as to which copyright holders pose the greatest risks, and which copyright holders they can ignore based on who the copyright holders are, what they have done in the past, and what they have publicly stated (in court cases, motions, press releases, and on website articles) that they will do in the future.

IN SUMMARY:

So for those of you who live in Canada, or Australia, or whatever countries the U.S. copyright holders will go next to enforce their rights, please be level-headed when receiving these infringement notices from CEG-TEK and the like.  In some cases (especially for those in Canada), there is almost NO CHANCE that you will be sued in Canada, or that your assets or Canadian bank accounts will be seized.  If you are sued in the U.S. (the more likely result), there is little-to-no chance that the copyright holders would pay Canadian attorneys to enforce a U.S. judgement against a Canadian citizen because of the currency differences and conflict of laws between the U.S. and Canada.

The only reason to settle — if you are going to settle at all — is if you have a copyright holder who is a “copyright troll,” and you are concerned that you will be named and served as a defendant in a U.S. lawsuit, and that your involvement in that lawsuit (whether or not you are found guilty) will tarnish your reputation abroad when someone searches your name.  Otherwise, learn who your copyright holder is and if there is a low risk of them suing you, save your money.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: I personally find it silly to see attorneys place disclaimers on website articles, but here it is actually appropriate.  In this article, I am not suggesting that any person ignore a settlement demand letter that is sent to them, nor am I suggesting that they settle the claims against them.  I am also merely stating my thoughts about the likelihood of being sued so that they can evaluate their options and the risks and rewards of each course of action.  These are not legal opinions, nor are they to be considered advice to act upon or not act upon. 

Every person’s situation is different, and every person has a slightly different set of circumstances that can affect whether the best course of action is to ignore, fight, or settle, and every copyright holder similarly makes the same financial risk-reward analysis of whether it makes financial sense to take a particular action.  Often, lawyers take actions which do not make financial sense for an alternative reason, e.g., to get a judgement in a particular location against a poor person, NOT to ever collect that judgement, but as a trophy or a weapon to show the next set of would-be defendants that he is ready, able, and willing to pursue a particular line of attack against them as just as they did to so-and-so.  The opinions stated here are my own calculations based on my own understanding of the circumstances.


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 »

There was a point where someone raised the question, “should I be afraid that a copyright troll might try to sue or collect money for copyrights they don’t own?” That is an interesting question and certainly this could happen, but apparently CEG-TEK took it seriously since they represent so many copyright holders, and they have altered some of the DMCA letters that they send to accused internet users through their ISPs.

As a response to this question (which I suppose was asked enough times to inspire them to take action upon it), in the most recent versions of the CEG-TEK DMCA letters, there is now often a link to a “certification page” which affirms that CEG-TEK is authorized to collect settlements on behalf of a particular copyright holder.

I clicked on a few of the links, and while a few of them were innocuous (containing only the certification from the copyright holder’s website), some of them were pretty explicit as far as the graphics they show on their websites. I thought it would be a good idea to take a few screenshots and post them here, but after seeing a few of the sites, posting the screenshots here would put our website into the “Not Safe For Work (‘NSFW’)” category (as if it is not already in that category from its content).  I have pasted one below just to show an example of what they look like:

Reality Kings

For some of their other clients, below are some of the links I have collected over the past few weeks (and by NO MEANS is this a complete list of CEG-TEK’s client list. I tried to create such a “List of CEG-TEK clients” in June, 2014, and it backfired because immediately afterwards, so many of the copyright holders scattered and changed their name completely confusing the issue of who is a copyright troll and who is not a copyright troll.) I am merely providing this list as a quick sample to prove the existence of an AGENCY AGREEMENT between CEG-TEK and various copyright holders:

Digital Sin Inc. (a known copyright troll which carries the following brands: Digital Sin Inc, Greedy, Hot Boxxx, Lesbian Provocateur, New Sensations Inc*, The Romance Series, Vengeance XXX, X-Play)
http://www.digitalsindvd.com/distro/agent-cert.php

MG Premium Ltd DBA Mofos (formerly, “Froytal Services Ltd.” which carries the following brands: Canshetakeit, Iknowthatgirl, Ingangwebang, Latinasextapes, Letstryanal, Milfslikeitblack, Mofos, Mofosnetwork, Mofosoldschool, Mofosworldwide, Pervsonpatrol, Publicpickups Realslutparty, Shesafreak, Teensatwork)
http://www.mofos.com/cegtek-cert/

Porn Pros [also seen as AMA Multimedia, LLC] (which carries the following brands: Drive Shaft, Gay Castings, Gay Room, Man Royale, Men POV, Porn Pros, Pure Passion, Thick and Big, Tiny4K)
http://pornpros.com/cegtek-cert

MG Premium Ltd DBA Brazzers (formerly, “Froytal Services Ltd.” which carries the following brands: Asses In Public, Baby Got Boobs, Big Butts Like It Big, Big Tits At School, Big Tits At Work, Big Tits In Sports, Big Tits In Uniform, Big Wet Butts, Brazzers, Brazzers Vault, Brazzers Network, Busty And Real, Bustyz, Butts And Black, Day With A Pornstar, Dirty Masseur, Doctor Adventures, Hot And Mean, Hot Chicks Big Asses, HQ Honeys, Jizz On My Juggs, Jugfuckers, Milfs Like It Big, Mommy Got Boobs, Pornstars Like It Big, Racks And Blacks, Real Wife Stories, Sex Pro Adventures, Shes Gonna Squirt, Teens Li)
http://www.brazzers.com/cegtek-cert/

MG Content RK Limited DBA Reality Kings (formerly, “Manwin Content RK Ltd.” which carries the following brands: 40inchplus, 8thStreetLatinas, Bignaturals, BigTitsBoss, Bikini Crashers, CaptainStabbin, CFNM Secret, Cum Girls, CumFiesta, Cumfu, Dangerous Dongs, EuroSexParties, Extreme Asses, Extreme Naturals, FirstTimeAuditions, FlowerTucci, Footville, Girls of Naked, Happy Tugs, Hot Bush, InTheVip, Itsreal, Kingdong, Kristinslife, Manueluncut, MegaCockCravers, MikeInBrazil, MikesApartment, MilfHunter, MilfNextDoor, Mollyslife, Moms Bang Teens, MoneyTalks, MonsterCurves, Muffia, Mysexylife, Nakedmovie, etc.)
http://www.realitykings.com/cegtek-cert.htm

MG Content DP Limited DBA Digital Playground (formerly, “Manwin DP Corp.”)
http://www.digitalplayground.com/cegtek.html

E.A. Productions / Evil Angel
http://www.evilangelvideo.com/copyright/

Addicted 2 Girls
http://www.addicted2girls.com/cegtek.php

New Sensations Inc. (a known copyright troll which carries the following brands: Digital Sin Inc*, Greedy, Hot Boxxx, Lesbian Provocateur, New Sensations Inc, The Romance Series, Vengeance XXX, X-Play)
http://www.newsensations.com/tour_ns/cert.html

MG Cyprus Ltd DBA Men
http://www.men.com/cegtek-cert/

*[UNRELATED, BUT FUN TO NOTICE: Note the overlap between these companies as far as which brands are owned by which companies. Many of the popular names have the same parent company, e.g., MG Content, MG Premium, or more plainly, Manwin.  Also notice that some “brands” which market themselves to be separate and apart from one another are actually owned by the same entity, e.g., New Sensations, Inc. and Digital Sin, Inc.; as much as they tried to pretend that they were different entities when suing in the federal courts, we now know that they are the same entity. It is also interesting to see what a “small world” the adult industry is, and who the power players are behind the scenes of the “large” brand names. Unrelated to this article, when defending clients in federal court and in settlement negotiations, I have often found it funny to find that “old man grandpa” or “innocuous family woman grandma” is the CEO or power behind a large multi-million dollar adult company.]

What to take away from this article is simply that CEG-TEK’s role is as an “Intellectual Property Monetization” company, where the copyright holders hire them to track instances of copyright infringement using the bittorrent networks (hence the “CEG” portion of their name stands for “Copyright Enforcement Group,”), to collect and record the IP addresses of the accused infringers, identify the internet service providers (ISPs) associated with those IP addresses (and yes, they now contact ISPs not only in the U.S., but also in Canada and Australia), and request, pay, pressure, or threaten the ISPs to forward their copyright infringement notices to the subscribers which invites the accused internet user to visit their CopyrightSettlements.com website in order to view the claims against them and to pay a settlement fee to avoid potential legal action that may be taken against the internet users.

What is also important to note is that the legal role CEG-TEK plays is the authorized AGENT of the copyright holder. This means that whatever CEG-TEK agrees to (e.g., when an attorney negotiates a settlement on behalf of a client, or when CEG-TEK agrees to make one or more cases “go away” as part of a settlement negotiation), all of their activities are binding on their client, the copyright holder. Thus, if you pay CEG-TEK*, it is as if you paid the copyright holder. I am obviously simplifying the law of Agency here (where there are nuances), but what to take away is that anything CEG-TEK does, they do on behalf of their client and with the implicit [and in many cases, explicit] authorization of their client. That means that no, a copyright holder cannot turn around and sue you if you paid CEG-TEK to satisfy that copyright holder’s claim of copyright infringement against you where that client has hired CEG-TEK to enforce the copyright holder’s copyrights on their behalf (now you know the term, as their “agent.”).

*NOTE: I don’t need to toot my own horn and solicit my own services, but before you decide to pay CEG-TEK or visit their website, please do your research and contact an attorney who is familiar with their operation.  There are things to be aware of specifically with regard to capabilities CEG-TEK and ISPs have as far as geolocation technologies to identify the location where a download is claimed to have taken place, and how a company can dig into your past browsing history (with the help of an ISP providing your past IP addresses) in order to discover past acts you may or may not have taken part in.  Each of these impact your anonymity when settling a claim against you, and ultimately what a copyright holder can or can not later claim against you.  Your lawyer should understand this to help you understand the limits of CEG-TEK’s knowledge so that whether you choose to ignore or settle a claim, you will be aware of who is allowed to do what before, during, and after a settlement, and what are the time limits they face before information they may have on you is purged from your ISP’s records, sometimes making it unnecessary to worry about a settlement or a lawsuit.


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 »

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 »

Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK) has sent possibly hundreds of thousands of letters to internet users accused of downloading copyrighted content via bittorrent. In their letters, they invoke the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) as the justification for their “intellectual property (IP) enforcement” activities. They claim to be the good guys, but are they?  Are they “naughty or nice”?

CEG-TEK claims to be the good guys — they stop piracy, and as a result of their efforts, fewer people download on the ISPs’s networks (a social “good” and a “win” for the copyright holders). They have stopped the copyright troll lawsuits, for the moment. And, although they are charging $300 per title for each downloaded movie (sometimes higher) for what is often an accidental “click of the mouse,” they claim that they are not “bad” or “vindictive” like their Rightscorp competitor, which charges only $20 per title, but then sues the accused downloaders in federal courts, and then even go so far as contacting the ISPs in order to attempt to shut down the internet accounts of those accused of downloading their clients’ copyrighted titles via bittorrent.

But then again, CEG-TEK is a business. While I have had success negotiating away cases against veterans, the elderly, and in many cases, college kids, CEG-TEK has taken a number of steps which at best would be questionable.

Most relevant is the “admission of guilt” clause in their settlement agreements, which at the time of writing this article has flipped back to the version which does not include this clause. Months ago, when CEG-TEK expanded into Canada and then Australia, the settlement agreements which released those who have settled from liability included the following clause:

111715 Admission of Guilt in CEG-TEK Settlement Agreement

[For those of you who cannot see the image, it says, “…in the event of a (i) failure to clear, (ii) chargeback, (iii) cancellation, (iv) failure to complete…this Release shall be considered admissible and conclusive evidence of RELEASEE’s infringement of the copyright in the Work and that RELEASEE will be liable to CONTENT COPYRIGHT OWNER for all damages, statutory and/or otherwise, for such infringement plus attorney fees plus costs as of the Settlement Date…” (emphasis added)]

[Now as a side note, for those who are particular about formatting and details, note that CEG-TEK placed that inflammatory clause at the bottom of Page 2, and they split it up where half of it is at the bottom of the page, and the other half is at the top of the next page, where even a careful individual might not read the clause in its entirety because the inflammatory clause is separated by being on different pages.]

The problem with such a clause admitting guilt is that it is binding on an unsuspecting individual who tries to settle the claims against him by paying with a credit card. How?  These contracts are available to the individual paying the settlement fee on the CopyrightSettlements.com website to review, and upon processing the credit card payment, they agree to the terms contained within the contract.

Then, when their credit card transaction fails (either because their card is not accepted by CEG-TEK’s website, or because the transaction is declined, or, if through no fault of their own, because of the website itself the bank flags the transaction as suspicious (fraud alert for a large online charge) and fails to approve the transaction), at that point, the individual has admitted guilt to copyright infringement, which carries a $150,000 statutory fine for each title downloaded. Assume for the moment that the individual has five (5) cases.  Multiply this $150,000 amount by five separate copyright holders, and the individual could be looking at 5 x $150,000 lawsuits (= $750,000 in statutory damages separated into multiple lawsuits filed by different copyright holders all of whom hired CEG-TEK as their agent to enforce their copyrights) where the internet user has already admitted guilt.

Then, when the confused internet user who tried to settle calls CEG-TEK on the phone already having admitted guilt, what sort of leverage does the individual have if they are asked for more than $300 per title? Legally, they likely have no defense because according to the terms of the agreement, they already admitted guilt — even if the credit card transaction failing was not their fault.

So… Copyright Enforcement Group may be the “good guys” because they let attorneys negotiate away cases for vets, old ladies, and elderly gentlemen who don’t realize that they should be using a VPN when they download adult content, and CEG-TEK may serve the public good by demonstrating that piracy has gone down because of their efforts. While this is all true, remember: watch their contract, because caveat emptor still applies.

I don’t want to make this into a “you should have hired an attorney for your $300 matter” blog entry, but really, this is but one example of how even the “good guys” need to be approached with caution, and better yet, through a proxy by using an attorney. [I won’t even go into the conspiracy theories about CEG-TEK trying to get more than the $300 per title that is listed on the website.] Let’s stick to the facts and look at their contract to judge them on whether they are truly “naughty or nice.”


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 »

Copyright Enforcement Group (a.k.a. CEG-TEK) and RightsCorp at first glance look alike, but they are different animals. While they both use the DMCA laws (or with CEG-TEK, their foreign-country’s equivalent) to send letters to internet users accusing them of copyright infringement, and while they both attempt to force account holders to pay a “settlement fee” to settle all claims claimed against them, the mechanisms of how they operate are quite different.

True, both CEG-TEK and RightsCorp send DMCA notices to ISP subscribers (internet users). CEG-TEK (currently) asks for a settlement of $300 per title (C$225 for account holders in Canada), and RightsCorp asks for $20 per title.

The big difference between CEG-TEK and RightsCorp is that CEG-TEK releases the accused downloader from liability when the settlement is paid; in CEG-TEK’s contract, there is NO ADMISSION OF GUILT (UPDATE: CEG-TEK recently updated their settlement agreements and now they have an inflammatory “admission of guilt” provision, speak to your attorney about this), whereas RightsCorp contracts explicitly have the settling party admit guilt in an “I did it, I’m sorry, I’ll never do it again” fashion. This ‘admission of guilt’ issue was the initial reason I wouldn’t work with RightsCorp.

There are obviously other issues with CEG-TEK settlements that we’ve discussed before, just as there are obvious issues with RightsCorp settlements (namely, with RightsCorp, many have reported that after paying one $20 settlement, they received 10-40 additional infringement notices, whether or not the downloads actually happened).

Lastly, there are customer service differences between CEG-TEK and RightsCorp. CEG-TEK retains multiple individuals who respond to inquiries and convince those who call in [with inquiries, objections, and website troubles in processing payment] to pay the requested settlement amount or face a lawsuit. They have been known to claim that they record the conversations (watch out for this, as an admission of guilt here can be used against you, as can a lie later be used against you later in a perjury claim).

The important thing to note about CEG-TEK is that CEG-TEK DOES NOT SUE PEOPLE. Rather, they are a SERVICE PROVIDER providing COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SERVICES TO THEIR CLIENTS (namely, the copyright holders). CEG-TEK has also been known to scrape the list of callers to ascertain their identities (although this used to happen before we learned that they are now able to obtain [from select ISPs] the geolocation data identifying where the download took place). Thus, if a settlement is not reached, they forward the file over to the copyright holders to allow them to follow-up with the accused downloader using their own attorneys.  At this point, CEG-TEK is out of the picture.

Well, to be accurate, first CEG-TEK has their own attorney Marvin Cable send out settlement demand letters asking for $1,750 per title, and only after he is unable to obtain a settlement from the accused downloader, only then do they forward the file over to the copyright holder(s) for their own attorneys to do what they will with it. This is where in my opinion the “ignore” route can result in an accused downloader being contacted by an attorney requesting a settlement, this time asking for a significantly higher amount. Again, depending on the COPYRIGHT HOLDER [namely, whether they have sued in the past (you can look this up on http://www.rfcexpress.com), and whether they intend to sue again in the future], this is how to best determine whether to ignore or settle the claims listed on the CEG-TEK website.

In my opinion, this CEG-TEK policy of “we forward your file over to the copyright holders” is where the misuse of that information *can* originate. Not all copyright holders are upstanding citizens (note to self to write about how a particular action might be illegal or unethical, but we see lawyers doing it anyway, unpunished — “LEGAL, BUT NOT LAWFUL”), especially considering that most of Ira Siegel’s clients are adult entertainment companies (pornography), and their lawyers do not think twice before reminding the accused downloaders that they could be involved in a lawsuit for the download of pornography.

RightsCorp has its own set of problems. First of all, aside from the settlements having accused downloaders admit guilt to one or more downloads, there is a difference in the validity of the claims between RightsCorp and CEG-TEK.  RightsCorp’s initial claim may be valid, but the many follow-up claims have been said to be fabricated.  Contrast this to CEG-TEK — CEG-TEK sends an infringement notice within days of a download taking place, but when the internet user logs in to CEG-TEK’s site, CEG-TEK’s computers have already searched and found any older downloads somehow linked to that internet user (based on the geolocation provided to CEG-TEK, presumably by the ISPs themselves, and also based on the list of IP addresses leased to the subscriber over how long the ISP keeps these lists of past IP addresses based on their “IP retention policy”).

NOTE: There is more to say here, but the jist is that CEG-TEK uses fuzzy science (same geolocation, same bittorrent software, same port number) to link cases together.  This causes problems when CEG-TEK’s system links together multiple tenants’ downloads in an apartment complex or dorm, or when an unlucky VPN subscriber receives an infringement notice containing all of the downloads from the hundreds of other users connecting through that same VPN IP address.

And, while CEG-TEK provides what they call “Customer Service” (a.k.a., “tell me about what a bad boy you were so that I can thank you for admitting guilt and force you to settle or face a lawsuit”), last I checked (and admittedly, it has been some time) there is ABSOLUTELY NO CUSTOMER SERVICE from RightsCorp. Yet, RightsCorp won’t hesitate calling you with their Robocalls all day and night.

Lastly, the biggest difference between CEG-TEK and RightsCorp is that whereas RightsCorp is financially a “sinking ship,” and last I checked, their stock price dropped to $0.06 per share on the stock exchanges, CEG-TEK has only been *expanding* their operations, growing in size, expanding into other counties (most recently, sending copyright infringement notices in Canada), openly speaking about hiring foreign attorneys to enforce their clients copyrights, and they even have been going into other areas of intellectual property (e.g., going after those who sell counterfeited goods over the internet).

In sum, Copyright Enforcement Group in my opinion is the “big bad wolf” of copyright infringement, yet they do everything they can to keep their “paws” clean. What has always bothered me about them (other than that former plaintiff attorney Ira Siegel‘s name appears on each of their settlement demand letters), is that with their growth comes the ability to push around attorneys and internet users with boilerplate settlement agreements, (recently) new terms on their settlement agreements which are less friendly than the former friendly terms, and the ability to continually raise the settlement amount (which was initially $200, then $250, then $300), and nobody can do anything about it.

“Settle or ignore,” it does not matter to CEG-TEK.

As for RightsCorp, I still hold by what I said almost 24 months ago. I see no reason to get involved with them, as they have always been a sinking ship. It is only a matter of time before they are bought out by someone else.

NOTABLE RIGHTSCORP ARTICLES (from Slyck.com):
Rightscorp’s Red Bottom Line Gets Larger and so Does its List of Copyrights to Protect (8/19/2014)
Rightscorp Scores More Copyrights to Protect from The Royalty Network (7/11/2014)
Rightscorp, ‘We Aim to Protect Millions of Copyrights as we Continue to Lose Money’ (5/14/2014)
Rightscorp Sets its Sights on the Pay-Up or Else Program for UK Pirates (5/7/2014)
Rightscorp Scores Again, Gets 600 Copyrights from Rotten Records to Protect (4/16/2014)
Rightscorp Adds 13,000 More Copyrights From Blue Pie Records to Protect (3/31/2014)
Rightscorp Publishes its Full-Year & Fourth-Quarter 2013 Financial Report (3/26/2014)
Downloaders Beware; Rightscorp Now Monitoring Billboard Hot 100 Songs (2/28/2014)

COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT GROUP (CEG-TEK) ARTICLES (from this blog):
Canada begins receiving CEG-TEK DMCA settlement letters. (3/12/2015)
How time limits / purged records stop a copyright holder from learning a downloader’s identity. (12/18/2014)
CEG-TEK’s growing list of participating ISPs, and their NEW alliance with COX Communications. (11/12/2014)
The Giganews VPN Problem (11/12/2014)
CEG-TEK is now your friendly “photo” copyright troll. (6/13/2013)
CEG-TEK’s new “you didn’t settle” letters sent from Marvin Cable. (3/22/2013)
CEG-TEK’s DMCA Settlement Letters – What are my chances of being sued if I ignore? (2/22/2013)
Why CEG-TEK’s DMCA settlement system will FAIL. (2/22/2013)


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 »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers