Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Peer-to-peer’ Category

We already know that it is the business model of CEG-TEK and other copyright monetization companies is to develop relationships with the internet service providers (“ISPs”), and to have them forward copyright infringement / DMCA notices to their subscribers.

I have mentioned this already with regard to the relationships CEG-TEK has with Charter, CenturyLink, and Suddenlink, and as we know, COX Communications, Inc. signed on with CEG-TEK in December of 2015, and has been sending CEG-TEK’s DMCA violation notices to their users.  What we did not notice until now is that Cox Communications has become CEG-TEK’s “golden goose.”

WHY COX IS CEG-TEK’s “GOLDEN GOOSE”:

Why Cox? Because Cox provides its users the same IP address each day. This “one subscriber, one static IP address” trend provides copyright holders and government officials an “ID” of sorts which allows them to identify a particular IP address, watch the activities of that IP address over time as it interacts with different websites (e.g., to see what links that internet user clicks on, to learn where they shop online, what accounts they use, what items they purchase, and what bittorrent downloads they participate in).  Then, when they have developed enough of a profile on that user to convict, they then trace that IP address back to a certain Cox Communications account for prosecution, or in our case, extortion.

For CEG-TEK, they are focusing their efforts on Cox because by doing so, they do not need to obtain from the ISP a past list of IP addresses assigned to that user, and it is very easy for CEG-TEK to go back in time and check their own logs of the past bittorrent swarms to see whether that particular subscriber / IP address participated in any other downloads of their other clients. Some have suggested to me that CEG-TEK can do a search to see what other bittorrent downloads the accused Cox subscriber has participated in. In short, Cox’s “one subscriber, one static IP address” is nothing short of a violation of their subscriber’s privacy, and it is only a matter of time before someone’s IP address gets “followed” and someone gets hurt because Cox is not obscuring the identity of their subscribers.

BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORK IS NOW WORKING WITH CEG-TEK:

Other than Cox, I have recently learned that Bright House Networks (brighthouse.com) is now working with CEG-TEK. I do not yet know in what capacity they are working with CEG-TEK, or in what kind of relationship, but it appears as if they are a new ISP “recruit” in CEG-TEK’s “war” against piracy.

NEW CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS POLICIES AS TO HOW THEY FORWARD DMCA NOTIFICATIONS (THE GOOD AND THE BAD):

For the thousands of you who are Charter subscribers, Charter has recently changed the way they forward the DMCA notices, and this can only be good for subscribers. Instead of forwarding the notices in an e-mail, they are now asking subscribers to “log in” to their website, where only then can then view and copy for themselves a copy of CEG-TEK’s letters.

This is both very good, and bad. On the good side, any “hoops” an ISP makes a subscriber jump through to see the claim(s) against him might annoy the subscriber, but it no doubt infuriates the copyright holders and “monetization” companies (like CEG-TEK) that rely on them seeing their DMCA notices to provide their copyright holder clients their dirty money (I could have said “ill-gotten gains,” but emotionally, calling it “dirty money” seemed to fit better).

THE PROBLEM OF “LOST” DMCA NOTICES:

However, BUYER BEWARE! I have received many calls about people who have physically LOST their DMCA notice because they did not copy it down when they viewed it. And when they called me about it panicked, because I couldn’t see the claims because they did not know who was claiming copyright infringement against them, I couldn’t tell them whether the copyright holder was a “copyright troll” or not, or whether they are suing downloaders in the federal courts. So please, as soon as you access the DMCA violation notices sent to you, either download a copy of it for yourself, or copy-and-paste it into a text file.

GOOGLE FIBER IS A DISORGANIZED ISP WHICH HAS ALSO LOST DMCA NOTICES:

Google Fiber subscribers also — Google Fiber seems to not be organized as to keeping track of the DMCA notices that they are forwarding to their subscribers. So when an internet user inadvertently deletes that notice, it is gone forever. Neither I, nor anyone else can help you fight or settle (or even advise you as to your options) if you accidentally deleted the notice. I suspect that if you are reading this article, it may already be too late.

CANADA — NEW CANADIAN ISP RECRUITS:

Okay, last piece of news and then I need to get back to work. As we know, CEG-TEK has been sending letters for months to Canadians and forcing the ISPs to send these letters to their subscribers under what is known as “notice and notice.” I have written about the problem and the solutions here in my “CEG-TEK: What are your financial risks and considerations of ignoring, settling, or being sued for copyright infringement if you live in Canada or Australia?” article. The news is that just as CEG-TEK is growing their business by signing on new ISPs in the US, this is also true in Canada.

The new Canadian ISPs now working with CEG-TEK appear to be Videotron (a.k.a., Vidéotron), Bell Aliant (www.bellaliant.ca), and Eastlink (www.eastlink.ca) — this will also affect their FibreOP users under the ISP names NorthernTel, DMTS, Telebec (Télébec), and Cablevision. If anyone receives notices from these internet providers, I would like to see them, as I hear that CEG-TEK is not following the notice rules.

As for the older ISP names — Bell Canada, Rogers Cable, Shaw Communications (sjrb.ca), ACN Canada, Electronic Box Inc., TELUS Communications, Start Communications, and TekSavvy, yes, these are still in play. The only one of these that has my respect thus far is TekSavvy which has tried to protect their users by fighting back, but even so, they are still sending CEG-TEK’s DMCA violation / copyright infringement letters, so my respect is limited.


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 »

Obviously I am not privy to the contracts signed between CEG-TEK and the internet service providers (“ISPs”).

There are three possible relationships between a copyright enforcement company and the ISP through which they send DMCA letters informing subscribers that unless they settle the claims against them for downloads that allegedly occurred, they might be implicated in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

1) A RELATIONSHIP OF FORCE AND THREATS AGAINST THE ISP (where CEG-TEK threatens, and the ISP complies),

2) A RELATIONSHIP OF PROFIT FOR BOTH SIDES (where CEG-TEK pays, and the ISP cooperates), and

3) A RELATIONSHIP OF PURE MOTIVE (both CEG-TEK and the ISP hold hands and cooperate, to “fight piracy”).

SCENARIO 1) “A RELATIONSHIP OF FORCE AND THREATS AGAINST THE ISP” (where CEG-TEK threatens, and the ISP complies)

In the first scenario, a company or set of attorneys representing the copyright holders contacts the ISP and informs them that they might be in violation and subject to various lawsuits, fines, and penalties for not complying with the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and other statutes (in Canada, the ISPs are literally required to pass on claims to their customers, and this is referred to as “notice and notice”). If the ISPs do not comply, they could be sued for millions of dollars for encouraging piracy on their networks (I am speaking loosely in the vernacular).

ISPs across the US would be included in this first scenario, which explains how many of the bigger ones such as Comcast [who I understood were originally NOT working with CEG-TEK, because doing so would violate how they are supposed to act by being part of the “Six Strikes” system] started sending out abridged CEG-TEK infringement notices a few months ago, even to first time offenders.  Another such example of ISPs who “take steps” to stop infringement is Charter, which has been known to temporarily suspend their users who are accused of copyright infringement, but only with a pop-up notice that they need to click on to acknowledge the claim of copyright infringement against them before their internet service is resumed, unhindered.

NOTE: Comcast also has a strong profit motive as demonstrated in Scenario 2 (below), as does Charter, who has been known to be working with CEG-TEK since the beginning of their operation.  We believe the relationship between Charter and CEG-TEK is one of “for mutual profit” (Scenario 2) because CEG-TEK has obtained information about accused downloaders that they could only obtain with the help of the ISP.  Also, I understand that over the years, there have been periods of “tension,” (as I called them) where Charter has held back the sending of the CEG-TEK DMCA infringement notices for sometimes weeks at a time, only to send them all at once (my joke at the time was, “I guess they were waiting for their payment.”)  All jokes aside, the point here is to note both the Comcast example and the Charter example to show the actions an ISP will take to make it look as if they are “taking steps” to fight piracy.

In each of these scenarios, the ISP does the absolute minimum to comply with the claims against their customers, but what you don’t see is the “wink and a nod” from the ISP that they are likely not going to shut your account down or lose you as a customer over this (in other words, your activity violates the ISP’s terms of service “TOS” or “PUA”, but I have not been hearing of anyone’s account being shut down).

UNRELATED, BUT STILL VERY IMPORTANT: I have even heard that ISP customer service representatives actively tell their subscribers [in ignorance of the law] to just delete the infringing content and to ignore the notices.

FYI, look up “spoliation” of evidence, where the victories of the copyright holders in the US against downloaders happen where the copyright holder can prove that the accused defendant wiped his hard drive or deleted the infringing content after being notified by the copyright holder that there was a claim of copyright infringement against the subscriber. Thus, take what the ISP customer service representative says with a grain of salt because even though they might not care that the download happened on their network, there is still the law and the claims against you, and your ISP’s customer service rep is in no position to be giving you legal advice. Better to deal with or resolve the CEG-TEK claim against you first (if you were going to settle) before wiping the hard drive in fear of having other claims of copyright infringement or lawsuits filed against you (e.g., by other copyright holders such as Malibu Media, LLC, etc.) in the near future.

NOTE: Your relationship with your ISP has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with your relationship with the copyright holder (or CEG-TEK) or the claims against you, since the copyright holder(s) still have one or more claims of copyright infringement against you.

SCENARIO 2) “A RELATIONSHIP OF PROFIT FOR BOTH SIDES” (where CEG-TEK pays, and the ISP cooperates)

In this scenario, the understanding is that CEG-TEK is actively paying the ISP for providing their DMCA infringement notices to their subscribers. While I did not initially believe this was happening in Canada (although I did have my suspicions), as of this morning, I now believe that Shaw Communications Inc. (a.k.a. Shaw Cablesystems G.P., or “sjrb.ca”) is working with CEG-TEK in a “for profit” relationship. I obviously cannot prove this, but from what I understand is about to happen with their subscribers [who will shortly be receiving multiple letters of infringement sent to them at the same time], this type of “delay, then dump a bunch of infringement claims” experience usually happens in a “for profit” relationship when the ISP is being compensated for the time they spend complying with the copyright infringement requests, and the payment is not immediately made.

Two examples demonstrating the “for profit” motive of various ISPs in the U.S. with facts (in these two cases, the “for profit” motive was forced upon CEG-TEK to their frustration) can be seen in the past behaviors of both Comcast and AT&T. A few years back, to handle the increasing number of subpoena requests (at the time, as a result of John Steele / Prenda Law Inc. lawsuits and the increasing number of bittorrent lawsuits being filed across the U.S.), Comcast opened up a “subpoena compliance” department in Morristown, NJ and staffed [at the time] twelve new hires just to handle the new subpoena demands from the lawsuits. In the lawsuit filings, when the copyright holders and their attorneys learned that Comcast was trying to profit off of the bittorrent lawsuits, they complained to the judges that Comcast was stalling on the subpoenas (Comcast was, at the time, under a duty to comply with the many subpoenas that were being requested of them).  It came out that Comcast was asking for something like $25-$50 per IP address lookup, when they were supposed to be complying with the subpoena for free.  Comcast prevailed in getting their IP address lookup fees, which I understand they continue to charge, even though other ISPs still do this for free.

Similarly, for those who know anything about Ira Siegel — the name that shows up on the bottom of every single CEG-TEK DMCA notice — there was a point where Ira absolutely refused to work with AT&T because AT&T’s subpoena department would charge $200 per subpoena request or IP address lookup, something at the time I heard that he found infuriating. Thus, you’ll notice that even today, you’ll never find a recipient of a CEG-TEK violation notice being a subscriber to AT&T, but as you can see, there *is* a profit motive of the ISPs to benefit financially from the growing influx of copyright infringement claims against their subscribers.

NOTE: I understand that the relationship between Charter, Centurylink, Suddenlink, Cox, sometimes Comcast, [and now most recently in Canada, Shaw Communications] fall under this scenario. The reason I am of this understanding is because of the advanced information CEG-TEK is able to identify about that subscriber, sometimes including the subscriber’s name (I have my own understanding as to how they get this from the geolocation), the geolocation itself of where the downloads occurred, along with other “past downloads” that allegedly happened weeks or months in the past at that same location, or by that same subscriber (based on a list of old “IP addresses” provided to CEG-TEK so they they can correlate that list against their own bittorrent records).

SCENARIO 3) “A RELATIONSHIP OF PURE MOTIVE” (both CEG-TEK and the ISP hold hands and cooperate, to “fight piracy”)

This is the “kum baya” view of piracy, where CEG-TEK approaches the ISP and tells them that they want to fight piracy. They show statistics of how when other ISPs “joined forces” with them and started sending out the DMCA violation settlement letters, piracy dropped significantly on that ISP’s network.

The ISP then sees this information and also agrees to “sign on” with CEG-TEK to help them forward their settlement demand letters to their subscribers with the hopes of diminishing the amount of “piracy” of copyrighted content that occurs on their networks.

NOTE: In this last scenario, you won’t find a profit motive by the ISP, and this is where I believe they get colleges and universities to sign on with them to fight piracy on their networks.

MY PERSONAL OPINION AND BIAS: Whatever the relationship or the scenario between CEG-TEK and the ISP, in the end, the subscriber is the one who suffers because it is THEY who receive the “settle or else my client will sue you as a John Doe Defendant in a U.S. federal court lawsuit for copyright infringement” letter.  Call it “speculative invoicing,” call it “Intellectual Property Monetization,” call it “fighting piracy,” when it is the individual downloader the copyright holder goes after, it is still WRONG.

To CEG-TEK’s merit, I have personally been in conversations with CEG-TEK where they were excited that piracy was actually going down on a particular ISP’s network — so apparently they do believe in what they do — but then again, whatever I feel about piracy and how the copyright laws should be changed to match today’s internet generation, in the end, it is the college students, their parents and landlords, the young graduates who are trying to find jobs, and those who are lured in by the adult content which is so addicting, widely available, and prevalent on the internet who fall prey to the tactics of the copyright holders.  For this reason, I still believe that the copyright holders should focus their efforts on pursuing those SELLING FOR PROFIT, DISPLAYING PUBLICLY WITHOUT A LICENSE, POSTING OR INITIALLY SHARING copyrighted content, but leaving alone those internet users who have no profit motive, who click on a link to view the copyrighted content.  

Back to my policy letter, I believe that it is the job of the copyright holders to police their own copyrighted materials, and not to attack, sue, extort, threaten, or pressure those who view or download content already aired on TV or in a public forum and posted on the internet.  The internet today has become like the TV and the Betamax of yesteryear.  Media becomes available, and people watch that media, whether the source is legitimate or not (think, Youtube).  TV shows are recorded, and are posted on many websites, some of them are licensed to share that content (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, ABC.com, etc.), some unlawfully do so without a license.  However, it is not the job of the internet user to inquire as to whether a source for a video is legitimate, especially when watching a show that was publicly aired just a few days beforehand.

The last thing that I want to do is to think twice when clicking on a YouTube video.  Taken to extremes, this is where the copyright holder’s activities go.


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 »

BACKGROUND: Malibu Media, LLC is a copyright holder who has sued internet users for the download of their adult films under the “X-Art” brand name. In the lawsuits they file, they may sue for the download of one title (asking $150,000 statutory damages for that one title), but then they claim in an addendum that the defendant also downloaded multiple “copyrighted” titles, listing a bunch of other videos that were also downloaded.

When settling claims against that defendant, Malibu attorneys ask for settlement FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE ACCUSED DOWNLOADS (and not for just the one title claimed in the lawsuit). So instead of asking for a settlement of $1,000 for one title, they will ask for a settlement of $35,000 for 35 titles allegedly downloaded.

The problem is that of the 35 titles allegedly downloaded, many of them weren’t copyrighted at the time the download took place. Malibu Media, LLC gets around this requirement by stating that since the copyrighted adult film was “published” on their website, thus they have three-months to file the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office in order to get copyright rights in that video.

Thus, Malibu Media is claiming copyright protection for videos that were not copyrighted at the time they were downloaded. Their logic is that their file was deserving of copyright protection retroactively, BEFORE THEY FILED FOR A COPYRIGHT WITH THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, because the video was properly “published” on their website (plain meaning of the word is “posted” on their site), and filed with the copyright office within the three-month statutory period.

Not relevant to this discussion (but equally interesting) is the fact that the file somehow “leaks” from their website onto the bittorrent networks to be downloaded by the internet users who then download large .zip or .rar files containing sometimes 100+ Malibu Media videos (or one .torrent file containing multiple video files).  These internet users are then sued in the federal courts for copyright infringement in what are known as the “Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe” lawsuits.

NEW MATERIAL (THIS IS THE ACTUAL ARTICLE):
Malibu Media, LLC has formed a habit of suing defendants for downloads that appear on the bittorrent networks literally a day or so after they are supposedly “published” on their website. The videos themselves are not copyrighted often for another three-months.

When questioned about this tactic, they claim that their activities are legitimate because U.S. copyright law gives a content creator up to three months after “publication” to file their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. They are correct about this three-month rule.

The scam is that Malibu Media, LLC is basing their “right” to solicit settlements for MANY videos because they “PUBLISHED” each video [according to the plain definition of the word] on their website before it was downloaded by the John Doe defendant.  Thus, they claim that their copyright rights existed in each of the videos at the time the videos were downloaded, even though 1) the downloader couldn’t find the video as being copyrighted when searching the US Copyright Office’s copyright registry, and 2) even though the copyright was not yet filed for when the download took place.  Thus, they can ask for settlements for each and every video because they all were deserving of copyright protection retroactively at the time the downloads happened BECAUSE that video was “published” prior to being downloaded.

However, I am convinced that their stated “publication” is really no publication at all. It’s a scam to make the accused downloader think that Malibu Media, LLC has copyright rights over ALL of the videos they claim in their “list” of infringed videos, including even those videos that were “published” just a day or so before they appeared on the bittorrent websites.

Why do I think that Malibu Media is faking the “publication” requirement in their lawsuits? Because according to the statutory definition of “Publication,” posting a new porn video onto their website is more of a “public performance,” and that does not satisfy the requirement for “publication.” (see, 17 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions).

Here is the text of the statute:

“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

 

Remember, in law, words do not always mean what they do according to the plain meaning of the word.  Tongue-in-cheek, stating, “I did not sleep with that woman” might be telling the literal truth, even if you had sexual intercourse with her.  The understanding to pull from this example is that the legal definition of “sleep” might be very different from the plain meaning of the term.

In the context of the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, it is not enough for a lawyer to look up the definition of “Publication” (defined above) in the statute and decide according to the plain meaning of the written definition whether publication is or is not taking place.  (By the way, looking up the definition of a word is a very good start, and is something that is often NOT done!  But the investigation of “the law” should not end there.)

To properly explain the term in the context of bitttorrent lawsuits, the terms “publication,” “to the public,” “distribution,” “public performance,” “public display,” etc. also have to be defined within their context.  How?  In addition to the plain meaning of the term, each term in the legal world has specific LEGAL DEFINITIONS which change as case law interprets them in the context of various situations (and if there is no case law, it is the job of the lawyer to carve out that changed definition for each particular context where justice sees it fit to do so).  These definitions can often be different, or even opposite to the plain meaning of the term.  Again, the “legal definition” of a term is often not the same as the “plain meaning” of that same term.

In sum, I suspect that there is a legal argument that “publication” is not actually happening with the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits (even moreso if they are found to be leaking their videos onto the bittorrent networks prior to their release, as is described in Sophisticated Jane Doe’s article, reblogged below). While I have not hashed this out yet completely, I have been working on this theory for some time now, and I believe it may be a viable argument. However, for those attorneys who troll this blog and will immediately jump on me saying “of course it is published,” step out of your box containing only plain meaning definitions, and come over to my side of the room. The view is a bit better here.

I am merely mentioning this issue as food for thought. Anyone who wants to contribute to this legal argument, I’m more than willing to hash this out. And of course, read SJD’s article because it demonstrates the publication issue very nicely.


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.

Fight © Trolls

It was proven beyond any doubt that Prenda seeded their smut on Bittorent to entrap hapless file-sharers. Given the striking similarities between Prenda and Guardley-driven copyright shakedown outfits, including Lipscomb/X-Art/Malibu Media, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to believe that the Karlsruhe-Miami-Malibu cartel’s hands are not so clean in this respect either. Indeed, numerous defense attorneys asserted that Malibu either seeds their porn itself, or someone does it with its blessing. Even Jordan Rushie, before he started doing errands for Lipscomb, suggested that

When considering litigating the “swarm theory,” Malibu was faced with the prospect of dozens of defendants, joined in their common defense against the plaintiff, with an initial seeder who very well may have had a license to publish the works to BitTorrent or elsewhere. [FN: Malibu’s investigation company, IPP, Ltd., was previously called Guardaley, Ltd. While it had that name, it was accused of being the seeder for swarms…

View original post 1,295 more words

Read Full Post »

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 CEG-TEK 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.

WHAT ARE YOUR CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHETHER TO IGNORE OR SETTLE WHEN YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.:

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.  The efffect of these “spiders” on a Canadian is that information on the lawsuit gets posted on the internet and remains there forever.  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 but was merely the account holder when the download allegedly occurred, 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 will have their reputations tarnished because the lawsuit will show up in the 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 those outside of the U.S.) 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.  Don’t call the copyright holder or CEG-TEK and argue whether you are “guilty” or not, because their job is merely to collect a settlement from you.  Rather, contact an attorney (me, or someone else who knows the operation of CEG-TEK and the tendencies of the specific copyright holder), and determine whether you are dealing with what I refer to as a “copyright troll” or not.  Assess your risks, and proceed accordingly down the “settle” or “ignore” route we discuss on our calls.

Once again, the main consideration as to why people settle 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 in a search engine when someone searches your name when applying for a job, etc.  Otherwise, learn who your copyright holder is and if there is a low risk of them suing, 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 »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers