Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Connecticut (CT)’ Category

Because the “ME2 Productions, Inc.” copyright infringement lawsuits appear to be the ‘third leg’ to the “September Productions, Inc.” (leg 1) and the “Cell Film Holdings, LLC” (leg 2) lawsuits, I felt compelled to write something about it.

This third leg of cases, each of which have been filed by Josh Wyde and Gary Fischman consist of four cases (and counting), each filed here in the TX Southern District Court. ME2 Productions, Inc. itself [through their local counsel across the US] has filed 112 cases so far, and each case appears to be following the same template. There are 10-20 John Doe Defendants per case, and the cases are spaced apart when filed, hoping that no proactive judge receives and consolidates all of the cases in one federal district (this has not yet happened in Texas).

ME2 CASES ARE STILL IN THEIR INFANCY IN TEXAS.

In Texas, the ME2 cases are still in their infancy, and all that has happened is that judges have rubber stamped what are called “expedited discovery” requests to allow the plaintiff attorneys to force the ISP(s) to send subpoenas to the account holders of those IP addresses where unlawful downloading is claimed to have happened.

As of writing this message, the Comcast / XFinity ISP has received three subpoenas, and has sent letters to the accused account holders (the “John Doe Defendants”) indicating that they should file an objection to the subpoena with the court before the ISP is forced to hand out the subscriber information to the plaintiff attorney.

As of now, there are three known ‘deadlines’ to file an objection (e.g., motion to quash) with the court — 3/2, 3/16 and 3/20 — corresponding to three of the four cases so far filed in Texas. I’ll update this article with the fourth date as soon as I get it.

WHAT MOVIE IS BEHIND THE ME2 CASES? AND, HOW DO THEY RELATE TO THE OTHER BITTORRENT CASES RECENTLY FILED?

More generally, ME2 Productions, Inc. is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the Mechanic: Resurrection movie, starring Jason Statham and Jessica Alba. (NOTE: If you are considering downloading any of the Transporter movies also with Jason Statham, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see lawsuits from the production companies for those movies as well in the near future based on a trend I’ve noticed in the past. Also be on the lookout for lawsuits for the ‘Transporter’ movies as well for this same reason).

Based on my conversations with the plaintiff attorneys who are attempting to sue downloaders of the Mechanic: Resurrection title, I understand that a number of those implicated in these lawsuits may have also been implicated in the September Productions, Inc. v. Does lawsuits for the download of the Septembers of Shiraz video and possibly also the Cell Film Holdings, LLC v. Does lawsuit for the download of the “The Cell” video. For some reason, these three videos appear to be a trio, perhaps because they were shared on the piracy websites or Popcorn Time software platforms at the same time, or that there is some ‘contractual’ connection between the three movies (e.g., perhaps Voltage Pictures has signed an agreement with each of the three copyright holders giving Voltage a right to take on the movie production’s company name as they did with Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, to act and to sue on their behalf in order to ‘monetize’ and enforce the copyright rights those productions companies have from the creation of the copyrighted films).

I wrote this last paragraph very quickly, without much explanation. Do you even care if the company suing you is really Voltage Pictures, Inc. who has contacted the movie companies and said, “sign a contract with me — I’ll sue in your name and get lots of settlement money for you”? Bottom line, you are implicated as a John Doe Defendant in what looks to be a copyright troll lawsuit, Comcast is about to hand over your information to plaintiff attorneys Joshua Wyde and Gary Fischman, and you are staring down the barrel of a $150,000 copyright infringement for clicking and possibly watching a movie that may not have been any good.

WHY THESE CASES ARE BOTH SIMILAR AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM CONVENTIONAL COPYRIGHT TROLL CASES.

In sum, whether this lawsuit indeed falls under “copyright troll” status or not, the plaintiff attorneys have taken great strides to mask the true nature of this lawsuit, namely, that this lawsuit will likely not go to trial for any of the defendants, because it is not economically profitable for the copyright holder (or Voltage Pictures, if this is the case) to spend the money to chase some student in Houston, TX and force a $150,000 judgment on them that the student will never and could never pay. Yet based on the documents I have seen these attorneys file in the court (sometimes even quoting this blog), they seem to want to litigate.

Whether they are paid hourly by their copyright holder clients (the production companies) or whether the simply take a commission based on a percentage of the settlement amount they elicit from the defendants (my gut feeling is that they are actually being paid hourly by their clients which gives them an incentive to spend more time filing documents in the court) they do spend significant amounts of time drafting motions, and they do spend the money to name and serve defendants, and they DO fight the case *as if* they were taking each John Doe Defendant to trial. Whether this is because they are trying to overcome the bias the federal judges in Texas have against the pornography bittorrent cases which wasted the past seven years of the court’s time or because they are trying to prove the legitimacy of bittorrent based copyright infringement lawsuits, bottom line, they are fighting these cases differently from the way other plaintiff attorneys have fought them in recent years.

So here is the solution. If you did not download the Mechanic: Resurrection movie, then fight back. Hire an attorney (me, or any other attorney) to fight your case. If you did the download, well, there are also solutions found with an attorney, but you knew this already, and it will require both sides to be reasonable to come to an amicable solution.

I did not mention this before, so I am mentioning this here since it is relevant — it is not profitable for a movie company to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit to trial. This gives us on the defense side leverage to either come to an amicable solution, or to fight back and force them to dismiss. The plaintiff attorneys Josh Wyde and Gary Fischman will fight back, but facts are facts, and justice is for the most part blind. If they cannot prove that it is more likely than not that you were the downloader of the copyrighted movie, then they cannot find you guilty for copyright infringement.

NOTE: An unintended consequence of fighting back from a purely academic perspective is that doing so forces the copyright holders to focus their set of John Doe Defendants to those downloaders to whom they can prove did the download, because each ‘misfire’ (meaning, each John Doe Defendant who did not do the download and who fights back) costs the copyright holder severely, and we have said for years that this would be the demise of the ‘copyright troll’ model if they sue without vetting their data as to which John Doe Defendants apparently did what and when. Make it too expensive to blindly name and serve (without vetting the John Doe Defendants first), and their model falls. However, fight back, and they will focus and limit their list of John Doe Defendants to those who subscribers (or their family members) who actually did the downloading, and this will only feed back into their cash stream by encouraging settlements to avoid being named and served, sued, and found liable for copyright infringement. It’s a messy problem.

KNOWN Texas Southern District Court ME2 Cases [Filed in 2017]:

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00501)
Filed: Feb 15, 2017, Judge: TBA

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404)
Filed: Feb 09, 2017, Judge: TBA

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00275)
Filed: Jan 27, 2017, Judge: TBA

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:17-cv-00143)
Filed: Jan 17, 2017, Judge: TBA

For an analysis of the other ME2 Productions, Inc. bittorrent-based cases filed across the US, click here.


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 »

NOTE: Since there has been so much activity with the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. software company (more out-of-the-court) and their lawsuits, I figured I would put all blog posts, etc. in one page for easy referencing. The original page can be found here.

SIEMENS PLM CASES (MAIN PAGE):

I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. (a.k.a. “Siemens PLM Software”) cases.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. John Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:17-cv-12345) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.

Siemens PLM has been known for suing John Doe Defendants across the US for the unauthorized use of their NX 7, NX 8, NX 8.5, NX 9, NX 10, NX 11, and Solid Edge ST9 Foundation software versions.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

CASE HISTORY OF THE SIEMENS PLM CASES:

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc., better known as “Siemens PLM Software” has been filing lawsuits against John Doe Defendants in federal courts across the US since 2011.

In 2011, Siemens PLM Software started their lawsuits in New York (NYSD) with two innocuous cases containing 50 John Doe Defendants which spanned NX 7 users living across the US. This led them to sue TWIVision Engineering Group, LLC in the Texas Eastern District Court (TXED) later in the year.

In 2012, they sued 50 John Doe Defendants in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED).

From 2012-early 2014, there was a lack of lawsuits from Siemens, but in 2014, they sued 100 John Doe Defendants AGAIN in New York (NYSD). Later, they again reached into Texas (TXED), but this time, they sued a number of engineering companies, including BTL Machine, Inc., and Mercury Metal Forming Technologies, LLC. They also initiated two John Doe lawsuits, Case Nos. 4:15-cv-00582, and 4:15-cv-00017.

2014-2015 Siemens continued its litigation strategy in the Texas Eastern District Courts for the remainder of 2015.

2016 was a busy year for Siemens PLM Software, as they filed large 100-Defendant cases against John Doe Defendants, this time in the Houston-based Texas Southern District Courts (TXSD). They also reached their individual lawsuits into both Ohio (OHSD) and Connecticut (CTD) where they sued Manufacturing Services International, Inc. and Demin, an individual defendant.

The cases of note currently in Texas are:
1) Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422), filed in May, 2016, and
2) Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552), filed in December, 2016.

As of writing this page, most of the attention and controversy has been surrounding the December 4:16-cv-03552 case here in Texas.

SIEMENS PLM SOFTWARE STRATEGY:

In short, it appears as if the Siemens PLM Software strategy is as follows:
1) File a large 100+ Defendant lawsuit, encourage the court to approve early discovery allowing Siemens PLM to obtain the contact information for each of those 100+ John Doe Defendants.
2) Contact each of those defendants, convert accused defendants into paying customers (where the cost of the software can range from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars).
3) Expand the lawsuit inquiry to the employer of the accused defendant engineer, and ascertain whether they have purchased volume licenses for their engineer employees.
4) Name and Serve and/or sue one or so defendants in a court outside the jurisdiction of the original court (this demonstrates that their reach is not limited to the courts in which they filed their original lawsuit). Unclear whether this is to obtain a $150,000 judgment for copyright infringement, or to convince that company to comply with their software licensing demands. I understand the goal of the lawsuits is to convert accused defendants into customers.
5) Proceed over the next three years contacting the various John Doe Defendants [even after the case is dismissed?]. File a new lawsuit against 100+ more John Doe Defendants, and repeat Steps 1-5.

BLOG POSTS:

How an attorney should handle a Siemens PLM Software, Inc. lawsuit, on 1/11/2017.
Siemens PLM NX-based lawsuits – converting accused engineers into loyal customers, on 1/9/2017.
Software Developers are now tracking piracy through the USE of downloaded software, on 9/9/2016.
Siemens Software Case IS a Bittorrent Case, on 6/20/2016.
What to do about the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does case (TX), on 1/16/2016.

LIST OF FEDERAL COURT CASES FILED (*UPDATED*):

IN THE CONNECTICUT DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. et al v. Demin (Case No. 3:16-cv-00553)

IN THE NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1 – 100 (Case No. 1:14-cv-01926)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08469)

IN THE OHIO SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software In v. Manufacturing Services International, Inc. (Case No. 3:16-cv-00182)

IN THE PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 2:12-cv-06795)

IN THE TEXAS EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. BTL Machine, Inc. (Case No. 4:14-cv-00506)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00582)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Mercury Metal Forming Technologies, LLC (Case No. 4:14-cv-00002)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00017)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. TWIVision Engineering Group, LLC (Case No. 6:11-cv-00679)

IN THE TEXAS SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT:
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422)


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 »