Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Illinois (IL)’ Category

When representing a client, in my eyes I am representing the internet users against the “bad guys.” Copyright holders who use the federal court subpoena power to unclothe the identity of the internet subscriber with the intent of extorting that internet user out of thousands of dollars (regardless of whether the internet user did the download or not) is an abuse of the federal court system.  To offset the very high cost of hiring an attorney to defend a copyright infringement claim in federal court, copyright law provides the “winner” of the lawsuit attorney fees (see, 17 U.S. Code § 505).

That way, when an accused internet user is forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to properly defend him or herself against claims of copyright infringement (which often include appearing for multiple court hearings, allowing the household’s computers and electronic devices to be inspected by a forensics expert, being questioned under oath [or having to answer written interrogatories under oath]), *IF* at the end of the investigation (e.g., at the end of “discovery”), the claim of copyright infringement ends up being unfounded and the claim of copyright infringement against the internet user is dismissed, the law gives that internet user the right to collect from his accuser all the fees he paid to his attorney.

Beware, however.  Just because a defendant is entitled to attorney fees does not mean that they will get them.  There are three scenarios which can stop a defendant from obtaining their fees back from a copyright holder plaintiff:

1) The “cut and run” scenario, where a copyright holder dismisses the defendant before a judge can rule that there was no infringement, and

2) the “limited liability company” plaintiff, where the movie company has created smaller independent “shell” companies, and they use those companies to sue defendants in copyright infringement actions (knowing that if those companies incur liability, that liability will not trickle up to the owner or to the other corporate entity), and

3) the “underfunded shell company” scenario, where the copyright holder might not have the funds to pay the attorney fees to the defendant (for example, when the settlement funds have been siphoned off to another entity, or paid out to the copyright troll attorneys).

SCENARIO 1: THE “CUT AND RUN” SITUATION

In a “cut and run” situation, the accused internet user (a.k.a., the “named” John Doe Defendant) mounts a sufficient defense to demonstrate either that the plaintiff copyright holder does not have sufficient evidence to find him guilty of copyright infringement, or he is able to prove that it was not him “at the keyboard” at the time the download took place (because suing the account holder based on an ISP demonstrating that the account holder was assigned a particular IP address [which was used to participate in the downloading or copying of a copyrighted video] has been held in various jurisdictions to be insufficient to prove that it was the account holder who did the download).

In this first scenario, the account holder “fights back,” and hires and pays an attorney to file an answer to the complaint once named and served.  That attorney shows up to the court hearings, he cooperates with the discovery requests (the attorney sits with his client as he answers questions under oath, objects to questions, speaks to the judge in the middle to clarify issues that arise, etc.), and after what ends up being hundreds of hours, the copyright holder dismisses the defendant proactively before the court can rule on a summary judgement hearing that there was never a case against the client in the first place.   I saw this over and over with the Malibu Media, LLC cases.

SCENARIOS 2 & 3: THE “LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC)” PLAINTIFF, AND THE “UNDERFUNDED” SHELL COMPANY:

The second scenario in which a defendant could be deprived of attorney fees is when the movie studio sets up multiple limited liability “shell” entities (as seen by the “LLC” designation behind the name), and then that “shell” entity is used to file a lawsuit, but it does not have the funds to pay an award of attorney fees should it lose the copyright infringement claim against the “named” defendant.  This could be either because the “shell” entity was not properly funded in the first place, or because the plaintiff lawyers or the owners of the entity are siphoning the settlement funds out of the entity so that it would not be able to pay attorney fees if it was ordered to do so.

This is what bugs me about the limited liability entities which are set up and used to sue defendants — there is no accountability to the accused copyright defendant for the misuse of those entities.  Using Voltage Pictures, Inc. as an example (and by no means am I insinuating that their “shell” entities are misused or underfunded), Voltage Pictures, Inc. is a big name movie company that has sued thousands of defendants over the years.  Since our firm started in 2010, I have been seeing Voltage Pictures, Inc. as a copyright troll who has sued defendants, who has hired not-so-ethical attorneys to enforce their copyrights against bittorrent users, and I do not think one year has past where I have not seen one lawsuit or another where Voltage was behind the scenes as the copyright holder.

Over the years, I have seen Voltage shift from suing thousands of defendants using their their own Voltage name in the lawsuits to setting up smaller “shell” entities which are then used to sue John Doe Defendants.  It is not always obvious that a company suing for copyright infringement is a Voltage copyright troll, but there are tip offs in that each time a new copyright troll “shell” entity files a lawsuit, I see the same copyright troll attorney(s) filing the identical complaint as they filed in other lawsuits, and each time, I see the same discredited German forensics company (Guardaley) listed as the “expert” in the lawsuit.  With so many hundreds of lawsuits filed — and I wasn’t sure I was going to go here, but I am — , I ask myself why the judges don’t see that these are the same set of entities filing the lawsuits, and I shake my head in disgust that the copyright troll scam is still going on.  It boggles my mind that companies as large as Voltage Pictures, Inc. are still taking part in this kind of legal militarism and butchery.

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC was one such shell company that was set up and used to sue defendants, which I later learned was a Voltage Pictures, Inc. shell company.  More recently, Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC appears to be another such shell company.  These companies are all “limited liability companies,” which means that unless the company was structured improperly when it was formed, or unless the principals of the company did something stupid (e.g., intermingling company funds with another shell company’s funds), it is very difficult to “break the veil” to hold the owner of the company personally liable for the company’s mistakes.

This got me thinking.  A defendant does not immediately know whether a copyright troll corporate “shell” entity is properly funded or not, and before hiring an attorney and spending tens of thousands of dollars on a defense, the first thing that defendant should do (or have his lawyer do) is have the “shell” company demonstrate that they have the funds to pay the defendant’s attorney fees should it be demonstrated a) that the account holder “named” and served as the defendant was not the one who did the download in the first place, or b) that the plaintiff’s experts cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove that the copyright infringement actually happened.

Why? Because if the plaintiff does not have the funds to proceed, why spend the time and money defending the lawsuit?  Rather, hit them early on with a bond request to demonstrate that 1) they have the funds to proceed, and to demonstrate 2) that they have the intent to move forward, all the way to trial (if necessary).  This is not a cheap proposition for the copyright holders, as lawsuits such as these could easily run into the hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in fees.

 

Anyway, my point in this article is simply caveat emptor.  Before you go ahead throwing out all of your money paying an attorney for a defense, make sure the plaintiff can pay your fees if you win. Have them post a bond, or do something to demonstrate that they have the funds to proceed if the case goes in that direction.  If they cannot demonstrate this, then maybe there is no need to defend your case in the first place.

In sum, the copyright laws as they are practiced is lopsided.  Copyright owners are given their remedy — the ability to sue for “statutory damages” of $150,000 per instance of infringement.  And, the accused defendant apparently has his remedy — the ability to retrieve his paid attorney fees when he successfully defends his case against the copyright holder.  Why shouldn’t an accused defendant take a few steps to preserve his rights and check to make sure the plaintiff can pay his attorney fees if he wins?

NOW A NOTE FOR THE JUDGES:

Accused internet users are thrown around, threatened, extorted for thousands of dollars in cash, and the law does little to protect their rights. Defendants have the remedy to have their funds returned to them if they fight and win, but what individual internet user defendant has the ability to pay for a lawyer to defend him in court?  What use is it for the law to award attorney fees and costs to a defendant who prevails “on the merits” when that defendant cannot afford to hire a lawyer to get to that point in the legal process?

Rather, the duty to protect the public in circumstances such as these (suing internet users for the download of copyrighted materials) is on the judges themselves.

Judges know (or their clerks can easily discover) when a particular copyright holder is a “copyright troll” and they know if the same parties have filed serial lawsuits in one state, or if they have filed multiple lawsuits in multiple states, or whether that same entity has sued defendants using multiple shell companies.  Judges also know that most accused defendants cannot pay a lawyer even for the most basic defense.

Too often, judges do not act as the gatekeepers they are, and they let the copyright holders do whatever they want to do while the judges pretend to pressure the copyright holders to move forward and name and serve defendants, or not. This is a charade — one that unnerves me, because it is an open secret that the copyright holders have absolutely no interest in taking a case to trial.

Judges who rubber stamp “expedited discovery” motions: WHY allow copyright holders access to the names of the accused John Doe Defendants when those copyright holders have shown through their past filings that they have absolutely NO INTENTION of proceeding to trial?  And why not make the plaintiff copyright holders demonstrate that they intend to proceed to trial (e.g., by having them post a bond as a matter of course) rather than using your federal court as a weapon to extort settlements from defendants who otherwise do not have the funds to pay for an adequate defense?

Since I mentioned Voltage Pictures, Inc. in this article (since they are the ones behind the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuits from a few months ago, and more recently, they are the ones behind the Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC lawsuits), below are a list of cases filed across the U.S. (and this is only a small sample of the lawsuits that were filed).  Judges, how can you NOT know that this “Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC” entity is a shell company practicing copyright trolling across the US?!?  Will you now let this “shell” entity do the same thing that every Voltage Pictures, Inc. “shell” entity did before them?  Ask yourself: Have ANY of these Voltage plaintiffs gone to trial?

Current Cases Affected by this Article (I am listing these so that you see how deep the Voltage Picture lawyer network goes — cases are not only filed in Texas, but like the Malibu Media, LLC cases were, they are filed across the US):

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does (Case No. 4:16-cv-01968, Texas Southern District Court (July 5, 2016))
[Plaintiff Attorney Joshua S. Wyde]

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does (Case No. 4:16-cv-01315, Texas Southern District Court (May 10, 2016))
[Plaintiff Attorney Joshua S. Wyde]

Fathers & Daughters Nevada LLC v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-01073, Arizona District Court (April 15, 2016))

Fathers & Daughters Nevada LLC v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 1:16-cv-00362, Michigan Western District Court (April 8, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10948, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 16, 2016))

Fathers And Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02452, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-32 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02453, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02456, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

Fathers And Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02450, Illinois Northern District Court (Feb. 22, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10371, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 2, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10372, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 2, 2016))

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v Does 1 Through 12 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00187, Hawaii District Court (April 22, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10948, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 16, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-00406, Arizona District Court (Feb. 12, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10939, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 15, 2016))

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. John Does 1-7 (Case No. 1:16-cv-01318, Colorado District Court (June 1, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10939, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 15, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10751, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 3, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-18 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10785, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 4, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10654, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 23, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 2:16-cv-10910, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 14, 2016))

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. John Does 1-15 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00560, Colorado District Court (March 8, 2016))

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-00670, Colorado District Court (March 22, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10910, Michigan Eastern District Court (March 14, 2016))

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-00747, Colorado District Court (March 31, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does (Case No. 1:16-cv-00278, New Mexico District Court (April 11, 2016))

Fathers and Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 4:16-cv-10372, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 2, 2016))

Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-00613, Colorado District Court (March 16, 2016))

Need more examples?


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 »

As a quick recap, the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC piracy lawsuits started in Texas and Ohio, and like a cancer, over the past year they have metastasized into the federal courts of Illinois, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and even Hawaii.  Copyright lawyers employed by Dallas Buyers Club have even moved their copyright enforcement activities offshore into Canada, Australia, Finland, Denmark, and Japan.

Regardless of where they go, their business model is the same — Voltage Pictures, LLC or Dallas Buyers Club, LLC files a peer-to-peer lawsuit alleging copyright infringement against multiple John Doe Defendants (generally referred to by plaintiffs as “pirates”), they convince a federal judge to rubber-stamp a subpoena demanding that the ISP turn over the contact information of the accused account holders unless the accused account holders file what is known as a “motion to quash.”  The target of the subpoena is almost always the account holder, implying that the account holder is the actual downloader or infringer who downloaded the Dallas Buyers Club (2013) movie.  The plaintiff attorney then sends one or multiple settlement demand letters to the accused downloaders in each case threatening that each will be “named and served” as a defendant in the lawsuit unless they pay a settlement of thousands of dollars (settlement requests average $3,500 to $6,500 [and in one case, $14,000, really?] depending on the state in which the lawsuit is filed).

Where the settlement demand letters blur the line of ethics is that many plaintiff attorneys employ scare tactics, making the John Doe Defendant believe that the lawsuit has already been filed against them personally.  Various attorneys have sent accused downloaders “waiver of service” forms and questionnaires along with their settlement demand letters suggesting that the not-yet-named-defendants answer these questions voluntarily, or that they waive service effectively negating the need for the plaintiff attorney to name and serve them as a defendant.

What bothers me is that because Dallas Buyers Club is not an “adult film” copyright infringement lawsuit (but rather, a “real” movie with a valid copyright and without the stigma of being an adult film), the federal judges are giving them leeway to move in and out of the federal courts to “enforce” their copyrights.  In U.S. copyright law, there is a legal presumption of validity, which means that a judge will initially lean towards favoring the copyright owner until that copyright owner has been shown to be abusing the legal process through a pattern of abuse.  Attorneys for copyright holders who represent the plaintiff generally (in our blog and in the eyes of the courts) get increased scrutiny because they have represented other copyright holders in similar lawsuits employing the same strategy of “sue and settle, but try not to name and serve [and if you do, bluff to the judge that you are prepared to go to trial on the merits of the case].”

These lawyers who file Dallas Buyers Club lawsuits (these are those who sue defendants, NOT those who defend defendants) include a growing list of attorneys, such as: Keith Vogt (Texas), Michael Hierl (Illinois), David Stephenson Jr. (Colorado), Eric Osterberg (Connecticut), Richard Fee (Florida), Paul Nicoletti (Michigan), Carl Crowell (Oregon), Leon Bass (Ohio), and Gregory Ferren (Hawaii).

Many of these names are familiar to those who have followed our “copyright troll” / bittorrent lawsuit blogs over the years, and we often see these names representing one copyright holder after another in the same fashion.  Regardless of who the lawyer is, be aware of the motivation of the Dallas Buyers Club lawsuits — to create a ‘windfall’ profit for the company by pursuing those who download the movie without authorization, and to scare and intimidate the accused downloaders into paying large settlement amounts to avoid defending the claims against them in court.

Related: Dallas Buyers Club launches post-Oscar copyright salvo, sues 615 Does (ArsTechnica)


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 »

Malibu Media, LLC has been filing lawsuits across the U.S. with a fervor with one change — most of them appear to be “Single John Doe” lawsuits against defendants whom they believe have deep pockets.

In other words, it appears that Malibu is looking at the geolocation data of the various IP addresses of the so-called downloaders, and they are going after defendants who live in towns which have high value residential homes. I know this because based on the individuals who call our office, a disproportionate number of them have commented that they have multi-million dollar estates, and they were wondering whether it was ethical to target high value individuals in their copyright infringement lawsuits.

To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC appears to have incentivized their local counsel with financial rewards for bringing in higher settlements. In the olden days, I could have called one of their contacts directly, and within a few phone calls, I knew what kind of settlement a defendant could get based on how many “titles” or alleged instances of infringement they were accused of downloading. From there, the client and I would decide whether it made more financial sense to fight the case by waiting to be named and filing an answer in court, or whether it made more financial sense to settle the case. Malibu has complicated this process in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy for the courts. Now, they are having their local counsel negotiate the settlements themselves. This would be okay, but it is my experience that local counsel are asking for higher numbers than I know Malibu would have settled for just a few months ago. “The old settlement numbers you used to have with Malibu are no longer in effect,” one local counsel told me as she pushed for higher numbers. “We are doing this ourselves now.”

To make matters worse, when Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader by his IP address, they track that IP address and monitor that defendant to see what other bittorrent files that defendant is downloading (wiretap?). They continue to monitor that defendant downloading non-Malibu Media titles such as “The Walking Dead,” “Homeland,” “Breaking Bad,” often creating a list multiple pages long of “other” infringing activities that defendant has taken part in. Their logic is that because a particular defendant downloaded those other titles, he is a “serial downloader” and thus it is more likely that he downloaded their titles as well. A number of us attorneys have explained to their local counsels’ deaf ears that just because a particular IP address downloaded a number of bittorrent titles does not mean that the accused defendant is that downloader. However, even the best attorney’s understanding of the law can be clouded when money influences that attorney’s understanding of it.

On a positive note, in just a few weeks, we have seen judges rule that the “other” BitTorrent activity listed in their complaints [for works not owned by Malibu Media] is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), specifically Rule 404 on “Character Evidence.” The reason for this is because “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” In other words, proving that a particular defendant is a “serial downloader” is not admissible to prove that on a particular date and time, that defendant downloaded Malibu Media’s copyrighted titles. Shame on Malibu attorneys for not knowing this.

Further, judges have ruled that introducing evidence of “other” downloads is not relevant and is actually prejudicial to the defendant, and thus that so-called evidence is not admissible to prove that the defendant downloaded Malibu Media, LLC’s titles. As one example, Judge Stephen Crocker has frozen all of Malibu Media, LLC’s cases in the Western District of Wisconsin for this very purpose (link).

In sum, messing up on the Federal Rules of Evidence and doing so on each of their “Single Doe” upper-class cases was a big mistake which they might not be able to undo.  And also on a positive note, because they have filed so many “Single Doe” cases across the country, judges across the U.S. are looking deeper into their tactics and their evidence of infringement.  See @Ddragon229’s article on the FCT website, “Winds of change begin to blow on Malibu Media” for details on the character evidence issue.

Despite this, Malibu Media, LLC continues to file lawsuits across the U.S. in alarming numbers, and in each case, they continue to file this prejudicial information of “other” downloads as their “Exhibit C” in each case. A snippet of cases filed in just the last few weeks is pasted below:

Cases filed by Chris Fiore in the Pennsylvania Eastern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02858)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02859)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02867)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02868)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02854-JP)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02855-MMB)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02856-JD)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02857-SD)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No.2:13-cv-02863-PD)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02864-HB)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02765-MSG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02766-MSG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02767-WY)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02768-PD
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02769-RB)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02770-CMR)

Cases filed by Mary Schulz of Schulz Law PC in the Illinois Northern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03726)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03699)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03700)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03703)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03704)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03705)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03706)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03707)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03710)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03711)

Cased filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC inn the Michigan Eastern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.238.205.92 (Case No. 4:13-cv-12231-MAG-MAR)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.185.159 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12210-RHC-MJH)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.4.96 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12213-SFC-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.84.236 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12214-AJT-MKM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.60.140.87 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12216-PDB-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.62.41.133 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12217-VAR-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.14.181.108 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12218-NGE-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.246.89.172 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12220-AJT-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.158.6 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12197-GAD-PJK)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.89.224 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12198-PDB-MKM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.123.7 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12200-GER-MKM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.46.12 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12201-DPH-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.35.2 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12202-PDB-DRG)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.170.197 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12204-GAD-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.19.221 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12206-DPH-LJM)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.86.4 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12208-MOB-RSW)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.172.154 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12209-SJM-MKM)

Cases filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC in the Indiana Northern District:
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 12 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00166-PPS-RBC)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 5 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00164-PPS-RBC)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 9 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC)

PERSONAL NOTE: Even with all these cases, I have only listed 46 cases having 46 defendants. With the hundreds of filings, it becomes impossible to track and report on each case. The more I look at each of these cases, the more I feel as if they have succeeded in preventing attorneys like myself from tracking and reporting on each of their hundreds of cases. Obviously I am still here, and I am still reporting on these cases. My list of cases to track has just gotten a bit larger.

Read Full Post »

Malibu Media, LLC has been one of the worst offenders in these copyright trolling cases. Instead of waiting for a full download to be complete, it has been reported to me that IMMEDIATELY UPON CLICKING ON THE BITTORRENT LINK (or in other words, as soon as an internet user “joins” the bittorrent swarm, EVEN IF NOT A BYTE OF DATA HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED), ***WHAM!*** Downloaders are tagged and are sued for copyright infringement.

To make matters worse, Malbu Media, LLC is known to sue based on what is called a “Siterip” (essentially meaning that someone ripped a large set of videos from their http://www.x-art.com paid website, and posted a huge number of them into one bittorrent file). We won’t ask 1) if they’ve known about the Siterips, why they have not filed DMCA takedown notices for those Siterips, and 2) whether they were involved in the “leaking” of the various siterips (in my opinion, it is too convenient to have “Siterip #1… Siterip #2… Sitrip #12…”). In sum, clicking on the wrong torrent file link with Malibu Media, LLC as your plaintiff production company can get you sued for 25+ titles, or “hits” as they like to call them.

Now what makes these cases particularly offensive is that unlike the traditional copyright trolls who will only ask for $3,400 and settle for whatever they can get, Malibu Media, LLC will likely ask for at least a $10,000 settlement from each defendant. You see this by looking at the case names below that there appears to be only ONE defendant in each case. The reason for this is that their attorneys will tell the defendant that he’s the only one in the case, and that they’ll amend the complaint, “name” him as a defendant, and serve him with process if he doesn’t settle.

While I am against the concept of suing downloaders for the piracy of a film, I want to note that filing ONE LAWSUIT FOR ONE DEFENDANT is the proper way to do these lawsuits (and the courts will be much more forgiving based on the many filing fees paid to the court, especially since the court will not need to deal with rote procedural issues that have plagued these cases since their inception [e.g., improper jurisdiction, improper joinder]). In sum, in a case such as this one, a defendant must answer for himself the simple questions of 1) can I fight this (the answer is likely yes considering the “snapshot” methods in which they track the IP addresses relating to the downloads, along with the likely-present issues of late copyright filing dates), and 2) how would I like to proceed based on what I know about their evidence against me (based on my own network router setup and/or downloading habits)? X-art films have a very specific style and theme to them, and they attract a very specific genre of married men, one step up from those who enjoy classy soft porn. On top of this, the Keith Lipscomb IP enforcement company representing Malibu Media, LLC as their client does research on most defendants (note their mention below as “Dr. John Doe” in one of their cases to signal to the defendant that they know he has financial resources to pay a large settlement). For these reasons, it is often a simple question of EVIDENCE in determining whether to move forward with what is usually a very good defense, or whether to use that evidence we gather in your favor while attempting to negotiate a deeply discounted settlement on your behalf.

Up front, the local counsel you will read about below — Mary Schultz, Paul Nicoletti, Jon Hoppe, Leemore Kushner, Jason Kotzker, and Patrick Cerillo — are merely paid to file and fight these cases according to the instruction of Keith Lipscomb. They are merely cogs in Lipscomb’s IP enforcement machine, and in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to be talking to them since they likely do not have authority to do anything but gather evidence, argue the cases and move them forward.

MARCH 2013 – 19 NEW CASES

Illinois Central District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01096)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01099)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01100)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01101)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01102)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02058)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02059)

Wisconsin Eastern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00226)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00236)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00238)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00239)

Indiana Northern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media LLC v. Joe Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00085)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00162)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00163)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00164)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00165)

District Of Columbia District Court
Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00268)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00269)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00270)

FEBRUARY 2013 – 103 NEW CASES

New Jersey District Court
Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01179)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.32.191.163 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01176)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.142.2.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01178)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01180)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00214)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-01159)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.35.11.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01104)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.70.130.138 ( 2:13-cv-01106)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01105)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00971)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.54.255.28 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00972)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00973)

Wisconsin Eastern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00217)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00213)

California Southern District Court
Leemore L Kushner of Kushner Law Group

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00433)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00434)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00435)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00436)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00437)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00438)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00440)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00442)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00443)

Florida Middle District Court
M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00467)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00468)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00469)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00470)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00471)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00472)

Florida Southern District Court
M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:13-cv-80178)

Colorado District Court
Jason Aaron Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 63.225.246.31 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00423)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.212.197.251 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00425)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)

Maryland District Court
Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00352)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00353)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00354)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00356)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00357)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00358)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00359)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00363)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00366)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00350)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00351)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00355)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00360)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00361)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00362)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00364)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00365)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00506)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00507)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00508)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00509)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00510)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00511)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00517)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00518)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00512)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00513)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00514)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00515)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00516)

Illinois Central District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01072)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01073)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02043)

Illinois Northern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00863)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00878)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00880)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00883)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00884)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00885)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00888)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Dr John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00891)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00913)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00915)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00934)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00935)

Michigan Western District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00158)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00162)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00163)

Indiana Southern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00201)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00203)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00204)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00206)

Indiana Northern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00055)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00071)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00072)

Colorado District Court
Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.234.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00307)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.250.8 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00308)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.161.234 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00309)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.34.85 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00310)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00311)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.40.151 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00316)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.71.30.155 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00317)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.245.154.142(Case No. 1:13-cv-00318)

P.S. – For those of us who follow these cases as enthusiasts, did you notice that there was no mention of Chris Fiore in this long list of cases? Perhaps he still has his hands full with the bellwether case.

Read Full Post »

I am looking at these new cases, and I want each new John Doe defendant to understand that these new cases that I am about to discuss are child’s play. Most of the new attorneys in these cases are newer copycat trolls who are hopping on the success of the bigger copyright trolls we read about daily in the blogs.

While the purpose of this blog is to discuss copyright cases and attorneys who sue John Doe Defendants en masse, I want to point out that this is no reflection on whether or not the attorneys are nice people.  At least one attorney here (Richard Fee) is described to me as being a nice guy, and in the comments section you’ll read about a particular attorney and his sidekick complaining about why I am making a new copyright troll feel ashamed about being a copyright troll.  My response:  Just because an attorney is a copyright troll doesn’t mean he or she is not a nice guy.  Kevin Harrison is a nice guy.  Doug McIntyre is a nice guy, and to many people’s surprise, Mike Meier is a nice guy too.

Depending on who you ask, I’m a nice guy too.  That being said, as soon as these attorneys decide to start filing copyright infringement lawsuits and they start suing defendants rather than focusing on taking down the infringing content which in my opinion is the remedy given to copyright holders by Congress via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), I leave my “nice guy” hat at the door and discuss the cases and their attorneys for what they are — copyright trolls.

Here are a few new cases to give you a taste (pardon the cynicism):

In the Florida Middle District Court:
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-73 (Case No. 8:12-cv-02554)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-41 (Case No. 8:12-cv-02555)
Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-52 (Case No. 8:12-cv-02556)

Richard Fee of Fee & Jeffries PA (attorney for Bait Productions Pty. Ltd.) — you filed each of these on the same day.  Don’t you think the courts will see that you are copyright trolling and that they will consolidate and dismiss your cases?

Now let’s go to the Georgia Southern District Court: [NEW COURT]
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-80 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00281)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. John Does 1-26 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00282)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. John Does 1-37 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00283)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-45 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00284)

Nathan Belzer (attorney for R & D Film 1, LLC)… Really? Are you really defending your R & D Film 1, LLC client’s interest in stopping piracy? Or in making a quick buck by suing downloaders? Do you even know about R&D Film 1’s other cases? Or did you just take the client thinking that you’ll make a few bucks?

Night of the Templar, LLC v. John Does 1-34 (Case No. 4:12-cv-00285)

Same attorney as above. Nathan Belzer.  I like the name of the plaintiff.

What about the Ohio Northern District Court: [NEW COURT]
Safety Point Productions, LLC et al v. Does 97-177 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02831)

Umm.. what happened to 1-96? Also, the “et al.” in this case includes Voltage Pictures, LLC. Douglas Riddell Jr. (new guy), did you think you would fool us? We have seen Voltage Pictures, LLC cases many times before in D.C.  Do you think you’ll be more successful than Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC was with this SAME PLAINTIFF?

R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 142-162 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02832)

Again, the funny Doe numbering by Riddell. This Douglas Riddell guy is funny. I’m going to enjoy his cases.

Safety Point Productions, LLC et al v. Does 1-96 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02820)

Finally, Douglas Riddell Jr. learns how to count from “1.” Again, Voltage Pictures, LLC is a plaintiff in this case.

And,
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-141 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02822)

Again, Doug Riddell.

Now, let’s go to Illinois Northern District Court:
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-37 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09036)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-92 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09039)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-103 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09041)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-66 (Case No. 1:12-cv-09043)

Todd Parkhurst (of Michael A. Hierl of Huges Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.) must be dym-witted to think that they would succeed with a copyright troll case in the Northern District of Illinois. John Steele killed copyright trolling for this federal district long ago — Todd, did you ask yourself when R&D Film 1, LLC contacted you WHY THEY CONTACTED YOU AND NOT JOHN STEELE (OF PRENDA LAW INC.)? For a copyright troll, Steele would have been a better choice.

Hmmm… Also in Ohio Northern District Court:
Safety Point Productions, LLC et al v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02812)

Did you notice how R&D Film 1, LLC and Safety Point Productions, LLC cases are each filed by the SAME SET OF ATTORNEYS IN EACH DISTRICT? I smell a new IP monetization company behind the scenes.

That’s it for tonight. Back to work on some real cases. If I’ve offended anyone, I’m not sorry — new attorneys shouldn’t be taking on copyright trolling cases.  If you are really interested in stopping piracy of your copyrighted content, then there are better ways to police your client’s copyrights than to let the infringement continue and then sue the downloaders.  Try a DMCA take down letter one day.  You might find that it works.

Read Full Post »

Lightspeed Media Corp. has been one of the more aggressive copyright trolls over the past two years. They are intimately associated with John Steele and Prenda Law Inc., and have changed their lawsuits as the case law has changed over the years.

They started out as one of Prenda Law Inc.’s first bittorrent lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where they sued 100 John Doe Defendants in the Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 1:10-cv-05604), of which 99 WERE DISMISSED ON 12/21/2010, with the remaining one shortly afterwards.

Then Lightspeed Media Corp. amended their complaint to sue 1,000 defendants instead of 100 defendants, and as we wrote about in our “Judge Steeles The Life From A Second Torrent Case” article, the judge responded by SEVERING AND DISMISSING ALL DEFENDANTS but one.

Just when we thought this case was dead, John Steele filed an amended complaint on 4/11/2011 and brought the case back to life by suing one John Doe. The funny part, however, was that they continued to send “scare” letters to ALL THE SEVERED AND DISMISSED DEFENDANTS (even though they were no longer defendants in the case). The court picked up on this and berated Steele on 4/19/2011. A few months later, the zombie Lightspeed Media Corp. federal case was DEAD.

Then, Lightspeed and Steele came up with a novel idea — sue defendants across the U.S. for violation of federal hacker statutes, alleging that accused internet users accessed Lightspeed’s websites using stolen passwords (which “through no fault of their own” were “leaked” onto the internet). The twist was that their new lawsuit was filed in the corrupt ILLINOIS STATE COURT (even though the subject matter of the lawsuits belong in the federal courts). In the Lightspeed “Hacker” lawsuit, even if the accused John Doe Defendants used the passwords to access Lightspeed’s websites, THEY WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL STATUTES WHICH WERE ASSERTED AGAINST THEM IN THE COMPLAINT. This is the joke about the case — it simply has no merit, but the case persists. It befuttles me that the state court is still allowing subpoenas to be sent out (even though the Illinois SUPREME COURT has come in and voiced its opinion that this case is a fraud and that it should be shut down). Yet, it persists.

These same Hacker lawsuits were also filed in the Miami Dade, FL state courts (equal in integrity to the Chicago state courts) in the Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Does (Case No. 12-05673 CA 05), and in the Maricopa County, AZ state court (Case No. CV2012-053230). There is a lot that is written about these cases, but because they are taking place in state courts (in which we do not have eyes), we have not been tracking these cases. Essentially, it is important to note that the lawsuits are filed against one Doe Defendant, but implicate HUNDREDS of Doe Defendants as co-conspirators.

Word is that a few weeks ago, Lightspeed Media Corp. has been sold to another company (perhaps to Prenda Law Inc.?), yet the lawsuits continue.

So as you see, Lightspeed Media Corp. is essentially a zombie company that keeps coming back asking internet users for more and more money. If you take a look on http://www.rfcexpress.com, you’ll see that there are a few cases on the books, but they are ALL DISMISSED. Yet, if you asked the internet world how many thousands of internet users are still getting calls or letters for Lightspeed, you’ll get a surprising answer.

FEDERAL CASES FILED ON BEHALF OF LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-9 (CAND; 4:11-cv-02261) [DEAD]
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Doe (ILND; 1:11-cv-00385) [DEAD]
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Doe (ILND; 1:11-cv-00209) [DEAD]
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-100 (then 1-1,000) (ILND; 1:10-cv-05604) [DEAD]

KNOWN STATE CASES FILED ON BEHALF OF LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Doe (Miami Dade, FL Case No. 12-05673 CA 05)
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Doe (St. Clair, IL Case No. 11-L-683)
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. World Timbers, Inc. & John Doe (Maricopa, AZ Case No. CV2012-053230)

Read Full Post »

The Divide - New Copyright TrollsI wanted to bring your attention to a new “copyright troll” in the backyard of Steele Hansmeier, PLLC (now Prenda Law Inc.). The copyright troll is “R & D Film 1, LLC” and their plaintiff attorney is Michael Heirl and Todd Parkhurst of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. Their website is http://www.hsplegal.com, and surprise, surprise — they are out of Chicago, Illinois.

It appears as if they are suing over the movie title “The Divide,” directed by Xavier Gens, which was seeded over the bittorrent network as “The Divide 2011 LIMITED 720p BRip XVID AC3 BHRG” on USAbit.com [and is coincidentally still being seeded now as we speak here, so apparently neither Michael Heirl nor Todd Parkhurst have issued a DMCA takedown letters to the bittorrent websites.] The download appears to be a rip of a Blu-Ray, the size of the file is 3.8 GB, and it appears to have been downloaded 2162 times so far (so expect to have 2,000+ defendants soon for this file alone).

On another complaint, I see the torrent file is “The Divide 2011 720p BRRip x264 -MgB,” and I could only guess that in their other lawsuits, they are suing for all the other bittorrent filenames downloaded.

It appears that plaintiff attorney Michael Heirl has targeted the following ISPs: Comcast Cable, Frontier Communications, Mediacom Communications Corp., RCN Corp., SBC Internet Services, Norlight Telecommunications, Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation, and WideOpenWest. Plus, it appears as if they have not only focused on those defendants in Illinois, but they have narrowed the IP addresses down to which town allegedly housed this accused IP address.  Thus, forget about motions to quash based on a lack of personal jurisdiction — they’ve nailed it.

So far, I only see 364 John Doe Defendants implicated in these lawsuits, but with 2,000+ downloads (and counting) for one file on one bittorrent website, they could easily amend their complaints to add thousands of new defendants as Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC and other plaintiff attorneys have habitually done in the past. Here are the lawsuit titles to date:

CASES FILED BY TODD S. PARKHURST & MICHAEL A. HIERL OF HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM LTD. IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS:
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-52 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05810)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05817)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-57 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05821)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-62 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05822)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-36 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05823)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-88 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05825)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05827)
R & D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05828)

Now I have started a discussion page on the R&D FILM 1, LLC lawsuits here, and as I learn more, I will obviously post about it.

On a personal level, it is always an interesting experience defending defendants who are accused of downloading actual motion pictures (“movies”), because the attorneys for these cases are usually more self-assured than those from the porn industry. Obviously the difference between a porn copyright troll and a motion picture copyright troll is that the porn troll is usually suing because they want to 1) stop the piracy of their film and 2) it is a better business model (frowned upon by the porn industry or not) to get thousands of dollars from one internet user rather than to get hundreds of members to sign up for monthly or annual memberships at their sites.

However, with “movie” copyright trolls, they often appear to be self-righteous and have no compunctions throwing threats around because nothing of theirs stinks except for the way they have chosen to make money for their production company client (which they often share a piece of, so there are ethical implications as well [e.g., having a “stake” in the outcome of the litigation]). Looking at these attorneys, they look like older gentlemen who might not be aware of the poo they just stepped in by copying the methods of the copyright trolls.  I even wonder whether they are aware of the now hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed in the courts, and specifically the many adverse rulings in the Northern District of Illinois where any copyright troll should be thinking twice before filing there.  In short, what will be interesting is to see whether these copyright trolls are interested in stopping the piracy of their films, or whether they want to punish those who have not purchased a ticket at the box office.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »