It Is Up! – 8th Circuit Court of Appeal Oral Argument in BT Copyright Troll Case (Killer Joe NV v. Leaverton, 14-3274)


OK.  The 8th Circuit Court of Appeal oral argument is up.  14-3274, Killer Joe NV v. Leigh Leaverton.   Thank you attorney Ray Johnson, Johnson Law Firm, West De Moines, IA, for fighting the good fight. Hopefully the 8th Circuit will see the truth of what these cases are about – Greed and Coercion. I don’t know when the 8th Circuit will announce its ruling, but I wouldn’t expect it anytime soon.

SAVE THE DATE — On 21 Sep 15, The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on case 14-3274, Killer Joe Nevada (KJN) v. Leigh Leaverton. This is an appeal on a BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll case, KJN v. Does, 5:13-cv-04036 (ND of Iowa).

Here are Previous articles on this case.   1st ARTICLE    2nd ARTICLE   The first article gives the full case background; the second article details KJN’s claims by the FICTITIOUS Darren M. Griffen (Crystal Bay Corporation(CBC)) and the TRUE masterminds behind these cases, the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC).

Synopsis: Copyright Troll Jay Hamilton/Plaintiff initially filed a template based mass-Doe cases against 20 IA John Does (ISP subscribers) who allegedly downloaded/shared the movie “Killer Joe.” He eventually named five as non-settling Defendants. Two of the Defendants (Leaverton and Bolan) denied downloading/sharing the movie or knowing who did it. Eventually Leaverton and Bolan were able to hire Attorney Ray Johnson, Johnson Law Firm, West De Moines, IA, for a reduced retainer of only $300 (for both!). Both Defendants filed answers denying the claims. In May 2014, Attorney Johnson sent Troll/Plaintiff interrogatories, as well as requests for admissions and productions. In keeping with the standard “Copyright Troll Play Book,” Troll/Plaintiff did not respond and soon after motioned the court to dismiss Defendants. The court granted the motion, but then denied Leaverton’s declaratory judgment counterclaim and request for attorney fees – even as the “Prevailing” party. The appeal is based on the fact that Troll/Plaintiff named them as Defendants with NO information OTHER than they were the ISP subscribers (they paid the ISP bill). Naming a person on that basis is reckless and simply designed to scare the ISP subscriber into paying some sort of settlement. Also at issue was that the District court did not apply the standard ruling on a fee award and implement requirements to determine fees. As the “Prevailing Party,” the court should have allowed Leaverton to submit a record of her fees to the court. The following are also worthy to note:

  1. KJN used the fictitious person/company/declarations of “Darren M. Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC)” in the District and Appellate cases. Can you say False Statements & Mail/Wire Fraud at a minimum??? (18 USC, Chapter 47)
  2. When questioned about Darren Griffin, CBC, Troll Hamilton told attorney Johnson that his law firm had ENDED “its engagement with APMC.” The APMC has NEVER been listed on any copyright infringement case as an interested party. More deception

On 21 Aug 15, the Appeals court set 21 Sep 15, as the date of oral arguments for this case. KJN will likely be represented by Troll Keith Vogt, as he took over when Troll Hamilton removed himself. If you are in the St. Louis area on 21 September, consider bringing some popcorn to enjoy the show. It looks like both sides will have 15 minutes to get their point across to the three-judge panel. I don’t think the oral arguments will be streamed, but the audio recording should be eventually posted. (Search for case 14-3274) I will keep an eye out for it.

An appeals court ruling in favor or the Defendants could have an impact on BT Copyright Trolling in the US, at least in the areas of recklessly naming an ISP subscriber as a Defendant AND allowing the prevailing party to at least submit a record of fees to the court. Naming/serving an ISP subscriber with a complaint/summons is a powerful tool of the court that the Trolls have abused with great success. This abuse was highlighted by Attorneys Booth/Sweet in their recent filing in a Malibu Media case in Ohio (OHSD 14-cv-00493), where they asked Malibu Media to be declared a vexatious litigant .   FCT ARTICLE

Here is my version of the Copyright Troll Play book – Greed over Guilt

DieTrollDie :)

Where do you think you’re going? Nobody’s leaving. Nobody’s walking out on this fun, old-fashioned family Christmas. No, no. We’re all in this together. This is a full-blown, four-alarm holiday emergency here. We’re gonna press on, and we’re gonna have the hap, hap, happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny fucking Kaye. And when Santa squeezes his fat white ass down that chimney tonight, he’s gonna find the jolliest bunch of assholes this side of the nuthouse.” {Clark Griswold – National Lampoons Christmas Vacation}



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Pirate Hunter Is Back! (well sort of…), BT Copyright Troll Carl Crowell (OR)

LSS1In case you missed it, the Willamette Week, ran an article titled,”The Pirate Hunter,” covering the work of Oregon BitTorrent Copyright Troll attorney, Carl Crowell, Crowell Law, Salem, OR. I bet Troll Crowell cringed a little bit when he the saw the story title. It eerily uses the moniker made infamous by failed BT Copyright Troll (and idiot son-in-law) John L. Steele (AKA: Prenda Law).  John Steele is currently facing multiple court sanctions and a disciplinary investigation for his BT Copyright Troll activities (Techdirt Article).

Now, I don’t think Troll Crowell is in the same league (“Welcome to the big leagues”) as the Prenda crew, but he is still part of a copyright monetization apparatus that rationalizes its actions behind the claim of stopping BT piracy.

Troll Crowell is most notable for filing single Doe cases, similar to Copyright Troll Malibu Media LLC/X-Art. I assume Troll Crowell took a hint from Malibu Media and decided to try his hand at this type of case filing. Slide note: Take a look at the following Defendant reply in a Malibu Media LLC case; specifically “Section 2. Plaintiff and its Counsel Place Greed
over Guilt” (Pages 10-11) for the Malibu Media Play book.   Def_Reply_Doc_40_00493(OH)

The single Doe cases require more up front work, but in turn, they likely lead to higher settlement rates overall. Couple this with a reduced chance of a court denying the Discovery request of the ISP subscriber information and he is in the money. Even for the small percentages of people who don’t settle, the Troll extracts a heavy toll from the Defendants – Time, Money, and Stress. It sends a message that it is cheaper to pay a settlement than
fight, even if innocent.  See The BT Copyright Troll Play Book.   Greed over Guilt

First I want to make it clear to everyone who may be affected by Trolls such as Crowell.  Each case/situation is different and needs to be assessed individually. I have no information to suggest that Troll Crowell is as hard-core as Malibu Media in terms of going after people.  Saying that, his tactics are stronger in comparison to the other mass-Doe cases (i.e. Dallas
Buyers Club (DBC) v. Does 1-25, etc.) that Voltage Pictures files in various  jurisdictions. One thing Troll Crowell likes to do is get the court to authorize depositions of the ISP subscribers.
First thing I recommend is to make sure once you get a notification (DMCA take down notice or subpoena letter), you ensure any BT activity on your network stops and doesn’t start back up again. It may not stop a law suit, but it is better than letting the activity continue. NOTE: According to the article, if the activity stops Troll Crowell will not file a complaint –
Total BS in my opinion.

The studios buy that data in bulk from a service that scrapes the lists from popular torrents and narrows it down by location. Crowell then begins the slow process of identifying the most prolific torrenters and compiling a list of all their downloads. When the record is complete, Crowell will subpoena the pirate’s Internet service provider to get the address holder’s name. The provider usually also sends the person a warning letter. If the person doesn’t stop, then Crowell will move in with a copyright complaint.

BS_NO BULLSHIT ALERT!!!  If Troll/Plaintiff has issued a subpoena, then a case has already been filed and they are already out a $400 filing fee.  They are not going to simply walk away from a case at that point. One thing the author didn’t ask was why Crowells’ clients don’t send out DMCA notices to the ISP subscribers. It is such a simple step that could actually get people to stop. I believe it is because the Trolls don’t want these long-term BT users to stop until a case is filed and settlements are about to be locked-in.

One thing that was made abundantly clear is that Troll Crowell targets those Oregon IP addresses that have a long history of BT usage.  This is NOT because he is targeting the “worst” offenders, it just gives him more leverage.  By going after an IP address with a long history of BT usage, he gets the following advantage – Harder to claim it was an  “outsider” using your Open WiFi connection AND the “other” non-Plaintiff files that were being shared (over BT) give some insight into possibly identifying the true offender.  With such information, it is easier to get a person to agree to pay a settlement.  Here is an example of the information the Trolls collect from BT clients.  Example of Non-Plaintiff Files

Even with the focused targeting of a Defendant, the Trolls sometimes find an ISP subscriber doesn’t have any money to pay a settlement.  In a previous post, I spoke about Troll Crowell case (Dallas Buyers Club (DBC)) in which the ISP subscriber agreed to a “stipulated dismissal” of case (she didn’t have to pay anything). This was due to financial hardship and extenuating circumstances. The dismissal allowed Troll/Plaintiff to seem like a “decent” person. Not likely in my opinion. More like they could get anything out of this Defendant and it was better to cut their losses.

One thing I did notice in the news article and the stipulated dismissal, the settlement amount sought was the same – $7,500. In the stipulated dismissal, Troll Crowell claimed the $7,500 was for attorney fees/costs and did NOT include “damages.”  While in the news article the average settlement Troll Crowell obtained was approximately $7,500.  So if that is true, then for the 80 claimed cases he settled (per the article), they were able to generate something in the area of $600,000. Even with having to split it between Troll attorney, Plaintiff, and the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), the “take” is still good.

The settlement amounts Troll Crowell and other seek are excessive to say the least; especially for some of the crap that comes out of Voltage Pictures. Please don’t think I believe copyright infringement is OK. I just don’t agree with the actions of the Trolls in trying to extort settlements from people. There is NO true effort to stop BT copyright infringement from ANY of the Troll/Plaintiffs or their attorneys. They simply go after people who have enough money to pay a settlement and not enough to fight. (my opinions)

So if you’re an Oregonian faced with a law suit from Troll Crowell, here are my suggestions.

  1. Make sure any/all BT activity on your networks stops and doesn’t start back up.
  2. Resecure your WiFi/Router with a new password.
  3. Contact an attorney with experience dealing with Troll Crowell for a consult. I would not contact Troll Crowell on your own.
  4. Hire an attorney if you are served with a complaint/summons or a deposition subpoena.

31 Jul 14 Troll Crowell Article

DieTrollDie :)   “Guns tell the truth. Guns never say, “I’m only kidding.” War is ugly because the truth can be ugly and war is very sincere.”  {The Short-Timers, Gustav Hasford}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

WA Court Set Limits As To What BitTorrent Copyright Troll (Dallas Buyers Club) Can Do (CASE 2:14-cv-01819)

Recently courts in the US and Australia have begun to set limits on what BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolls are allowed to do – in terms of “actually” running a case and not simply “Speculative Invoicing” (AKA: Threatening to sue unless a settlement is paid – “Copyright Trolling”). Recently Techdirt posted an article in which the “King of the Trolls,” Malibu Media LLC/X-Art/Troll Keith Lipscomb was reined in by a MD court.  Techdirt Article   Also see a recent DTD Posting on the AU Dallas Buyers Club court order.

DBC and Troll David Lowe

DBC_Troll_LoweRecently, the Western District of Washington issued an order on a group of Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) copyright infringement cases. The attached order is for 2:14-cv-01819, DBC v. Does 1-10, opened on 26 Nov 14.   Archive Docket   This order also applies to five other DBC cases in the district (2:14-cv-01336, 2:14-cv-01684, 2:14-cv-01926, 2:15-cv-00133, and 2:15-cv-00134). The Troll attorney for these cases is David Lowe, LOWE GRAHAM JONES. Troll Lowe is most noted for his work on the Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson, case # 2:13-cv-00395, where the Troll (Elf-Man LLC) had to pay Mr. Lamberson $100K –  FCT Article

On 4 May 15, Judge Richard Jones, Western District of Washington, issued case management orders for 13 DBC mass-Doe cases. The orders required Troll/Plaintiff to show what progress it was making to bring these cases to a conclusion.  Doc_26_Order_01819(WA)

The 4 May 15, order stopped Troll/Plaintiff from issuing subpoenas for depositions and document production from the Does. Note: In the previous subpoenas, Troll Lowe only gave the ISP subscriber a seven-day notice to appear for a deposition (which could take up to seven hours – FRCP default). The court also said Troll/Plaintiffs document production requests were burdensome to the ISP subscriber.

On 1 Jul 15, the court decided that due to the lackluster performance by the Troll, some limits needed to be placed on them.   Doc_36_Order_01819(WA)

In this case and 5 others like it, Plaintiff faced an early June deadline to either file an amended complaint that named no John Doe defendants, or file a motion to amend in which Plaintiff explained why it wished to continue to name one or more John Doe defendants. Plaintiff elected to file 6 “motions to amend.” The court uses quotation marks because, as it will soon discuss, Plaintiff prefers to delay filing an amended complaint for months at least.


Plaintiff’s justification for being unable to name the vast majority of the people it is still suing (in cases that have been pending for at least 5 months, and as many as 10 months) is that although it has learned (via subpoenas to an internet service provider) the names of the subscriber whose internet account was allegedly used to download copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion picture, Dallas Buyers Club, it has been unable to confirm that the subscriber is the person who allegedly infringed its copyright. In some instances (the court has no idea how many), that is because the subscribers have refused to confer voluntarily with Plaintiff. In other instances (the court has no idea how many), that is because the subscriber has denied responsibility for the copyright infringement and Plaintiff has not determined who is responsible.

Troll/Plaintiff then decided it had better make the appearance of trying to working with the court. Troll/Plaintiff informed the court they would change how they handle the deposition subpoenas. They said they would give the ISP subscribers at least a 30 day notice for the deposition, limit the deposition time to two hours, and work with the Does to reschedule depositions as needed. The court noted that even with these proposed changes, it still left “dozens” of Does disadvantaged by Troll/Plaintiff’s slow-moving investigation. The court in turn placed the following restrictions on Troll/Plaintiff.

  1. Troll/Plaintiff does not need to file an amended complaint at this time.
  2. For ANY future document filed by Troll/Plaintiff in these cases; OR ANY future order the court issues (including this order), Plaintiff has to “serve” a copy to anyone it is prepared to name as a Defendant, AND it shall also serve a copy on any person who is the target of a pending subpoena or a subpoena it plans to issue. After serving these copies, Troll/Plaintiff WILL file a certificate of service reflecting its compliance with this order/requirement.
  3. Troll/Plaintiff WILL cease to file ex parte motions, except in cases where Troll/Plaintiff has yet to identify (by name) a potential defendant or subpoena target. Troll/Plaintiff shall note its motions for relief on the third Friday following their filing, and any person whose interests are impacted by the motion may oppose it no later than the Monday preceding that third Friday.
  4. Troll/Plaintiff may issue a subpoena (deposition), in the manner it proposed in its motion, on the two ISP subscribers it has the names of. Those subpoenas shall demand ONLY deposition testimony (two hours or less), and it will be at least 30 days from the date of service.
  5. Within 90 days of service of each deposition subpoena, Troll/Plaintiff MUST either dismiss its claim against the two Does, file a statement that it is prepared to name him or her, file an amended complaint naming him or her, or file a statement explaining why it has not taken one of the other options.
  6. When Troll/Plaintiff is prepared to name a defendant, it shall notify that person with a letter stating that Troll/Plaintiff is prepared to name him or her as a defendant, but they prefers to delay the naming until it can name all other remaining defendants in the case (i.e. Does 1, 3-6 ALL have to be named at once). That letter shall inform the person that they CAN demand Troll/Plaintiff name him or her. If the person exercises that option, and Plaintiff is not prepared to file an amended complaint naming ALL the remaining defendants, Plaintiff shall file a new civil action naming ONLY that person, and shall thereafter dismiss that person from the original lawsuit.
  7. Troll/Plaintiff need not provide a copy of this order or take any further action with respect to any individual or entity with which it has reached a settlement or other permanent resolution of its claims.

So what does this mean for all the remaining DBC Does in these six WA cases? I have it on good accord that Troll Lowe/DBC has started to issue deposition subpoenas for some of the ISP subscribers. The time frame for the depositions is limited to two hours, but that is more than enough time to assess who the likely infringer is OR find out the ISP subscriber/family is NOT responsible.


If you are one of the Does who receive a deposition subpoena, I suggest consulting with an attorney who has experience with DBC/Troll Lowe. I would not go into a deposition blind, even if you/your family are not the infringer. DBC/Troll Lowe is NOT out for justice. The Trolls are doing this to generate settlement dollars. They are not your friends and it doesn’t matter how nice he appears to be. Keep this words of advice in mind – “The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife.” {My Opinions}

Essentially these depositions are an interrogation done with a hand shake and a smile. Troll Lowe’s goal is to get you on record either admitting or denying the infringement. In addition he will try to obtain as much personal detail about you, your network (Password/No password), and others who use it. The questions will likely include downloading habits of the network users, BT usage, jobs, hobbies, interests, network set-up, etc. They will compare all the information they get to the list of “Other” BT files (Non-Dallas Buyers Club movies) that were being shared over your IP address, as well as any social media profiles related to the Doe. They of course will only focus on the files that seem to indicate guilt.

Once the depositions are complete, Troll/Plaintiff will likely try to get the ISP subscriber to settle. I would bet he will tell you that based on their “evidence” and what you told them, you (or family member) are the infringer. He will likely say that a court/jury will see that they have enough evidence to get a decision in their favor. Note: In a civil case it only takes a “Preponderance of Evidence” to prevail. 

Failing that, they will have to determine if they feel strong enough to move forward or simply dismiss the case. If they do not dismiss the case, they will have to send a letter to the Doe, explaining they plan on naming them (see #6 above). It is at this point that the Doe has the option of DEMANDING DBC/Troll Lowe name them and amend the complaint. DBC/Troll Lowe will then be forced to either name ALL the remaining Does in that case OR dismiss the one Doe and immediately refile a separate single defendant case naming the Doe ($400 filing fee – new case). The Doe can of course decide not to be named and it will be postponed.

If a Doe is dismissed from the original case and then made part of a new case, Troll/Plaintiff will have their hands full in my opinion. This court is surely going to make sure Troll/Plaintiff moves forward with Discovery and any half-ass delay excuses will get them in trouble. The main part of this Discovery will be the forensic examination of the computer hard drives in the residence. This is NOT cheap and Troll/Plaintiff will want to avoid this at all costs. Malibu Media LLC/Troll Lipscomb may be willing to pay $300+ an hour for a computer forensic analysis, but DBC has not been so keen on this expensive measure. A simple analysis and report on one computer can easily take up to 12-24 hours ($3,600 -$7,200).

Also keep in mind that your financial situation is a key factor in determining how far Troll/Plaintiff will go. They have made it very clear that they target people who are likely to be able to afford a settlement.

Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)

Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)

Finally, if you do receive a deposition subpoena from DBC/Troll Lowe OR have been through a deposition by him, please contact me.

DieTrollDie :)

“Fuck what you know. You need to forget about what you know, that’s your problem. Forget about what you think you know about life, about friendship, and especially about you and me.” {Tyler Durden, Fight Club}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

DieTrollDie Update 17 Aug 15 (TaylorMadeClips – Dallas Buyers Club – Rightscorp)

Samurais_drawWSorry but I still haven’t been able to return to writing and posting as usual. Life is still chaotic for me and dealing with loss is a trying matter at best. I know that things will get better – that fact I’m sure of. Please don’t let life get you down and show love whenever you can.

In the meantime, here are some BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll stories of interest:

  • TaylorMadeClips/Mark Borghese
  • Recent Dallas Buyers Club Set-Back in AU
  • RightsCorp/Hire a Copyright Troll Law Firm while The Company Continues to
    Lose Money

TaylorMadeClips/Mark Boghese (TMC/MB)

TaylorMadeClips (TMC) and Copyright Troll attorney Mark Borghese (MB) are back at work again.  Please see the TorrentFreak article on their recent activity.  TMC/MB sent settlement demand letters to multiple Pornhub members, seeking $5k+ for uploading various TMC videos.  It is unknown how TMC/MB obtained the details on the Pornhub members (some of which is incorrect – except for the email address), but TMC has in the past purchased information on who is uploading their content – Bodyinflation forum post. This purchased information was used to send out settlement demand letters (February 2015) to people with accounts.

As TMC/MB has only ever filed three cases (31 Jul 15) in Nevada, the chance
they will again file is low in my opinion. Details concerning these cases can be found by doing a copyright infringement search on RFC Express for “Kimberly Knight.” Previous DTD Post on TMC/MB.

Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) Gets Bitch-Slapped in Australia

Thank you TechDirt for posting this information – TechDirt Article. On 14 Aug 15, Copyright Troll Dallas Buyers Club (DBC), was dealt a set-back in its efforts to obtain the ISP subscriber information of 4,726 Australians accused of downloading the movie via BitTorrent.  The court basically said that after reviewing the draft letter DBC planned to send to the ISP subscribers, it decided not to release the information to the trolls.

The main problems the court had with DBC’s draft letter and amount they were seeking (the
court deemed the amount to be confidential and would not disclose it – likely in the range of $5K), was:

  1. DBC was clearly practicing “Speculative Invoicing” (AKA: Copyright Trolling)
  2. DBC was a foreign Corporation with no AU presence it could punish if they ignored the
    courts instruction as far as settlement amounts

The court did not like the fact that DBC was trying to increase its settlement amount based on the alleged “Widespread” uploading/distribution of DBC by each alleged infringer, as well as additional punitive damages it was alleging based on how many “Other” (Non-DBC) works were being shared over BT. The AU court said it would only allow the release of the ISP subscriber information if it did the following.

  1. DBC posts a $600K bond with the court
  2. DBC can only seek settlement amounts based on the cost of a single online purchase/download (iTunes, etc.) AND the amount of money DBC paid out
    to obtain ISP subscriber information (Attorney Costs/Fees, etc.)

The $600K bond will be used to ensure that if DBC violates the court’s order
on settlement limits, the bond forfeiture will be used as a punishment.

So now we wait and see if the limits imposed by the AU court still makes it
cost-effective for DBC to send out settlement demands.  The single on-line purchase
amount is a joke for DBC. They may be able to bump up the settlement demand
amount based on their legal fees (divided among ALL the AU ISP subscribers), but it still hurts their bottom line.  Still, with over 4,000 ISP subscribers, they are bound to generate some cash.

RightsCorp – Hiring a Copyright Troll Firm/Attorney & Operating Losses In Excess of $1.72 Million

Rightscorp is one of those companies that you wonder how much longer they will be around.  Their history of losing money is almost as funny as the news that they are now working with the law firm of Flynn Wirkus Young. Please see the following TorrentFreak article.

The names of persistent infringers of Rightscorp clients’ works will be turned over to the law firm. This is the law firm where Copyright Troll attorney Jordan Rushie resides.  This comes on the heels of six copyright infringement cases they files on behalf of “Rotten Records” – DTD Post on Rotten Records.

The amount of people the firm can actually sue (not just threaten to sue) is going to be dependent on what jurisdictions the law firm/attorneys are licensed to practice in.  It is going to be hard to sue a persistent infringer in Arizona, when you don’t have Copyright Troll attorneys licensed to practice there. I would expect the most likely course of action is going to be a letter from FWY/Troll Rushie, asking for a settlement to avoid a lawsuit – similar to what TaylorMadeClips/Mark Borghese is doing (see above).

TorrentFreak also reported that Rightscorp is doing as well as expected (sarcasm) and the company is operating “In The Red.” TorrentFreak article

The bottom line is that Rightscorp had an operating loss of  $1,722,507, close to a million more than the $743,599 it lost in the same period last year. That brings Rightscorp’s 2015 losses thus far to a little over $2.65m.

Rightscorp has increased its settlement amount to $30 (previously $20), but I think their problems goes much deeper.  I wonder how long Rightscorp can maintain this pattern of failure?

Prenda Law Side Note

We cannot forget the sad state of affairs the Prenda Law crew is currently in. John Steele and Mark Lutz may have cut and run from BT Copyright Trolling, but they are certainly not afraid to threaten new people/business to make fast cash. CBS Chicago News Report on filing ADA-related lawsuits.

Also on 10 Aug 15, Prenda attorney Paul Duffy passed away. Madison Record News Report

DieTrollDie :)

“To Suspect your Own Mortality is to Know the Beginning of Terror; To Learn Irrefutably that you are mortal is to Know the End of Terror.” {Children of Dune, Frank Herbert} 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Malibu Media LLC (X-Art) “Pretext To Coerce A Settlement” – 1:14-cv-00493 (OH)

First let me say that due to some personal matters, I had to take a break on my more regular writing schedule. Now I’m trying to get back into the “swing” of things at DTD. I’m still reachable via the Web site comments and by email (, so please don’t hesitate. ;)  BTW – check out the recent Techdirt article, “Malibu Media Seeks Order Forbidding Defendants From Discussing ‘Copyleft’ Blog Content.”  Looks like somebody doesn’t like what Sophisticated Jane Doe and I have to say.  Fools!

The following Malibu Media/X-Art/Troll Lipscomb case is typical of the garbage they file in various Troll friendly jurisdictions. Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE, 1:14-cv-00493, OHSD.  Archive Docket   The Troll attorney is Yousef M Faroniya and the Doe is represented by Joseph Abraham Bahgat and Jason Sweet. The case ran for a year until it was voluntarily dismissed by the Troll on 12 Jun 15. Attorney Jason Sweet then filed a Motion for Sanctions.

When I first read the complaint I laughed at the title, “COMPLAINT-ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT.” Property Rights Infringement??? Not sure if this is an acceptable term for this case type OR just another screw up for Troll Faroniya and Lipscomb. Maybe they simply forgot to add the word “Intellectual” in front of “Property.”   Complaint_00493(OH)    Complaint_MovieList_00493(OH)

There are a good number of case documents in the archive docket, so I will not go over the case in its entirety. Suffice it to say that the Troll filed the case against a single IP address that they claimed infringed upon 30 Malibu Media LLC/X-Art movies. The Doe hired an attorney and asked the Troll what it would cost to settle. The Troll wanted $22,500 ($750 per movie – standard Malibu Media starting point). The Doe countered with $495.95 (cost of filing the case), as well as for paying for a one month subscription to X-Art. This offer was rejected.

Of particular interest is Exhibit A to the Doe’s Motion to Quash.   MTQ_Doc_8_00493(OH)   MTQ_Doc_8-1_Emails_00493(OH)   Please read the email chain for an amusing exchange between the attorneys. Troll Faroniya did eventually received the Doe’s personal information from the ISP, but repeatedly failed to serve him with a summons/complaint (Two requests for additional time). The Troll even violated the court’s order when it filed the Doe’s true name/address on a proposed summons. This alleged “mistake” was quickly corrected and Doe’s attorney filed a Waiver of Service for the summons/complaint on 28 May 15. Two weeks later (12 Jun 15), Troll/Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Doe without prejudice. On 20 Jun 15, Jason Sweet filed a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and/or the Courts’ Inherent Authority.    MFS_Doc_38_00493(OH)

Plaintiff Malibu Media’s voluntary dismissal abandoned its claims against the John Doe Defendant, confirming Defendant’s contention that the entire action had been little but pretext to coerce a settlement. Defendant respectfully and timely submits this motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court’s inherent authority, for an order requiring counsel for Plaintiff Malibu Media, specifically Yousef Faroniya, to satisfy personally the excess attorney’s fees Defendant reasonably incurred because of his unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of the proceedings in this case.

Troll Faroniya characterized Doe as among the “worst of the worst infringers” of Malibu Media’s copyrights and claimed their “investigation” would show that the Doe/ISP Subscriber was the offending party. Note: See the email chain (above) for some “baffling” comments by Troll Faroniya concerning Doe culpability.

  • Troll Faroniya goes from stating the ISP subscriber IS the offender; the ISP subscriber is MOST LIKELY the offender; and that it is possible the ISP subscriber is NOT the offender.

Yet, two weeks after serving the Defendant—one of the worst infringers of Malibu Media’s content, whom Mr. Faroniya has confirmed is undeniably guilty, and in a matter wherein a year’s worth of time and fees pursuing the litigation has accrued—Mr. Faroniya voluntarily dismissed the claims without explanation.

Mr. Faroniya’s voluntary dismissal unequivocally established the untruth of Malibu Media’s allegations against the Defendant. More so, it further reinforced the consensus held by numerous courts that Malibu Media never had a genuine interest in proceeding against the Defendant. Instead this action was a deliberate attempt to coerce a settlement from the Defendant by causing him to expend time and money on a meaningless goose-chase of a case. See e.g. Malibu Media, LLC v. Does, 923 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1345-46 (M.D. Fla. 2013). Where “the attorney’s behavior has been repeated or singularly egregious,” for example where the attorney “‘repeatedly took actions which required [the defendant] to expend unnecessary time and money, even though he had no intention of pursuing this litigation.’” § 1927 sanctions are appropriate. United States v. Wallace, 964 F.2d 1214, 1220-21 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Oakstone Cmty. Sch. v. Williams, No. 14-3742, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10143, *9-11 (6th Cir. 2015); In re TCI, Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 446 (7th Cir. 1985) (“Suits are easy to file and hard to defend. Litigation gives lawyers opportunities to impose on their adversaries costs much greater than they impose on their own clients. The greater the disparity, the more litigation becomes a predatory instrument rather than a method of resolving honest disputes.”).

As Troll/Plaintiff never produced any evidence of who the infringer was, it is unknown what actions they took in trying to determine this. It is my belief (and others) that the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) and Troll Lipscomb simply looked at the “Other” files (AKA: Exhibit C) being shared via BT over Doe’s IP address and try to draw some conclusions from it.


Prior to the release of Doe’s personal information, Troll Faroniya claimed the “likely” infringer in this case was a male under the age of 35, who engages in amateur (at a higher end level) photography, and probably works or is studying to work in the health care sector. Jason Sweet informed Troll Faroniya that their “profile” did not fit the ISP subscriber or others in the residence. This of course did not persuade the Troll to try to identify the real infringer.

Attorney Sweet’s motion for sanctions is a good primer for those people who do not understand the tactics employed by Malibu Media/X-Art/Troll Lipscomb to force settlements. The strategy of Troll Lipscomb and crew is to cause the Doe/ISP subscriber to expend more money in fighting than by simply paying a settlement and making the law suit go away. Even when the Trolls come up against a Defendant who has the will and means to fight back, they generally don’t back down until the last possible moment. The time and money the Troll loses by dismissing a case like this is seen as an “investment,” as it sends a message to Doe Defendants/Attorneys – It will cost you more to fight and if we dismiss the case, you may not have your attorney fees covered. These last-minute dismissals have NOTHING to do with the Troll finally determining the ISP wasn’t the offender. These are just the abusive tactics of well-funded copyright monetization organization supported by attorneys with questionable ethics (MY Opinion).

A court must temper a plaintiff’s right of voluntary dismissal with consequences when it used not in good faith, but rather as a tactical tool to frustrate due process and in such a way that prejudices a defendant’s rights. See e.g. Collins v. Warden, London Corr. Inst., No. 12-cv-1093, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72643 (S.D. Ohio May 28, 2014). The fact that Mr. Faroniya can unilaterally terminate the action under Rule 41(a)(1) does not mean that he cannot be held accountable for what occurs in that action. River City Capital, 491 F.3d at 310; Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 397-98. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the purpose of the Rule 41 provisions regarding voluntary dismissal without prejudice is to “curb abuses of the judicial system,” and the policies behind Rule 41 are “completely compatible” with the policies of other Federal Rules whose violation may bring sanctions, like § 1927. Id. at 397.

Hopefully this court will see the Trolls for what they really are and at least award attorney fees/costs. My hopes are not high, but stranger things have happen before. I will close this out with a screen shot from the APMC Prezi Presentation. I don’t think the choice of wording was a simple mistake – Freudian slip??? ;)


DieTrollDie :)  

Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you; if you don’t bet, you can’t win.” {Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long}



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Copyright Troll Dallas Buyers Club Wants To Ask ISP Subscribers, “What Is your Income?”

atomic_LV_NVWell I’m back to work after a nice break in Las Vegas.  One place I will recommend to visit is “Atomic.”

This post deals with Copyright Troll Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) actions in Australia AND Oregon.

DBC in Australia – Saga Continues

In April, DBC was granted preliminary discovery rights against 4,726 Australian IP addresses that allegedly downloaded/shared DBC via BT.   AU Article 1

The judge who granted this did stipulate that DBC will first have to get approval from the court for any correspondence it plans to use against the ISP subscribers.  Recent reporting shows that DBC plans on sending some form of a settlement demand letter and also calling the ISP subscribers.   AU Article 2   Copies of the draft settlement letter and telephone questions have not been fully released yet.  If anyone obtains copies, please send to  ;)  Late addition – AU Article 3

An attorney for iiNet (AU ISP), felt the language of the letter and questions focused too heavy on “damages.”  He also said DBC worded the letter as if the allegations were indisputable facts.  Same old tactics – Scare people into paying via the threat of financial ruin from an expensive trial and false claims of facts and perfect evidence.

What myself and others found most interesting was a one of the proposed telephone questions.

“What is your annual income?”

Really???  What relevance does the ISP subscriber’s annual income have to “if” they were the responsible party???  Nothing unless you are trying to determine how much money you can squeeze out of people.  DBC then couples this question with another one concerning a person’s historic BT activity.

“How many titles do you have now and in the past on the BitTorrent network?”

Now I believe DBC already has a record of the BT activity of the 4726 public IP addresses – All the “Other” (non-DBC) files (music, software, movies, etc.).  Such a question is likely to be used to get an ISP subscriber to admit to the activity.  Even if a denial is made, the DBC agent will likely then start reading off all the other files they recorded.  As some of these non-DBC titles/files are bound to pornographic, they may get the added benefit of embarrassing the ISP subscriber into paying.

So for now, the court is reviewing the document and proposed questions and will likely return to court in July.  Stay tuned.

If you are one of the 4726 AU ISP subscribers, I would suggest the following –

  1. Stop any BT activity on your network
  2. Don’t respond to any letters from DBC
  3. Do not answer any questions from DBC agents concerning these allegations – anything you say WILL be used against you.  Note: See my comments below concerning depositions.

Here is the simple truth.  DBC does not have the intention or capability (enough lawyers) to take everyone to trial.  Taking people to trial takes lots of work and it isn’t cheap.  Remember this business model is only profitable by keeping their operational cost as low as possible.  DBC knows it can still make a huge profit if they only get 25% of the 4726 ISP subscribers to pay.  If 1181 ISP subscribers (25%) pay a $3,000 settlement, the net take is $3,543,000.

DBC could take a handful of the worst offenders to trial, but I still think such a “show” move is unlikely.

Oregon Single Defendant Case

Prior to my Vegas trip I saw DBC had dismissed one of it Oregon cases against a single Defendant.  The case was filed by local Copyright Troll/ DBC Stooge, Carl D. Crowell, on 8 Feb 15, 6:15-cv-00219, against IP address   Docket   TorrentFreak wrote an article on the case dismissal.   Amended_Complaint_00219   DiscRequ_00219(OR)

The thing that is generally different with Troll Crowell is he will file single Doe cases AND he has been getting the courts to grant him deposition authority (FRCP 45 SUBPOENA  Depo_Requ45_00219(OR)) for a non-party (The ISP subscriber) in the case.  The justification for the subpoena/deposition request is as follows.

In this case ISP Comcast has identified a singular subscriber that was assigned the IP address used by the Doe. However, the identified subscriber refuses to respond to communications or participate in any investigation or inquiry. Independent attempts to research the name provided by Comcast or any other parties associated with the subscriber’s address provide inconclusive results. As with the content associated with the relevant IP address, research on parties with the same name of the subscriber might be filed. But as more than one person might share a name, plaintiff maintains such should only be submitted on request. Reasonably available records simply do not provide any evidence to assist in identifying the actual infringer. As such plaintiff is left with the options of proceeding against the subscriber as named by Comcast and possibly substituting another party on discovery, or seeking further discovery to ascertain the identity of the true Doe defendant prior to naming a party.

For most of the single Doe cases, I believe Plaintiff/Troll reviews the BT activity log for long-term IP address activity, as well as some financial determination of estimated wealth/income based on the area the IP address comes back to.  Certainly not an exact science, but it likely helps determine who is likely to pay some sort of settlement.

In this case, their efforts failed and the Troll tried to save face by dismissing the case (stipulated dismissal) due to “financial hardship” and “extenuating circumstances” of the defendant. It looks like the Troll was trying to appear like they have a kind heart. What a load of crap!  That is “code” for – “Defendant didn’t have any money I could squeeze out of them (AKA: Trying to get blood out of turnip).   Stip_Judgement_00219(OR)

A Money Judgment in favor of plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC and against defendant Krystal Krause is awarded the sum of $7,500. This figure waives damages but includes costs and fees incurred by plaintiff.

The stipulated dismissal essentially states as long as Mrs. Krause removes the BT software and no copyright infringement occurs over her IP address, the monetary award is waived.  It is interesting to note that Troll/Plaintiff claims this case ran them $7,500 in costs and fees!  Take a look at the docket – this wasn’t a busy case.  Complaint, Early discovery motion, deposition motion, summons, deposition (no more than two hours), Amended complaint….  It seems to me that this judge may be rubber stamping anything the clerk sets in front of him.  I also seriously doubt there will be any verification that the BT software is removed.

It appears that after receiving the summons, Mrs. Krause was deposed by Troll Crowell.  Based on what the Amended Complaint states, it appears Mrs. Krause’s laptop was used to download/share copyright protected content (to include DBC).  As the amended complaint does not directly state she did it, I have to imagine it was a friend and she knew the activity was happening.

13. The defendant’s personal laptop computer was used to download plaintiff’s motion picture and other unlicensed and pirated content.

14. The defendant regularly allowed her Internet service and personal laptop computer to be used for committing piracy, including the downloading and publication of plaintiff’s motion picture and other content, with full knowledge of the infringing activity.

15. The defendant personally enjoyed the benefits of regularly allowing her Internet service and personal laptop computer to be used for committing piracy by watching the films and enjoying the content obtained.

If the defendant actually had some money, I believe the situation would have been vastly different. This case highlights the fact that anyone who receives a deposition subpoena in these cases, should consult with an attorney prior to taking part in it.

The Trolls already believe the ISP subscriber or family members are responsible.  These depositions are nothing more than non-custodial interrogations done with a smile and a hand-shake.  All of the questions are designed elicit information that confirms that Plaintiff’s movie(s) were downloaded/shared via BT, determine the responsible party, determine which angle to use to effect a settlement, and to refute any possible claims that an unknown third-party was responsible for the infringement (OPEN WiFi etc.).

I would love to find out additional details on case specifics, but essentially this was a waste of time and money for the Trolls.  The best they could hope for is some good propaganda claiming they care about people and are not simply driven by greed.

DieTrollDie :)

“Yep, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around every once in a while, you could miss it.” {Ferris Bueller, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

BT Copyright Trolls and Single Doe Cases

SPrayer1Something I have always tried to embrace (sometime begrudgingly) is that the only “constant” in our lives is Change.  In the realm of BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolling, change also happens.  Recently we have started to see some changes.  These changes have been an increase in single Doe cases and the filing of law suits that are tied to the Copyright Monetization firm RightsCorp.

Single Doe Cases

These cases are still primarily a Troll Lipscomb (and crew)/Malibu Media/X-Art operation.  We have started to see some single Doe cases from other Troll/Plaintiffs in various numbers and in Troll-friendly jurisdictions.  I apologize if I miss any.

  • Dallas Buyers Club/Voltage Pictures (Troll Carl Crowell) – Oregon – Over 50 cases (Aug 2014 – Apr 2015)
  • Countryman Nevada/Voltage Pictures (Troll Carl Crowell) – Oregon – 5 case (17 Mar 15)
  • Glacier Films/Voltage Pictures (Troll Carl Crowell) – Oregon – 2 case (20 Apr 15)
  • Cobbler Nevada/Voltage Pictures (Troll Carl Crowell) – Oregon – 15 case (May 2015)
  • Manny Film  (Lipscomb & Crew) – FL, OH, MI, NJ, & PA – Over 210 cases (Nov 2014 – Mar 2015)
  • Good Man Productions (Lipscomb & Crew) – DC, CO, FL, MI, NJ, & PA – Over 160 cases (Nov 2014 – Feb 2015)
  • Poplar Oaks (Lipscomb & Crew) – DC, CO, FL, MI, NJ, & PA – Over 50 cases (Nov 2014 – Feb 2015)
  • Rotten Records (Rushie & Young) – MA, NJ, & NY – 6 cases so far (May 2015)

I believe the BT Copyright Troll master-minds saw how the Malibu Media single Doe cases are being run – they appear to be a financial success overall.  Based on this they started to expand their operation to non-porn movies and music.  I assume they take more work overall, but the settlement rates likely go upward.

What factors could lead to an ISP subscriber having a single doe case filed against him/her?

  • The public IP address is seen to be sharing Troll/Plaintiff’s content.  The BT user on the network is seeding the content to others and not just downloading it.
  • The public IP address is monitored/recorded sharing files via BT over a long period (case-by-case).  The monitoring/recording of BT file sharing via the IP address is used to reduce the possibility that a short-term guest or one-time network user could be the offender.  BT usage time-frames can vary, but I would estimate at least a month-long.  I have a copy of a Troll report from April/May 2015, that shows BT monitoring  over a 9 month period.  It is interesting to note that for the monitoring, Plaintiff’s movie was ONLY recorded AFTER 2 months had passed.  During the first two months, the Troll recorded all the BT file sharing (non-Plaintiff content) activity.  The BT monitoring then was kept active for the next 6 months.  This begs the question, “Why would they monitor an IP address for approx. 2 months prior to them recording the downloading/sharing of Plaintiff’s movie?”  It seems that the German BT monitoring companies “may” be sucking up any/all the BT related data they can.  This isn’t a government spy agency, but the activity is still shocking in nature.
  • There are a multitude of “other” files being shared by the public IP address – mainstream movies, television shows, games, programs, computer operating systems, music, etc.  The record of the “Other” (non-Plaintiff) files is used by the Troll to show that the person is a “serial” infringer, as well as to give some insight into the person’s age, likes, hobbies, profession, ethnicity, and family situation.
  • I’m also of the opinion that at least Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media/X-Art, does some sort of initial filtering of the possible targets to narrow them down to people who have enough money to afford some sort of settlement.  This is likely done by looking at the IP geolocation results and comparing it to the median income for specific areas.  Not a precise method, but it gives them a start.  Once they get the ISP subscriber information, they conduct Internet searches and paid database searches (LexusNexus, etc.) to validate the likely financial situation of the target.  Don’t think a determined group of people could orchestrate such an operation???  I bet the US Government didn’t think this would happen.  ICWatch Article
  • Note: Troll Crowell (OR) is partial to asking the court to allow him to depose the ISP subscriber/Doe.  Such a deposition would be used to first ask if the ISP subscriber was the infringer.  If there is no admission, he will follow-up with questions designed to obtain more information on the network set-up (open or closed), authorized users of the network, number of computers, and details on the people in the residence (age, likes, hobbies, profession, family situation, etc.). 

Is RightsCorp Suing Me?

Simple answer:  NO.  In my previous post (Rotten Records), I highlighted a couple of BT copyright infringement cases in which RightsCorp previously sent the ISP subscribers a multitude of DMCA/Settlement demands, which were ignored.  RightsCorp isn’t bringing the law suits; the Plaintiff (Rotten Records) is the one who is suing the ISP subscriber.  It is unknown if RightsCorp is only providing their BT monitoring data for use in the case OR if they have some other vested interest in the cases.  I wonder if they get any portion of the settlements?  As it is unlikely any of these new RightsCorp supported cases will come to trial, I doubt we will get additional details on their BT monitoring operation soon.

For right now (on average), I’m still of the opinion that if you receive a RightsCorp settlement demand, do not contact them.  These new cases were only filed by Troll Rushie and Young in three jurisdictions (MA, NJ, & NY) and on long-term BT activity – I do expect more to follow in the same jurisdictions.

I’m also of the opinion that a majority of the copyright owners who joined on with RightsCorp do not want to take part in filing law suits.  If they did, they probably wouldn’t have signed on with a company that asks for $20 per infringement – likely a 50/50 split between RightsCorp & the copyright owner.

I would suggest getting a consult by a knowledgeable attorney only if these factors apply.

  1. You live in MA, NJ, or NY
  2. The settlement demand is for Rotten Records content
  3. There have been a large number of RightsCorp settlement demands which were ignored
  4. The IP address has a long history of BT activity

The simplest thing to do once anyone gets such a RightsCorp (or CEG-TEK) notice is to:

  1. Ensure the BT activity on the network stops and doesn’t start back up later
  2. Resecure the WiFi Internet password and don’t freely give it out

RightsCorp’s is basically a “bottom feeder,” – My Opinion.  Over the last couple of years the company has repeatedly lost money and their stock is only worth less than .10 a share.  See current price   As the RightsCorp sections of the Rotten records complaints try to paint a picture of a well-run operation, these new cases may help boost it’s stock price – temporarily.

RightsCorp News Stories – DSLReports   TorrentFreak

DieTrollDie :)   “Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.”  {Prison Chaplain, A Clockwork Orange (1971)}


Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

BT Copyright Troll Rotten Records Inc., & RightsCorp. – A Match Made In…

RottenRecord1Things just keep getting busier – but I’m trying to have some fun with it.  ;)  I wanted to make a post on the recent (13 May 2015) BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll cases filing for a new Plaintiff – ROTTEN RECORDS Inc (Website & Facebook).  Here are two cases: 1:15-cv-03306 (New Jersey) – John Doe IP address & 3:15-cv-11836 (Massachusetts) – John Doe IP address   Complaint_EXs_03306(NJ)     Complaint_EXs_11836(MA)

As you can see the Troll attorneys are none other than A. Jordan Rushie (Philadelphia, PA) and John E. Young (Quincy, MA); both work at Flynn Wirkus Young, P.C.

They are the standard BT Copyright Troll cases filings with a few new twists and turns.  The first interesting thing is the Plaintiff, ROTTEN RECORDS Inc.  ROTTEN RECORDS is a record Label that specializes in extreme metal and other hardcore bands.  They claim to be on the “cutting edge of extreme music, taking chances that other labels would never think about.“  Well, they might find out that joining up with a BT Copyright Troll is not a very smart move.  RottenRecords_NV1   The company is registered in Nevada, and Ronald Peterson (Former DIRTY ROTTEN IMBECILES manager) holds the positions of President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director.

The address for ROTTEN RECORDS is P.O. Box 56, Upland, CA, 91786.  I will say that at least this time the Trolls were smart enough to wait until the company was back in good standing (8 May 2015), before filing cases and looking like fools.  It appears it might have been in a “revoked” status sometime after 2010.

The BT files for these cases are for two music albums – “Dirty Rotten Imbeciles – Definition” (13 songs) and “Goatwhore – The Eclipse of Ages Into Black” (15 songs).  ROTTEN RECORDS holds the copyright for the two albums, as well as over 40 other titles.  I have no doubt we will see additional bands/groups fall under the ROTTEN RECORDS filings.

Goatwhore Copyright     DRI Definition Copyright

rightscorp_PirThe second interesting this about these cases is the mention of “RightsCorp.,” as the BT monitoring firm that recorded this file sharing activity.  April 2014 News Release from RightsCorp.

For both of the complaints, the Troll states that John Doe was a long-term seeder of the files in question and that RightsCorps., repeatedly sent email notices to the ISP subscriber and they were ignored.

  • 1:15-cv-03306 – 73 notices sent to Comcast Cable between 14 Feb – 11 May 2015
  • 3:15-cv-11836 – 288 notices sent to Comcast Cable between 14 Dec 2014 – 12 May 2015

Section 28 was interesting as it claims RightsCorp. videotaped its monitoring activity.

Each infringing transaction between Defendant’s IP address and Rightscorp is recorded in a video and a BitTorrent log file. Here, the video recording is of a transaction between the infringer’s computer and Rightscorp’s computer. Through each transaction, Defendant distributed a piece of the Infringing File. The video and BitTorrent log file shows Defendant’s IP address, and the pieces that were distributed. Rightscorp’s operator plays a portion of the files downloaded from the Defendant’s computer in the video immediately after they have been downloaded.

Now I know some of you may be thinking that RightsCorp. OR The Plaintiffs they represent are now going to start to sue everyone they send DMCA/Settlement notices to – UNLESS you pay – UNLIKELY IMO.  The change in tactics is notable, but the law suits will likely only happen in the jurisdictions the Trolls are active in AND to public IP addresses in which the BT activity is long-term in nature with many other non-Plaintiff files recorded during the time period.  They will use these non-Plaintiff files to try to identify the person responsible.

These cases are the reason I suggest the following upon getting a notice from RightsCorp., CEG-TEK, or any other Troll:

  1. Resecure the WiFi Internet connection (new password) and don’t give it out freely
  2. Ensure the BT activity on the network stops and isn’t able to start back up.

It will be interesting to see where these cases go and especially what aspects RightsCorp., plays in it.  I assume Troll Rushie and Young will be filing more cases.  The big question is will the filing stay in MA & NJ, or spread to other Troll friendly locations.

Also please read the recent Cashman Law article concerning RightsCorp., and CEG-TEK (Comparison: Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK) versus RightsCorp. Same genus, different species.).

DieTrollDie :)   “Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here. This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me. ”  {Blain, Predator (1987)}


Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Representing A Client – BUT Who Is The True Client? – (BT Copyright Troll Rushie)

JR_TW_Respond1In response to BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll attorney Jordan Rushie, I understand the idea that an attorney should represent a “client,” and not a cause.  If you haven’t had a chance to read Jordan Rushie’s view on this topic, his post is located here. I haven’t had the opportunity to go over the full details of the Pietz/Blaha case, so this is not a full analysis of it.  You do the best for your client; fair enough.

Rushie’s statement make for a good title for his article, but I still think it is an over simplistic statement.  I have no doubt there are examples of when a cause was represented by an attorney with great success for the client(s) and to a larger audience.  We know the various courts have differing opinions on topics and some have even had their decisions overturned in time.  One example of a differing court opinion in regards to a RightsCorp DMCA effort was highlighted in the 11 May, TorrentFreak article, RIGHTSCORP FAILS IN BID TO UNMASK PIRATES USING DMCA

To preface this, I’m not “pro-piracy” or a member of the mythical “Internet Hate Group” (IHG).  I tell people my thoughts/views and try to help out in what can be an otherwise nerve-racking experience for some people.  Yes, I do believe what the BT Copyright Trolls are doing is wrong.  Their actions have nothing to do with stopping or reducing piracy of their “client’s” content.  The Trolls seem to think that because copyright infringement occurs, they hold the moral high-ground and all their actions are justified.   No, I don’t have the answer how to fix this.  Nobody has that answer right now and that is the problem.

Troll Rushie fails to accurately sum up what RightsCorp., and the other Trolls are.  They are an anti-piracy/copyright monetization operation.  The primary goal is to make money.  Yes some of the settlement money goes to the copyright owner, but I believe the majority of it goes to the behind-the-scene-masters like the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC).


This is the same type of effort that John Steele and Paul Hansmeier started with real clients prior to evolving into the Prenda Law fiasco.  The masters and Troll attorneys do NOT want the infringement activity to stop.  If they take some action to actually reduce infringement overall, their profit margin drops.  Rushie may be able to claim he only represents a “client,” but who is the real client?  The copyright owner or the firm that recruited them and takes a large chunk of any settlements obtained???

But I do understand that my only obligation is to help my client as best I can. Nothing more, nothing less.

I still find it incredible that the Trolls are able to hide their this from the courts by not disclosing these financial relationships when they file a case.  I would put it out there that Rushie actually does represent a cause, though he might not be able to see this.  Monetization is the cause cloaked in the name of a client.

Rushie does not single me out by name in his article, but it is clear I’m part of the group.

Well, understand this. Most blogs on the internet that discuss copyright infringement lawsuits have their own agenda. Many of the copyright BitTorrent defense lawyers who write blogs want you to hire them, and they want to be internet heroes. If you want to be a hero on the internet, write about the evils of “copyright trolling” and you’ll be loved. File lawsuits against anti-piracy companies like Rightscorp and everyone will write about how you’re an internet super hero like they did here. The blogs written by anti-copyright activists like Fightcopyrighttrolls believe people have a right to steal content on the internet, and it’s unfair when copyright holders elect to enforce their rights. So they praise attorneys who represent the infringers, while vilifying the attorneys who represent copyright holders.

I would love to know what my “agenda” is.  Yes, I guess I have received some Internet love by what I do.  Love is a good thing and if you want to fault me for it, you are a sad person.  As far “Me” believing people should be able to steal content, you are dead wrong.  Just because I dedicate a small amount of my efforts to educating people on the efforts of the Trolls, that does not make me pro-piracy.  I believe the content owners do have a right to go after the infringers.  I just think the way it is currently employed is – 1) Not doing anyone justice; 2) Has minimal effect on stopping or limiting copyright infringement; & 3) It is only making a small group of people very wealthy.

The vilification you may feel is not simply born of pirates crying about life not being fair because they got caught.  Much of it comes from the sleazy tactics employed by all of the Trolls (as a collective group) in pursuing these monetization efforts under the guise of fighting piracy.  Your true clients/masters have earned their mantle and so have you.

As far as RightsCop., and CEG-TEK goes, they are a joke in my opinion.  If you get a notice from them, here is my non-lawyer suggestion.  1) Do not respond to RightsCorp., or CEG-TEK in any fashion.  2) Resecure your WiFi Internet connection with a new password.  3) Make sure that BT activity on your network stops and doesn’t start back up.  Use this as a learning experience and be happy that it wasn’t your ISP telling you a BT Copyright Troll had subpoenaed you name/address because there as a real copyright infringement case filed against your IP address.

DieTrollDie :)   “And the person who actually does control these entities—Mark Lutz—has stated under oath, in multiple hearings, that he does control them. The Court’s like, “I don’t care. I determine what I want.” Mark Lutz has indicated that he’s going to join the appeal, because his entities are liable for the financial portion of the sanction.”  {John Steele, Copyright Troll}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Duel Article: Dallas Buyers Club LLC Activity & Forensic Expert Patrick “Never Convicted” Paige

I will try to keep this as short as I can, but excuse me if I run on a bit.  ;)   This post will cover recent Dallas Buyers Club LLC activity AND the “Never Convicted” explanation of Malibu Media/X-Art/Lipscomb’s forensic expert, Patrick Paige.

Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) Activities Abroad And In The US

The people behind the BT Copyright Trolling of “Dallas Buyers Club,” are still going strong and trying to milk this operation for as much as they can in as many countries as possible.  In a recent Australian court ruling, DBC will be allowed to obtain the personal details of over 4700 ISP subscribers accused of downloading/sharing DBC via BT.  The Australian court at least said that prior to sending out settlement demand letters to the ISP subscribers, DBC would have to get prior approval (from the court).  This means DBC is unlikely to be able to use their standard format letter we saw in the US.  Examples of the settlement demand letters can be found here – Settlement Letters.

I doubt DBC will want the court to see what amount they are trying to “legally extort” (My opinion) from the ISP subscribers.  DBC/Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) may also try the “Name Your Own Price,” ploy that was recently reported happening in Singapore.

DBC News Articles –  Name Your Own Price     Australian Court OKs DBC Efforts     Nicholas Chartier Talking Points

Money Money Money

Here is a simple (and likely low-ball) money breakdown of the DBC efforts in Australia.  In the US we simply call it BT Copyright Trolling; In the UK and Australia it is known as Speculative Invoicing.   Let’s say DBC starts with a settlement demand of $4,000.00 (likely a low amount).  Multiply it by the number of ISP subscribers (4700).  4700 X $4,000 = $18,800,000.

Now there is no way in hell DBC is going to get settlements from all 4700 ISP subscribers – so let’s start at the low end – 25%.  4700 X .25 = 1175 ISP subscribers.  1175 X $4,000 = $4,700,000.  50% of 4700 subscribers = $9,400,000.  Can you smell the profits???  The Trolls do.

Even if the ISPs are able to charge DBC a research/look-up fee of $100 per subscriber (an excessive amount), the bill is still only $117,500 for 1175 (all 4700 = $470,000).  Let’s estimate the legal costs for DBC/APMC in Australia are $500,000 (yes it is also excessive).  Even if DBC’s total costs/fees were $1,000,000, the profit potential (minimum) is $3,700,000.00 for a 25% success rate.  This means if APMC/DBC can make this work in Australia, BT copyright trolling may have found a new home “down under.”  Australians need to take a stand against this business model that tries to justify its actions by claiming they are simply fighting piracy.  Yes, the illegal downloading/sharing of copyright protected media by individuals is wrong.  Still, that does NOT justify the actions of the Trolls.

DBC – Back In The USA!

Well, DBC never really left the USA.  For the month of April, DBC has so far filed cases in multiple States.  RFC Express shows 245 DBC cases filed (over 3800 Does affected). (LINK to PIC)

One case in Colorado caught my attention as DBC is still using the Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) and Daniel Macek, in their motions for Early Discovery (ED) of the ISP subscriber information.  The case is Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-9, 1:15-cv-00716 (CO).   Complaint_EXAB_00716(CO)   Corp_Disclos_00716(CO)   ED_Motion_00716(CO)   Daniel_Macek_Decl_00716(CO)   ED_Granted_00716(CO)

The CBC is the South Dakota “Shelf-Company” (Front Company run out of mail-drop) used by the APMC to hide their actions from people (such as myself) and the courts.   Crystal Bay Corporation/Darren Griffin Article.   Daniel Macek is the German citizen allegedly employed by CBC.  Mr. Macek was also mentioned by-name in an APMC presentation in which they hope “the judge will not question his qualifications too much.”  That much was made readily apparent in an Australian court recently.


As this is a CO case, the ED was approved (rubber stamped) by the court.  The ED portion of these BT copyright troll cases is key to fighting them.  The Trolls that file mass-Doe cases do so to run things as cheaply as possible.  If they had to file individual cases for each Doe, the profit potential is greatly reduced.  By obtaining the ISP subscriber information in a mass-Doe case, it only costs the Troll $400 for all the Does involved.

The reason it is so hard to fight ED is in most cases, there is no opposition.  The court simply goes on the claims of the Troll/Plaintiff and grants the ED.  A few courts have started to question the Trolls claims, but most are simply are too busy to care.  With cases such as this one in CO, the chance of quashing the ED is better, as the qualifications (lack of them) of Macek and the fraudulent nature of CBC are readily apparent.  Too bad it will first require a Defendant to pay thousands of dollars to just get a court to consider the issue.  The Copyright Trolls know this and that is why they do not even bother to change the names of the people and organizations that are part of this business model of greed.

DBC Joinder of Does Is Unjustified – 1 in 300 Million Chance

This DBC case (1:14-cv-03517) was filed against 25 Does in the Northern District of IL (Copyright Troll hot spot) on 14 May 14.  This case also used the CBC and Daniel Macek as justification for ED of ISP subscriber information.   Macek_CBC_Decl_02682(CO)   The case went the standard way of settlement demands and dismissing Does one by one.  On 5 Jan 15, the court told Troll/Plaintiff that it had until 5 Mar 15, to amend the complaint with actual names of the defendants and move the case along.  On the last possible day (5 Mar 15), Troll Michael Hierl motioned the court for more time to amend the complaint.  The court granted this request, but only after stating, “The deadline is extended to 3/19/2015, but it will not be extended again for any reason whatsoever.”   NoMoreTime_03517(IL)

The complaint was amended on 19 Mar 15 (The LAST possible day –shocking!) and summons were issued on 20 Mar 15, for four Defendants.   FAC_03517(IL)

One of the Defendants (Bryan Narbert) then hired attorney Scott Kane, Kane Community Law, to represent him.  On 13 Apr 15, Attorney Kane filed a motion to sever, as well as filing an answer to Troll/Plaintiff’s complaint.   Motion_Sever_03517(IL)   D_Neville_Decl_03517(IL)

The answer is a straight forward denial of the allegations, as well as the affirmative defenses of unclean hands and failing to mitigate damages.   Def_Answer_03517(IL)

The motion to server filed by attorney Kane uses a declaration form Delvan Neville, Amaragh Associates, LLC.  Mr. Neville makes it exceedingly clear the chance the four remaining named Defendants are properly joinded based on the chance they engaged in the same series of transactions is roughly 1 in 300 Million.  Hell you have a better chance of winning the Powerball Lottery (1 in 175 Million)

The results outlined above show that BitTorrent joinder litigation based is not based upon any real likelihood that the joined peers have engaged in any series of transactions with each other. The 4 peers whom are alleged to be Defendants in this case were separated by a period of two weeks (March 9th, 2014 to March 23rd, 2014), indicating the swarm would be interconnected as in the two-week analysis of paragraph 11 at 0.05% (the average peer in the swarm would have contacted 0.05% of the swarm during 2 weeks). The likelihood that there is any series of peer-to-peer connections that could link all 4 peers to at least one other named peer is 0.000000337%, or roughly a 1 in 300 million chance.

Note: Attorney Kane previously represented a small business that was being targeted by DBC.  In that case he used a declaration from Mr. Neville and his client was quickly dismissed.

Naming Game

Now I will say I have started to see a few more cases where the DBC has actually named and served some Defendants.  It is still a very small number overall, but it shows Troll/Plaintiff is trying to push settlements even harder.  I think this may be in response to some of the Does who are ignoring the Trolls.  For one of these Defendants, the Troll even sent her a letter listing out all the “other” files that were being shared via BT (AKA: Malibu Media Exhibit C), stating “the forensic team” has correlated the “infringing” files to her online profile – Age, Job, Habits, Hobbies, Marital Status, and Living StandardTroll/Plaintiff is simply running LexusNexus checks and online searches and then claiming they have a forensic team.

JSR1The “naming and severing” of a defendant in these cases is a risky proposition in my opinion.  It may initially seem successful in getting reluctant Does to settle, but it will eventually fail.  We saw this type Troll escalation with Prenda Law LLC, prior to its implosion.  Troll John Steele even went so far as to thank us for forcing his hand to do so.  Too bad for John Steele that his luck ran out.  ;)   This Troll/Plaintiff is so greedy they do not see what is going to happen.   Eventually a Defendant is going to fight back, they will not be able to drop the case, and it will not end well.  We saw this in the Elf-Man v. Lamberson case (2:13-cv-00395 (WA)), where Troll/Plaintiff has to pay Mr. Lamberson approx. $100,000.00 in legal fees. 

Now we will see what Troll Hierl and his masters do.  It will cost them more money to fight the motion to sever, as well as they have NOTHING to refute Mr. Neville’s declaration.  If they try to fight the declaration, more questions will be asked about CBC, Daniel Macek, and of course the APMC.  I expect Troll/Plaintiff will try to work out some walk-away deal, where both sides pay for their own legal bills.  I don’t think attorney Stuckel and Defendant Narbert are going to be too quick to accept such a deal.  If they cannot work a walk-away deal, I expect DBC will motion the court to grant a dismissal.  The problem for DBC is they will likely have to agree to dismiss the case WITH PREJUDICE, which then opens up a claim for attorney fees/costs for Defendant Narbert, as a prevailing party (Example: Elf-Man v. Lamberson, Case 2:13-cv-00395).

The “Never Convicted” Status of Patrick Paige

NeverConvictedI recently came across some pretty funny documents in Malibu Media LLC v. Doe (David Ricupero), 2:14-cv-00821(OH).  What caught my attention was a Motion to Strike portions of Defendants documents (Def_Sur_Reply_Doc30_00821(OH) – see bottom of page 3)  that stated Troll/Plaintiff’s computer forensic expert was a convicted felon.   Mot_Strike_and Exhib_Doc45_00821(OH)   Paige_Decl_Exhib_A_Doc45_00821(OH)   Exhib_B_Doc45_00821(OH)

In some of my past articles I have talked about the arrest & booking of Malibu Media/X-Art/Lipscomb’s computer forensic expert, Patrick Paige, on drug possession charges.  Patrick Paige Article   Based on what I can determine, Troll Yousef M Faroniya is correct – Patrick Paige is NOT a “Convicted” Felon.  Troll Faroniya even goes on to claim that Mr. Paige is a National Hero (See Exhibit B above).  For what I don’t know…  Was he a Military Reservist???

It is interesting to see in the email correspondence that attorney Jonathon Phillips has copies of the Internal Affairs and employment termination documents concerning Mr. Paige.  Attorney Sweet has his own pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the documents/Information.  Attorney Sweet informs Troll Faroniya he will consent to a “clarification” of Paige’s activity (arrest/booking), but will NOT allow him to make total claim of innocence.

Now some people may say that it was just a victimless “drug” crime and there is no relevance to his work for Malibu Media.  My issue was not specific to the drug possession, but what appears to be the possible abuse of power (as a Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Officer (PBCSO)) and lack of professional ethics in illegally purchasing them, as well as the use of an official PBCSO post office box to take delivery of them.  Please see what I wrote about this on 16 Jan 15, bottom half of this article – Copyright Trolls Love To Fish

Based on what can be found a Florida news site, Internet searches, Public documents, and what Mr. Paige has stated; here is what appears to have happened.  Note: Mr. Paige, please contact me if anything is wrong and I will listen to what you have to say.

  1. Mr. Paige WAS “booked” in March 2011, by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, FL.
  2. The arrest of Mr. Paige appears to have occurred on 1 Dec 2010, according to the news article.
  3. The charge appears to have been possession of a controlled substance without a prescription – 70 hydrocodone pills
  4. The 70 pills were ordered online and mailed to an official PBCSO post office box.  DOJ/DEA Website Mr. Paige decided not to read.
  5. According to the UPS manager, Mr. Paige had been calling to see if a package had arrived for him.
  6. Mr. Paige was NEVER convicted of this charge – or any other
  7. Attorney Jonathan Phillips has copies of the PBCSO Internal Affairs and employment termination documents for Mr. Paige.
  8. The record of the incident was EXPUNGED from Police records

So let’s make this clear to everyone out there concerning Patrick Paige.  NEVER CONVICTED.  YES arrested and booked for possession of a controlled substance without a prescription.  YES investigated by Internal Affairs.  YES to some form of employment termination from PBCSO – exact details are unknown.

So in my view, the incident is still open because it raises the question of Mr. Paige’s ethics and credibility.  Mr. Paige’s declaration says nothing about the incident that led to the arrest, how he used official position commit this criminal act, and why the local prosecutor did NOT pursue charges against Mr. Paige.  EXPUNGED records…  You don’t think the PBCSO and the city wanted to sweep this incident under the rug do you???  AND just because the police records were expunged, doesn’t mean he did NOT commit any criminal acts/offenses (State & Federal) – ALL it means is the local (and Federal) prosecutors did NOTHING.

Read the declaration for yourself and see how thin it is; It reminds me of the forensic reports Paige provides on Malibu Media cases.

DieTrollDie :)

Recruiter – “Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor?  That’s robbery, rape, car theft, that sort of thing?”

John – “Convicted?”

Recruiter – “Yeah”

John – “No”

Russell – “Never convicted”

{Stripes, The Movie, 1981

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments