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 (dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com), 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.

APMC_System2

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??? ;)

APMC_Persecute1

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 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 dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com.  ;)  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 73.25.44.231.   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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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)}

ClockworkOrange1

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 71.58.53.10 & 3:15-cv-11836 (Massachusetts) – John Doe IP address 98.229.55.74.   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)}

SEXTran1

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 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).

APMC_Snapshot

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.

APMC_D_Macek1

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

DTD Update and Manny Film LLC Update (Troll Keith Lipscomb)

DieTrollDie Update

I have been rather busy of late and my clones are unable to keep up with all the things I want to write on concerning BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolls.  Sorry   :(   No, this doesn’t mean I’m going away anytime soon.  I just need to adjust what I’m doing and some things will drop off my “To Do List.”  I will continue to write on the various BT Copyright Troll antics and especially respond to the Does that post and email me questions.  The frequency and timing of my posts/response may suffer, but I still plan to do it.  As I will not be able to search for topics as much as I would like, I invite any Does and attorneys who have any “interesting” case to send me a “tip-off” (dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com).  No promises of course, but if it warrants a story, I will write one.  This of course also goes for my non-US readers.  BT Copyright Trolls span the globe and more often than not, their actions are from the same general how-to manual.

Manny Film LLC Update

LipscombAs of 26 Mar 15, There have been over 200 filing of Manny Film LLC case in multiple jurisdictions (FL, OH, MI, NJ, & PA).  I expect the Trolls will continue to file these cases as long people keep downloading/sharing this otherwise unremarkable movie.

Side Note: Here is the newest Troll filing for “Plastic The Movie Limited,” by the newest BT Copyright Trolls, Daniel F. Tamaroff, David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff.   Complaint_00500(FL)   Complaint_EXA_B_00500(FL)

As these are Troll Keith Lipscomb run operations, I don’t expect to see any settlement demand being sent out.  Troll Lipscomb likes to have the Does/ISP subscribers make first contact (with or without an attorney) before there is any mention of a settlement.  He seem to believe that by not sending out demand letters, it somehow raises him above “dirt bags” – AKA: John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, & Paul Duffy (The Prenda Law crew).  That of course is MY opinion.  :)   If there is anyone who know what settlement amounts are being offered for the Manny film, please drop me a message.

In response to the BT Copyright Troll lackeys statements of “So a plaintiff shouldn’t go after infringers?“  Yes, BT copyright infringement is wrong, but what the BT Copyright Trolls/Plaintiffs are doing is worse.  This isn’t a concerted effort to stop/reduce piracy, it is simply a money-making operation targeting people who are well off enough to pay, but cannot afford to really fight back.  In my opinion, this is legal extortion rationalized by gloom and doom claims that piracy is killing various industries.  How about something fair; like “Actual” damages, not Statutory Damages.  For a movie like “Manny,” the actual damages from a single person non-commercial instance of infringement would likely be less than $50.00 (and I think I’m being generous at that).  Add attorney fees and costs, and you are likely in the $2-3K range.  The trouble with such a low-level settlement is the people and organizations running the operations (Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)) would then lose their profits.   APMC Screenshot

As I have said before, these cases are nothing special in their design.  They are template based to make the repeated filings easier.  What does change from time to time is the motions/justification for early discovery of the ISP subscriber information. This aspect is the keystone of their operation.  If they cannot identify the ISP subscriber, then their case and any settlement is lost.  As most Federal judges simply take the Troll/Plaintiff at their word, early Discovery is basically a rubber stamp in most cases.

Here are some early discovery filings for a Manny Film LLC case Troll Jordan Rushie is part of.  It is what I expected – a statement that early discovery is the only way the Troll/Plaintiff can move the case forward and the technology and people involved are credible.

MotionLeave_01490(NJ)      Support_ED_01490(NJ)     Paige_Decl_01490(NJ)     Susac_Decl_01490(NJ)     Rushie_Decl_01490(NJ)

Further, Plaintiff’s allegations of infringement are attested to by Plaintiff’s investigator, Excipio’s employee, Daniel Susac. See Declaration of Daniel Susac in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (“Susac Declaration”) at ¶¶ 13 – 16, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. And, during the first ever BitTorrent copyright lawsuit to reach trial, Judge Baylson concluded this technology was valid. See Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1, 6, 13, 14, 950 F. Supp. 2d 779, 782 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (“I concluded that [plaintiff] had expended considerable effort and expense to determine the IP addresses of the infringing parties, and the technology employed by its consultants—both of whom were located in Germany and who testified at the trial of June 10, 2013—was valid.”). The same technology has been used in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff has exceeded its obligation to plead a prima facie case.  {Document 5-1, Pages 8-9}

So you can see it is once again “Excipio,” “Daniel Susac,” and the ethically challenged (my opinion) Patrick Paige.   Mugshot   Troll Rushie/Lipscomb even go so far as to try to bolster their case by mentioning their Holy Grail, The PA Bellwether trial/ joke.  Now during the PA Bellwether trial, Troll Rushie was the defense attorneys for one of the Defendants.  Troll Rushie and the other defense attorneys/Defendants made confidential agreements with Troll/Plaintiff prior to the trial taking place.  Please see page 160 in the PA Bellwether trial transcript.   Page_160_Transcript2_12-02078(PA)   The agreement appears to have been that in exchange for the Defendants NOT cross-examining/attacking Plaintiff’s Witnesses/Experts (term used VERY loosely), they would get a reduced settlement amount they would pay.   Zero minutes for ANY cross-examination.   Full  Trial Transcript – TrialTranscript_12-02078(PA)

Now prior to the start of the Bellwether trial, Troll Lipscomb knew he had a good deal more than a preponderance of evidence to secure victory against all three Defendants.  Still he decided to make a deal with the Defendants and not destroy them.  WHY?  It wasn’t because he is such a nice guy and goes to church.

Please understand a major goal of Troll Lipscomb in the PA Bellwether trial was to try to appear that they were not afraid to take people to trial (there had NEVER been one) and that their evidence collection methods and personnel were beyond reproach.  Troll Lipscomb knew that even if they won a fully confrontational trial, substantial damage to their future operations would have occurred.  By making a deal they didn’t have to answer any tough questions and their secrets stayed hidden that much longer.  They spent way over any amount they will ever get from the three Defendants.   Doc_198-1_Stip_Fees_02078(PA)   To the Trolls, it was the cost of doing business and an investment in their future cases.  We still haven’t seen a real BT Copyright Infringement trial since the Bellwether – Go Figure.

I will leave you with a “Freudian Slip” from Troll Rushie during the last bit of the PA Bellwether trial when the Judge Bayless asked if he was going to cross-examine Collette Field, Malibu Media/X-Art.

Rushie_Fool_02078(PA)

 

DieTrollDie :)

“Mr. Mojo Risin’, Mr. Mojo Risin’
Mr. Mojo Risin’, Mr. Mojo Risin’
Got to keep on risin’
Mr. Mojo Risin’, Mr. Mojo Risin’
Mojo Risin’, gotta Mojo Risin’
Mr. Mojo Risin’, gotta keep on risin’
Risin’, risin’
Gone risin’, risin’
I’m gone risin’, risin’
I gotta risin’, risin’
Well, risin’, risin’
I gotta, wooo, yeah, risin’
Whoa, oh yeah”  {LA Woman, The Doors}

 

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Troll Keith Lipscomb And Crew File New BT Copyright Troll Law Suits (Manny Film LLC)

13 Mar 15 Update

tameroff_TrollsWell the activity of Troll Lipscomb and crew has riled up a notable Doe Defender, Robert Cashman, Cashman Law Firm, TX.  He just published an article on the Manny Film LLC cases that is well worth a read.   TorrentLawyer Article   Of particular note is something I didn’t notice – it appears that Doe Defenders “Daniel F. Tamaroff, David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff, have decided to now become BT Copyright Trolls.  Enjoy the title boys; and the smell that comes with it.

DTD :)

manny-copyright-troll

 

9 Mar 15 Update

***  As of today, the number of Manny Film LLC cases has increased to 127 in the following jurisdictions.  FLMD (20); FLSD (38); OHND (6); NJ (41); & PAED (22).  I also expect to see additional Manny Film LLC cases to be filed in ILND, MD, VAED, OHSD, NYSD, MIED, and possibly DC.  I don’t think we will see any CO cases filed, as Jason Kotzker appears to stopped working for Troll Lipscomb.

———————————————————————————————————

Starting on 27 Feb 15, we started to see a new Plaintiff file BitTorrent (BT) copyright infringement cases through the newest member of the Keith Lipscomb crew, A. Jordan Rushie.  The Plaintiff in these cases is Manny Film LLC, 1175 East Lincoln Ave., Anaheim CA 92805. The movie is “Manny,” a feature-length documentary depicting the life of boxing champion Manny Pacquiao. Here is the CA business record for Manny Film LLC.

As of publication, there have been a total of 87 Manny Film LLC cases filed in NJ (41) and in FL (46), by Troll Jordan Rushie (Flynn Wirkus Young) and Keith Lipscomb.  I also expect to see future Manny Film LLC cases to be filed in the jurisdictions Troll Lipscomb and crew file in.  Here is the complaint for one of Troll Rushie’s cases verse a single ISP subscriber – 3:15-cv-01490.   Complaint_EX_AB_01490(NJ)

The case is nothing special in terms of format (template based) and its content. It simply claims that this movie which “cost millions of dollars to produce,” was leaked onto BT (likely by an insider with access to the movie – not the Defendant) and the ISP subscriber (Defendant) downloaded and shared it to other BT users.

Each infringing transaction between Defendant’s IP address and Excipio is recorded in a PCAP. A PCAP is akin to a video recording. Here, the recording is of a transaction between the infringer’s computer and Excipio’s computer. Through each transaction, Defendant distributed a piece of the Infringing File. The PCAP shows Defendant’s IP address, and the piece that was distributed. Excipio verified that the piece that was distributed belongs to the Infringing File by calculating its hash value.

Troll/Plaintiff makes a single claim of direct copyright infringement and asks the court to award statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs.

One thing Troll Rushie forget to add (most like because he rubber stamped his signature) is the second Copyright record associated with this movie – PAu003725703, dated 4 Nov 13.

CopyR_Manny1

Also of note is the statement on the copyright registration the Troll is using – Regarding material excluded: credits on copy indicate some preexisting footage and photographs from various source.

How much “preexisting footage” is included in the updated version is unknown. Now we know that the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)/Excipio/ IPP (insert shell Co. name here) only takes a very small snap-shot of data collection from each IP address with its “PCAP.” Now depending on WHAT portion of the data is recorded in the PCAP, it is possible that the data they collected is part of the preexisting footage from the first copyright registration. This isn’t going to help most of the Does, but it might be of value to a Doe who is fighting back.  It would make their “expert” (term used loosely) have to try to explain how they know the PCAP data was part of the updated movie (PAu003744511) and not from the preexisting material which is not part of this case (PAu003725703) – a valid question based on the complaint.

Also of interest is who they are using to justify their early discovery efforts to obtain the ISP subscriber information of the public IP addresses they recorded. Will this be Daniel Macek, Daniel Susac, or some new stooge?  I haven’t seen the Early Discovery request for any of these cases yet – which is odd in my opinion.  The PCAP data was already recorded and used as a basis for the complaint against the specific public IP addresses.  It should be dead-simple for the APMC to have the declaration ready the same time as the complaint.  Maybe they are having trouble trying to make up a fictitious name???  Try “Biggus Dickus” or “Incontinentia Buttocks.”

DieTrollDie :)   “You know, Burke, I don’t know which species is worse. You don’t see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage.”  {Ripley, Aliens}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, In Australia (iiNet v. DBC) – Bugger Off APMC/Macek

australia_stencil2In case you were not following events from the Dallas Buyers Club case in Australia (iiNet v. DBC), there were some interesting developments.  The central point of this case is if a group of Australian Internet Service Providers (ISP) will have to disclose the personal information of 4726 subscribers who are alleged to have downloaded/shared the movie Dallas Buyers Club via BitTorrent (BT).  The court is reviewing all the testimony/facts and should make a decision in a couple of weeks.  Here are some of the stories.

Of particular interest was the testimony of German Citizen Daniel Macek, Maverick Eye UG, employee.  Macek used the Maverick Eye software to record the public IP addresses that are alleged to downloaded/shared the movie.  iiNet’s attorneys attacked Mr. Macek’s credibility and experience.

Under cross examination by defence barrister Richard Lancaster, SC, representing iiNet, Mr Macek said he did not prepare his own affidavit.

“It was provided,” Mr Macek said, referring to the film’s rights holder Dallas Buyers Club LLC preparing it.

The statement was “pretty much complete[d]” for him and he could not remember if he made any changes.

“You provide affidavits and statements in lots of litigations all around the world,” Mr Lancaster said. “Is it your practice just to sign what is put in front of you?”

“No,” Mr Macek replied.

Mr Macek could not say whether he was authorised via email or letter to use the MaverickEye software to identify those who allegedly shared Dallas Buyers Club.  (Taken from The Sydney Morning Herald story)

Daniel_Macek_APMC

The reason Macek was cross-examined so forcefully was because it was his declaration DBC used to justify the release of the AU ISP subscriber information.  Now many of you already know that Daniel Macek is a central figure in a multitude of US BT Copyright Troll cases.  In the US his declarations were also used to justify the release of ISP subscriber information to the Trolls.

One interesting thing to note about Daniel Macek is his lack of experience.  The issue of his experience came up in the AU case.  The “experience” was also an area of concern for the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), who is actually running these BT Copyright Troll cases around the world.  Here is what the APMC (via their Prezi presentation) thinks of Mr. Macek.

APMC_D_Macek1

If you look at the full transcript (text) of the presentation (link is on the bottom of the presentation page), there is an entry concerning Mr. Macek and his “experience.”

This of course is not a shock to me and others who follow the BT Copyright Trolls.  What is also interesting is another name that was used by the APMC prior to Mr. Macek – Darren Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC).  Mr. Griffin and Mr. Macek’s declaration are essentially identical, with changes only to cases titles/case numbers.  As Mr. Griffin is almost certainly a made-up person, working for a SD “Shelf-Company” run out of a mail drop, the credibility and reliability of these people and Company are in question.  Here are some additional stories on Mr. Griffin, CBC, and what WA attorney Christopher Lynch was able to dig up.  His information was key to getting Elf-Man LLC, to dismiss his client (with prejudice), leading to a fees/costs award of approx. $100,000.00.  Article 1   Article 2   Article 3

One of the more frustration aspects of these cases is how the Troll/Plaintiffs are able to obtain early discovery of the ISP subscriber information with template based declarations from Mr. Macek and Mr. Griffin.  When these cases are initially filed, there is NO opposing view/argument to their claims.  The Troll simply presents the court a declaration from a person they claim (or infer) is an expert or technician.  Most courts follow a general rule that if an attorney presents some document/declaration, they take it at face value unless someone objects or presents evidence to the contrary.  This makes it extremely easy for a Troll to obtain the ISP subscriber information most of the time.  For a majority of the cases, the court simply rubber stamps the request and the Troll happily gets the ISP subscriber data in a month or so.  In the unlikely chance that a Doe tries to fight the early discovery request, most US courts simply take the word of the Trolls and not ask for additional information.

I can only hope the AU court sees what the APMC/DBC is doing and puts a stop to it.  I will not hold my breath, but I’m confident that even if the AU ISPs have to give up the ISP subscriber information, there is going to be a few Aussies who fight back.  I think APMC is going to find out “down under” isn’t going to be an easy score.

For us in the US, the AU developments will be used to target the “questionable” people APMC uses to justify early discovery.  Who knows, maybe Mr. Macek will just fade away.  If that happens, APMC will simply replace him with another stooge willing to put his name down on legal documents.  We will wait and see; adaption is the key.

DieTrollDie :)  I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”  [The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Malibu Media (X-Art) Cases In Colorado (Little Bo-Peep Has Lost Her Sheep)

Bo-peep1As  life moves on and we are faced with a multitude of changes, sometimes the “little things” escape our attention.  In the BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll realm, the continual filings of Malibu Media LLC/X-Art/Keith Lipscomb, is seen as a relative norm.  Recently a nice person commented that in the State of Colorado, Malibu media LLC/X-Art hasn’t filed a case since 10 Oct 14 (over 130 days).  Now I don’t believe local CO Troll Jason Kotzker has somehow persuaded BT users not to share their movies.  Not that the people behind the law suits really want the activity to stop.  So what is going on?

I will note that on 26 Nov 14 (over 80 days ago), Troll, Jason Kotzker, filed 11 Good Man Productions, Inc. (GMP), and 3 Poplar Oaks, Inc. (POI), cases in CO.  Since then, the only activity I have seen in CO, is for Dallas Buyers Club (21 Jan 15 – Troll Stephenson) and Countryman NV (5 Dec 14 – Troll Kannady).

I know Keith Lipscomb (and the behind-the-scene-Germans) have not grown a conscience and decided to stop filing these cases, so I’m intrigued.  I know they are still busy as Malibu Media, GMP, and POI, have filed cases as of 18 Feb 15 (MI, MD, & PA).   Here is a news story.

Malibu Media QuoteIt is also worthy to note how busy Malibu Media/Lipscomb are in trying to force an innocent Defendant to settle or walk-away.  Fightcopyrighttrolls Article.

It may be that the CO court has started to tire of the constant filings and repeated delay requests/extensions by the Troll and the obvious avoidance tactics used when a Defendant want to conduct Discovery against Troll/Plaintiff.

I will say I thought I did notice something small while reading over the various documents in the now-dismissed Malibu Media LLC v. Butler case, 1:13-cv-02707.   I can’t put my finger on it, but the court did not seem as open and accommodating to the Troll.  I will have to do further review.

Here are some other things that may be making Malibu Media/X-Art rethink its filing in CO

Early Settlement Conferences (ESC) – More defense attorneys are requesting early settlement conferences with the courts.  If an ESC is approved, all parties have to physically come to court and hash out a reasonable settlement in front of a mediator (can be the magistrate judge).  In CO it is often Judge Hegarty for these cases.  In general, the Troll/Plaintiff is not likely to get as large of a settlement from an ESC – in comparison to one obtained from threatening the Defendant with financial ruin.  The mediator is going to evaluate a Defendant’s financial situation and push the Plaintiff to play fair.  This is a very viable tactic for any Defendant who will most likely be settling anyway.  This of course cuts back on Troll Lipscomb’s profit margin.

Innocent Defendants Fight Back – Malibu Media/X-Art/Troll Lipscomb’s business model is built on the keystone of being profitable.  Remember this has nothing to do with “Stopping Piracy.”  Having to spend time and money dealing with a non-settling Defendant is exactly where the BT Copyright Troll business model does not wish to be – as can be seen by their past efforts to avoid discovery and trial so strongly.  The PA Bellwether was a “show trial.” Even as a show trial, it wasn’t cheap for the Trolls.  Both Colette and Brigham probably also don’t want to have to repeatedly travel to various jurisdictions for depositions and trials – they have their lives and these law suits are only supposed generate some money for them.  Even if it only reaches the discovery phase, Troll/Plaintiff is not going to be happy when a Defendant wants to examine Malibu’s operations, finances, and the BT monitoring/collection apparatus run out of Germany.  Troll/Plaintiff can only sidetrack, delay, and threaten before a court realizes what they are up to.  A trial, even a simple one takes a considerable amount of time and money to prepare for and run – estimate a minimum $50K per side.  Plus there is no guarantee the Troll/Plaintiff will come out on top or be given all of its requested costs/fees.  If it turns out bad (Like Elf-Man v. Lamberson (WA)), the Plaintiff could have to pay the Defendants cost/fees.  Even if the Troll does obtain a huge default award (i.e. $150K+) against a Defendant, collecting the money is going to be hard at best – much easier to collect a few thousand dollars and move on to the next case.  The various default judgments are mostly for show, as collecting money from people who default can be difficult.

Being A BT Copyright Troll Attorney Must Test Your Conscience – Even if the local Troll attorneys truly believe they are fighting piracy (a delusion IMO), most people are not going to enjoy repeatedly squeezing settlements out of people for downloading/sharing X-Art movies.  Many of the Troll attorneys only started up with Lipscomb because they needed money to survive.  Once the Troll money is in your pocket, it can be very hard for an attorney to walk away.  It will also be hard to find other work once an attorney’s name is soiled by working these cases and associating with Lipscomb.  Here is my advice to any attorney who thinks the smell and stain of association with Lipscomb and company will not last.  Think again – think real hard.  And make sure you ask Kotzker if it is worth it.  I understand many young attorneys are simply trying to make ends meet, but this is probably not the way to go.  Unless you at the top of this business model – Lipscomb/Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), you are just a little fish and paid accordingly.  I’m sure A. Jordan Rushie will beg to differ – comments are welcomed.

Flawed Business Model – The genie is out of the bag when it comes to file sharing via BT.  Copyright infringement is clearly against the law, but there is NO way anyone is going to stop it either.  Going after people who cannot afford a monthly Web site subscription is not going to prevent it.  Even if a Troll/Plaintiff does believe this, their actions are clearly ineffective as they do NOT file in most of the US jurisdictions or in other parts of the world.  The best they do is collect settlement money from some of the BT users.  This may seem acceptable to Malibu Media, but it will also drive people away from their brand and others to employ Web Proxys/VPN to continue to run BT.  Plus if they were truly interested in reducing the number of infringements, they would watermark their movies with a code tied back to the purchasing customer (name, email, IP address, credit card info, etc.).  They could also send out DMCA take-down notices to the ISP subscribers – something they do NOT do.  Not a perfect solution, but it is better than what they are currently doing.  BUT then Lipscomb/APMC will lose out.  Go Figure – follow the money.

Who knows, maybe I completely wrong and Malibu Media LLC is going to file more cases in CO.  We will see.  To all the Troll lawyers (past & present) the comment section is open and waiting.  I promise I will not edit or delete them.  You can also make them anonymously if you please or email me directly – Dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com.

DieTrollDie :)   “Look, let’s start with some tough love. You two suck at peddling meth. Period.”  {Saul Goodman, Breaking Bad}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments