Veterans Day Double Feature, 2015 (Dallas Buyers Club & Cobbler Nevada)

Dallas Buyers Club FAILS in WA

In the world of BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolls, change is often slow and only occurs after a Troll/Plaintiff is forced. One recently reported (2 Nov 15) change came from Doe Defender John Whitaker, “Dallas Buyers Club Update.”  Archive Docket

Attorney Whitaker explains that Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) has been filing cases and telling the WA court it needed to subpoena the ISPs to obtain names of the offenders so it could amend the complaints (Name them) in the law suits. We all know this is BS when you look at the BT Copyright Troll Playbook. The Troll then came back to the court and asked to be allowed to depose the ISP subscribers, which was initially granted. After the Troll’s behavior in demanding deposition compliance was seen as excessive (motions to quash were filed), the judge agreed and quashed them. The Troll soon came back to the court with less aggressive deposition demands, which the court allowed. The court also advised Plaintiff to move the cases along or face dismissal. Of course Troll/Plaintiff acted stupidly and FAILED to name anyone or move the cases forward. The depositions were only used to pressure people into paying a settlement in fear of a trial. The judge then decided to hit DBC where it courts.

Well Judge Jones is having none of it. He penned an order denying DBC any more subpoena power until DBC either demonstrates that this is legitimate litigation or starts dropping cases. Particularly interesting is Judge Jones’ reference to a Whitaker Law Group client, Jeff Pleake, who has been very vocal with his dissatisfaction over being wrongly accused of downloading movies he’s never even seen.” (John Whitaker, Attorney)


So right now the Troll/Plaintiff has to put up or shut up. That means for the cases it has obtained ISP subscriber information and/or taken depositions, it has to dismiss them or start naming Defendants and amending the complaints to show this. This is not where the Troll wants to be. I expect the Troll could name a select few (or one) defendants, as well as dismissing the remaining cases. Doing so will cost them more money and the added risk that a person(s) will fight back. Dismissing all of the cases is an option, but it sends a clear signal that this Troll/Plaintiff will NOT take a person to trial and you simply need to ignore them. Whitaker’s client appears willing to defend himself, so lets see what the Troll does. This judge doesn’t appear to like being used as a tool for Plaintiff’s money-making business model. More to come.

Is The Northern District Of IL Getting Tired Of BT Copyright Trolls???

This is really an interesting development for those of us who follow BT Copyright Trolls. The Northern District of IL has long been seen as a haven for BT Copyright Trolls. One judge in NDIL who has dealt with these cases since at least 2010 is the Honorable Ruben Castillo. Judge Castillo has seen Steele Hansmeier/Prenda Law from its start and likely sees the same slimy operation from the other Trolls filing in his jurisdiction.

In a recent order (5 Oct 15), Judge Castillo gave one particular BT Copyright Troll (Michael Hierl) a “double-tap” on one of his cases – COBBLER NEVADA, LLC v. DOES 1-20, 1:15-cv-08398 (NDIL).   Docket_08398(IL)   Complaint_08398(IL)   Complaint_EXA_IPs_08398(IL)  

The case was opened on 24 Sep 15, and Judge Castillo wasted no time in issuing the order (sua sponte). the Troll didn’t even get to file his request for early discovery of ISP subscriber information.   Judge_Castillo_CaseDismissed_08398(IL)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ruben Castillo:After careful review of this recently filed complaint, said Doe complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of any amended complaint which expressly names any appropriate defendant(s). Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby authorized to proceed and issue subpoena(s) to determine the identity of the Doe defendant(s). All discovery and third party subpoena(s) must be complied with even though the initial Doe complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Finally, plaintiff’s counsel is gently reminded that the joinder of multiple defendants in one lawsuit must be supported by concerted action of the defendants.Mailed notice(rao, )

Key Points

  1. Case 1:15-cv-08398 is DISMISSED.
  2. Troll/Plaintiff is ALLOWED to subpoena the ISP for the subscriber information.
  3. ANY filing of cases based off of the Subpoena/Discovery has to “expressly name” the Defendant.
  4. Joinder of Defendants will ONLY be allowed if the Troll can show EVIDENCE of a concerted effort between the joinded Defendants. I loved how the judge used the word “Gently” – take heed Troll. ;)

So what will Troll Hierl/DBC likely do? I fully expect them to subpoena the ISPs and then send out settlement demand letters for approximately $3800. They have already spent $400 to file the case, even one settlement will repay this amount. The settlement letters will NO doubt fail to inform the ISP subscribers that the case is DISMISSED or how the court obviously not impressed with the Troll case filings. Judge Castillo (and others) probably sees the mess these cases bring to the court and that they only seek to fleece people for thousands of dollars with the fear of financial ruin (My Opinion).

It is true that Troll/Plaintiff COULD file amended complaints with the ISP subscriber as the Defendant. This is a risky move (my opinion), as this judge has made it clear he thinks Troll/Plaintiff is abusing the court in a money-making settlement-generating operation. Simply naming the ISP subscriber as a Defendant without some form of a REAL investigation is good way to lose and possibly be sanctioned by the court. The one thing I could see the Troll do is ask the court to grant a limited deposition of the ISP subscriber (2 hour max.) so they can try to narrow down who the actual offender is. Of course running 20 depositions raises the cost of these cases and does not guarantee they can identify who the true offender is.

Example of the difficulty: ISP subscriber is deposed and tells the Troll: 1) Didn’t download/share Plaintiff movie and doesn’t know who did; 2) The WiFi Internet connection was run “Open” (No Password) or the password was freely shared out to multiple guests, neighbors, etc. EVEN if the ISP subscriber denied the infringement and said the WiFi was password protected, they have to determine if proceeding is financially workable.

The Troll can tell the ISP subscriber about all the “Other” files they recorded as being shared via BT and claim it fits the profile of the ISP subscriber and/or family member. They can also tell the ISP subscriber they will forensically examine the household computers for evidence. Good talk, but doing so raises the cost of their case (if they actually do it- doubtful IMO) and such actions do NOT guarantee a settlement.

The overwhelming history of mass-Doe BT cases in NDIL clearly show that a majority are NEVER named in an amended complaint. This business model works on running as cheap and fast as possible. There of course will be a small number of people who receive additional pressure from the Trolls, but this is done on a case-by-case basis.

For the 20 Does in this case, I suggest you first make sure that BT is not running on your network and to resecure the WiFi Internet access (New Password). Ensure the WiFi password not freely given out and that BT doesn’t start back up again. I would not respond to the Troll on a CLOSED case like this. They only have the public IP address (WiFi Firewall/Router IP address) and a list of “other” files that were being shared by the BT client over a certain time period (likely a month+). If you speak to them, you will undoubtedly given them some sort of information on you, your family, financial situation, etc. Do not make it any easier for them to extort you. Also, when the settlement letter start to go out, please email a copy to

If you eventually do get subpoenaed for a deposition or receive some other valid legal document/order, please do not simply ignore it. That is the time to consult with an attorney who has gone up against the Trolls. Failure to do so could lead to a default judgment and an award of thousands of dollars to Plaintiff/Troll. I will give the standard caveat that I’m no lawyer, this isn’t legal advice, and each case is individual/different. Saying that, I do think myself and other non-lawyers types who follow these cases have a decent handle on what is going on.

Offend1I’m hopeful this is a signal that Mass-Doe BT cases in the NDIL are coming to a close. This will force the Trolls to either only file single Doe cases (like Malibu Media/X-Art), or move to other jurisdictions that are unfamiliar with BT Copyright Trolls. The judge has just handed the Troll the rope. Hopefully he hangs himself with it.

DieTrollDie :)

“The pitfall of Bene Gesserit training, she reminded herself, lay in the powers granted: such powers predisposed one to vanity and pride. But power deluded those who used it. One tended to believe power could overcome any barrier . . . including one’s own ignorance.” {Dune Messiah, Frank Herbert}

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

Beethoven Is The Devil (AKA: Desperation of Malibu Media LLC/Troll Keith Lipscomb), 14-cv-61957 (SDFL)

I first wanted to say thank you to Sophisticated Jane Doe for the recent article on Malibu Media/X-Art/ Troll Lipscomb – Defendant’s expert witness report suggests that Malibu Media’s investigators doctored evidence. My life is still a bit chaotic, so the writing is limited. Case 14-cv-61957 (SDFL), Malibu Media LLC v. Robert Dare.  Attorney Cynthia Conlin did a great job in writing the Motion for Summary Judgment. It was clear, well-written, and show the world what a scum-bag operation he is running. Well done Mrs. Conlin. I bet Lipscomb will reply with some sort of “turd” which will only show how low he really is. Here is the Motion and Defense Expert Report.   Mot_SumJudge_Doc73_61957(FL)   Expert_Report_Doc73-7_61957(FL)

This case is “Worst Case” scenario for Troll Lipcomb and the Germans Masters. This case is the reason BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll Lipscomb will fight so hard to try to get a walk-away deal from a Defendant.  Even if this does go to a civil trial (I doubt it), Troll/Plaintiff is in NO way at a preponderance of evidence level (more than a 50% likelihood that Defendant was the infringer). Yes, it is only my non-lawyer opinion, BUT I really don’t think it will take a professional jurist to come to that conclusion. Why??? Let’s look at the evidence.

  1. Public IP Address Shared A Small Portion of Plaintiff’s Movie: Troll/Plaintiff logs showing a very small portion (67 KB) of ONE of Plaintiff’s movies uploaded to Plaintiff’s monitoring company by a public IP assigned to the defendant by the ISP (Defendant is the bill payer). Note: the other 16 movies Troll/Plaintiff claimed CANNOT be associated back to the Defendant because Troll Lipscomb and crew screwed up and only asked for one date/time group associated to ONE movie.
  2. IP Address Is Associated To Defendant’s WiFi Firewall/Router: The public IP address recorded by Troll/Plaintiff only comes back to Defendant’s WiFi Firewall/Router and NOT the specific computers connected to the WiFi.
  3. Open WiFi: The Defendant’s WiFi Firewall/Router had “Guest” access portal that was run OPEN – No password required. This was left open during the alleged period of infringement.
  4. Multiple WiFi Signal In The Area Of Defendant’s Residence: The Defendant’s residence shared common walls with two other residents, as well as had multiple WiFi signals in the area (at least 12 distinct signals). These “other” systems were NOT owned/controlled by Defendant, but could access his OPEN WiFi network.
  5. Denies The Infringement: Defendant and his wife were deposed by Troll/Plaintiff and DENIED being the infringers of Plaintiff’s works.
  6. No Evidence From Neighbors: Troll/Plaintiff only interviewed ONE neighbor (not even the next door neighbors) and failed to obtain any evidence. Note: Troll/Plaintiff likely didn’t interview the next door neighbors for FEAR if they could not obtain conflicting statements/new evidence supporting Plaintiff’s claim, the statements would have hurt their case. i.e. Neighbor: Yes, I did see that Defendant had an OPEN WiFi network during the period of alleged infringement.
  7. No Forensic Evidence: Examination of Defendant computer failed to disclose any evidence of BitTorrent (BT) activity OR that evidence on the computer was destroyed or removed. The best Troll/Plaintiff can do is say the BT client was used on a Macintosh and Defendant’s computer is a Macintosh. Macs are not as common as PCs, but they are FAR from a rarity and not indicative of who the infringer was.

This speculation is almost like if a Plaintiff found an empty discarded Monster Energy drink can at the scene of a car accident and, without analyzing tire tracks or other forensics, concluded that a random individual who likes Monster Energy must have caused the accident. Such is the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. Moreover, Plaintiff speaks of BitTorrent as if it were rare; however, BitTorrent “is one of the most popular ways internet subscribers transfer data from one device (a peer) to another (peer).”   (Motion For Summary Judgement, page 8)

  1. Defendant’s Computer Expert Found Troll/Plaintiff’s Monitoring Evidence Lacking At Best: The PCAP data Troll/Plaintiff claims indicates the defendant’s IP address was responsible for the infringement appears to be “filtered” and may indicate certain aspects of the BT monitoring is being hidden by Troll/Plaintiff. The integrity of the PCAP files is in question. Troll/Plaintiff’s Forensic examiner reports (Patrick Paige) were also found to be “incomplete” – differences in Paige’s report and the associated PCAP files. The log files provided by Michael Patzer were also found to be incomplete and misleading. The log makes it appear that Plaintiff’s entire movie was downloaded, when in fact each PCAP file only cover 67 KB of the movie (Very Small Portion).
  2. Old Computer Not Examined: Troll/Plaintiff asked for computers used during the period of alleged infringement. This old computer was only used prior to Plaintiff’s claimed period of infringement. Note: this is where the Troll is likely to complain that Defendant hid his infringement activity. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of it was DENIED – AKA: NO EVIDENCE.
  3. The “Other” Evidence (Non-Plaintiff Movies) Does NOT Tie Back To Defendant: These are the “Other” files that were being shared by the BT client using the public IP address assigned to Defendant. For most people who use BT, the “Other” files is simply the list of movies, music, eBooks, applications, etc., which have been downloaded to the BT client and are available to be shared out. The Trolls collect this information on these files from the BT client and use it to profile who the infringer likely is. It can give some indications of what interests the BT user, but it is far from a smoking gun as far as “evidence.” After looking at Defendant’s (and wife’s) social media profile, private records checks, and deposition responses, the best Troll/Plaintiff was able to do is point to a single YouTube video. In the “Other” evidence, there is a copy of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. Plaintiff claims that because Defendant (unverified YouTube account) “liked” a video of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata on YouTube, that the copy of Beethoven’s 5th means Defendant is the infringer. I just looked at one YouTube video for Moonlight Sonota and it had over 200K likes.

LudvigNow I know that some attorneys out there will say they are only doing what the client wants. Well, what this Troll/Plaintiff wants is to send a clear message to ANY Does and Defense attorneys that it is cheaper to pay a settlement than actually fight, EVEN if innocent. The reason Troll Lipscomb and crew are fighting this is NOT because they truly feel this Defendant is lying, it is because if he obtains a summary judgment and is awarded reasonable attorney costs/fees, it could open the door for other Defendants to do the same.

Troll Lipscomb and the other Trolls out there know it does not take a “rocket scientist” to make it hard for them to win a case. Lipscomb even stated in the June 2013 PA Bellwether Trial that at first he thought proving these cases would be hard because a Doe would simply get rid of the offending computer and he would have no evidence.The following is the closing statement of Keith Lipscomb in that joke of a show-trial.

It is actually requires a bit more effort but, this is just one aspect of “This” case. When you look at ALL the evidence (or lack of), it is clear that a “preponderance of evidence” does not support Troll/Plaintiff. The best Troll/Plaintiff can do is try to limit the award of costs/fees, by claiming the Defense misconduct by unnecessarily running up costs. If Lipscomb is not testing the waters to see if the Defendant will accept a settlement from Plaintiff to make this go-away, I would be surprised. I hope this Defendant does stay the course and the court is able to rule on the motion. Even if denied, a trial is not an option Lipscomb wants. Such a loss could destroy what little help the PA Bellwether trial provides them.

I will leave you with the “Conclusion” from Attorney Cynthia Conlin – it sums it up beautifully.

First, Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendant was the subscriber of IP address for all the dates and times that Plaintiff alleged its videos were downloaded. It only obtained evidence that Defendant subscribed to IP address on the precise date and time of 06/08/2014 at 00:13:41 UTC, which was the alleged hit date for only one of Plaintiff’s videos. Secondly, Plaintiff failed to obtain any evidence that Defendant downloaded its videos. It has no admission from Defendant, no eyewitness, and no forensic or computer evidence linking Defendant to the downloads. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s own evidence does not connect Defendant specifically to the downloads; rather, it only links IP address, not any particular computer or individual, to the alleged downloads. Because Defendant was running an open guest network that neighbors could access by without a password during the alleged download period, evidence linking Defendant, and not just an IP address, is essential. Plaintiff’s much touted “additional evidence” is not evidence of the downloading of Plaintiff’s videos because it is a list of entirely different files allegedly downloaded at different times, and there is nothing linking such evidence to Defendant. Lastly, at best, Plaintiff’s evidence indicates the copying of not an entire movie but rather a single, unusable fragment. As the evidence produced by Plaintiff and recovered by Plaintiff during discovery is not sufficient to support a claim of copyright infringement, summary judgment should be had in favor of Defendant.

DieTrollDie :)

I woke up. The pain and sickness all over me like an animal. Then I realized what it was. The music coming up from the floor was our old friend, Ludwig Van, and the dreaded Ninth Symphony.” {Alex, A Clockwork Orange}ViddyWellLipscomb

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

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