Stupidity In OR – Copyright Troll Voltage Pictures Claims Negligence & Trademark Infringement – 3:14-cv-01191 (OR)

While monitoring the new Copyright Troll cases, I’m sometimes surprised by what greed motivates Trolls to do.  Then again… Not really.  I recently noticed what appeared to be two single Doe “Voltage Pictures LLC” cases filed in Oregon on 25 Jul 14 (3:14-cv-01191 & 6:14-cv-01193), by Troll Carl D. Crowell, Crowell Law.  Troll Crowell is well-known as a local Troll counsel for Voltage Pictures (Previous Article).

Complaint_01191(OR)   Complaint_Ex1_01191(OR)   Docket_28Jul14_01191(OR)

Looking a bit closer also disclosed a second Plaintiff for this case – TCYK LLC (The Company You Keep – movie).  Seems odd, as they are the same Trolling organization. Note: I only looked at 3:14-cv-01191, but I expect they are basically the same.  The reason there are two Plaintiffs becomes clear when you look at the complaint.  Here are the claims in this case.

  • COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
  • ALTERNATE THEORY – INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
  • ORS 647.105 – STATE TRADEMARK

So the Troll is AGAIN trying to use the Indirect Infringement (AKA: “Negligence” claim) AND Trademark claims.  The only thing that is different from the previous failed attempts to do so is that the claim is only against a single Doe (IP address 76.105.157.206).

Here is one previous case where Troll Crowell and Voltage Pictures tried to file a Oregon State Court Trademark Infringement law suit against 50 Does.   StateCourtFiling_00816(OR)   Docket_29Jul14_00816(OR)   Doc8_00816(OR)    The case was removed back to the Federal Courts, as it was CLEARLY a BitTorrent Copyright Infringement case, and thus it can only by handle by a Federal court.  This case turned out to be a bust, as the Federal court also decided to sever all the Does except for Doe #1. FAILURE   The Trademark in this case is for “Voltage Pictures,” which they claimed was infringed upon when the Defendants shared the movie via BitTorrent.  Still by reading this complaint, the only issue is alleged BT copyright infringement, not trademark infringement.

Unicorn1The Indirect Infringement (Negligence) claim is just as stupid in my opinion.  We call this tired old failed claim the “Unicorn Tugboat Theory” in honor of Attorney Mark Randazza.  There have been multiple cases across the US in which the courts have not accepted the view that an ISP subscriber is responsible for the activities that occur on his network, regardless of whether he/she knew of the activity.  Most recently this claim was killed by the WAED court when Elf-Man LLC, tried to use it in case 2:13-cv-00115Order_Doc106_00115(WA)

Now what is interesting in this case is that the Troll requested a hearing to authorize early discovery, but does not provided any additional supporting documents to justify early discovery (ISP subscriber information).   Discovery_Motion_01191(OR)   So what is missing???   I don’t see any mention of the BT technical monitoring personnel/organization. It looks like the Troll is trying to distant themselves from the German BT monitoring firms of IPP/Guardaley/Excipio, Crystal Bay Corporation, Daniel Macek, Darren Griffin, etc.

I also found it interesting that the Troll actually added eight pages of exhibits to show the Non-Voltage Pictures/Non-TCYK files that were being shared by this public IP address via BitTorrent (9 May 14 – 25 Jul 14).   Complaint_Ex1_01191(OR)   I didn’t see any porn titles in the list; only TV series, Movies, Software, eBooks, and audio files.  I assume the Troll will use this list as proof that the Doe is a serial infringer of the “greatest magnitude.”  These titles would also be of value to any forensic examination (doubtful it will occur), as finding these would give weight to the allegation that the ISP subscriber’s system was used to download/share Plaintiff’s movie.

I not sure if this is a Troll testing the courts with the Trademark Infringement and Negligence claims OR they are simply trying to force a settlement from a Doe with an extensive BT downloading/sharing record.  I do assume that because of various setbacks, the Trolls are having to fine tune their efforts to keep the settlement generation business afloat.   Malibu Media went this route; maybe Voltage Pictures will do the same.

DieTrollDie :)     “You see, this profession is filled to the brim with unrealistic motherfuckers.  Motherfuckers who thought their ass would age like wine.” -Marsellus Wallace {Pulp Fiction}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defendant Butler Answers Malibu Media LLC, 1:13-cv-02707 (CO)

Time for an update on a Colorado Malibu Media LLC case with the potential to become interesting.  The case is Malibu Media LLC v. John Butler, 1:13-cv-02707.  Previous article on this case.

Since may last article, we had the following activity.

They are all worth a read, but I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to Defendant Butler’s Answer.  I have even added this document to my “Defendant Answers” page, as it is straight forward and clear in the denial, as well as using some new “Affirmative Defenses.”

AFDef1

Right now we have another CO cases that is testing out the “Failure to State a Claim” issue – Motion To Dismiss Copyright Troll Malibu Media Case – AKA: “Necessary Volition” – 1:14-cv-00262 (CO)

I like the “Assumption of Risk” defense, but I doubt Judge Hegarty will buy it.

The “Estoppel” and “Copyright Misuse” defenses are good, but I think they will need additional support to be effective.  Such information may become available as the judge in the Elf-Man LLV v. Lambersen case (2:13-cv-00395, WA) addresses the sanctions issue -the German BitTorrent monitoring firm/investigators (IPP/Guardaley/Excipio) and the Anti Piracy Monitoring Company, LLC (APMC).  As well as what eventually comes out of the MD Malibu Media cases that attorney Morgan Pietz is working.

The “Intervening Cause” defense is another good, especially if the WiFi Internet connection was run “Open,” or there were network guests who did this without the knowledge or consent of Defendant Butler.

So now the ball is in Troll Lipscomb/Kotzker’s court.  The best they can hope for is that a background investigation and deposition comes back with some information they can use to force a settlement.  Following this, computer forensics would be needed.  It would be really nice if the CO courts would take a similar forensics analysis stance as in Malibu Media v Gerald Shekoski (MIED 13-cv-12217).  If nothing is found, Troll/Plaintiff is not sitting pretty.  Attorney Richard Hanes could then motion the court for a summary judgement or get Troll/Plaintiff to agree to dismiss Mr. Butler WITH prejudice.  More to come on this case.

DieTrollDie :)    “You know how you get to Carnegie Hall, don’t ya? Practice.  {Lt. Aldo Raine – Inglourious Bastards}

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

Motion For Fees/Costs & Sanctions X2 For Elf-Man LLC – Lamberson Case # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA)

I assumed the motion for attorney fees and costs would soon be filed in the Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson case, 2:13-cv-00395.  What I did not expect (and was nicely surprised) was for there to be TWO additional motions filed by attorney Lynch.

Motion For Attorney Fees   Doc_75_FeesCosts_00395(WA)    Doc_76_Decl_Lynch_FeesCosts_00395(WA)    Doc_77_BillCosts_Statement_00395(WA)

Motion For Sanctions Pursuant To 28 USC § 1927   Doc_78_Mot_Sanctions_28USC1927_00395(WA)   Doc_79_Decl_Lynch_Sanctions28USC1927_00395(WA)

Motion For Sanctions via Rule 11   Doc_80_Mot_FRCP11_Sanctions_00395(WA)   Doc_81_Decl_Lynch_FRCP11_00395(WA)

The various exhibits are attached, so the documents are a bit long – but so fun to read. :)

Here is the bottom line for these motions.

Motion For Attorney Fees/Costs$191,230 attorney fees + $1,405.19 for costs = $192,635.19.  The attorney fees will also likely go up when attorney Lynch files a reply to any Troll/Plaintiff response to these motions.  Attorney Lynch asked the court to require Plaintiff immediately pay the judgment or be required to post a bond.   In addition, they also requested the court hold BOTH APMC LLC and Plaintiff responsible for paying any judgment.

Finally, Mr. Lamberson requests that any award herein become a judgment against plaintiff and its “representatives,” including APMC, LLC, the financier of the case and real party in interest. AMPC stood to collect first had Elf-Man LLC prevailed, so APMC should stand to pay first when Elf-Man LLC loses.

Motion For Sanctions Pursuant To 28 USC § 1927 – Attorney Lynch states that under 28 USC § 1927 and the courts inherent authority, APMC LLC, Vision Films Inc., Elf-Man LLC, and Plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned for their recklessness and “bad faith” in litigating this case.

Here, the conduct of plaintiff and its counsel is subject to sanctions under both tests. Plaintiff was reckless in its undertakings, multiplying the proceedings. There is repeated evidence of bad faith, including concealing a real party in interest. Plaintiff’s decisions were uniformly inconsistent with the genuine interests of Elf-Man, LLC, a schism that led to withdrawal of counsel. This is improper purpose, and improper purpose is bad faith under the authority. APMC, LLC, Vision Films, Inc., and plaintiff’s counsel should be with Elf-Man, LLC before the Court. Here are ten representative examples of multiplication of the proceedings:

The Ten examples are – Multiplication #1: The First Amended Complaint; Multiplication #2: Where are the valid summonses?; Multiplication #3: Where is the Copyright Certificate?; Multiplication #4: Who “Observed Infringing”?; Multiplication #5: Where are the Initial Disclosures?; Multiplication #6: Where is the Discovery?; Multiplication #7: Where is the Technical Report?; Multiplication #8: Where is the Investigator Explanation?; Multiplication #9: Where are the Investigators?; and Multiplication #10: Who is APMC?

Attorney Lynch also quotes Judge Otis Wright (Ingenuity 13 (Prenda Law) v. John Doe, 2:12-cv-08333), in his assessment of the flawed mass-defendant BitTorrent law suit that Elf-Man LLC is akin to – Elf-Man is the same, only the stigma is banality, not pornography.“

Motion For Sanctions via Rule 11 – Attorney Lynch request FRCP 11 sanctions be imposed for Troll/Plaintiff’s failure to withdraw the First Amended Complaint.

Rule 11(b) requires (i) certification of a reasonable inquiry, plus that (ii) the pleading is not for improper purpose, (iii) the claims are warranted by law, and (iv) the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Ms. VanderMay’s signature on the First Amended Complaint and failure to withdraw it violate Rule 11(b). Bad faith is not required. Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 209 F.R.D. 169, 174 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Ninth Circuit cases).

The Conclusion sums it up perfectly.

Ms. VanderMay’s federal lawsuits against over 60 people in this District within one week of her admission were signed without basis or adequate investigation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Objective counsel would have sought the jurisdictional copyright certificate and submitted it. Objective counsel would have supported a motion for Expedited Discovery with foundational witness testimony. Objective counsel would have researched copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement and other secondary copyright infringement liability to confirm that none of those avenues of liability applied to the facts at hand. Objective counsel would listen and adjust when Judge Lasnik expressed concern sua sponte that plaintiff’s counsel cannot meet her Rule 11 obligations. Objective counsel would have understood emphatic pleas of innocence as a sign that there may be a problem with the case, not that there was not a problem. Objective counsel would take advantage of an accused defendant’s offer to demonstrate his innocence, especially when paired with an express allegation of a violation of Rule 11.

What Now???

TORP_Town1Now attorney Lowe has 14 days to respond to these motions – 4 Aug 14.  At that time attorney Lynch will have 7 days (11 Aug 14) to reply to any response Troll/Plaintiff makes. Following that, the court will rule in 30 days or less (approx. 11 Sep 14). There is also a chance for oral arguments, but that will only happen if the court orders it.

I can only see Troll/Plaintiff making the tired claim that attorney Lynch’s fees/costs are excessive and that he multiplied the proceeding to raise them to up.  I don’t expect the court will give this much weight, but the worst that will happen is the court may reduce some of the fees/costs, but probably not very much.

The issue of sanctions IAW FRCP 11, 28 USC § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority are what is going to be interesting.  This court has access to the document under the protective order, as well as a good understanding of how Troll/Plaintiff has played this game and abused the legal system for profit (My Opinion).  I don’t expect a Judge Wright Photon Torpedo, but I am hopeful.  ;)  Please take a read of all the documents/exhibits and give me your thoughts.

DieTrollDie :)   The hard part about playing chicken is knowin’ when to flinch.”  - {Capt. Bart Mancuso – The Hunt for Red October}

Previous Elf-Man Article.

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

Motion To Dismiss Copyright Troll Malibu Media Case – AKA: “Necessary Volition” – 1:14-cv-00262 (CO)

Many of you know how I feel about the Colorado courts (namely Judge Hegarty & Judge Daniel) and their “rubber-stamping” of BitTorrent Copyright Troll cases (Multi-Doe & Single Doe cases) in the State. {On a side-note, please see the following Shared Folder in which Judge Hegarty approved early discovery the SAME DAY the case was filed!}  The IL Northern District has a higher volume of Copyright Troll cases, but the singular assignment of CO cases to these two judges is extremely troubling.

guilt1In Malibu Media LLC v, Richard Sadowski (IP address 75.71.118.123), case 1:14-cv-00262 (CO), Doe Defender John Arsenault, Wessels & Arsenault LLC, recently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of relief.   MTD_FSC_Doc26_00262(CO)   Now this may not seem too shocking, as this Defense strategy has been tried before with no real success.  Please take a read of this straightforward motion and see if the logic makes sense to you.  I assume attorney Maurice Ross will chime in and claim that Plaintiff has “adequately” stated a claim and this is simply a content owner exercising her rights.  Other case documents – FAC_Doc12_00262(CO)   FAC_EXA_Doc12-1_00262(CO)   Docket_18Jul14_00262(CO)   Decl_P_Paige_00262(CO)   Decl_P_Fieser_00262(CO)

Plaintiff Failed to Plead a Necessary Volitional Act in its Amended Complaint

Attorney Arsenault makes these points to highlight why Plaintiff has failed to plead the volitional acts required.

  • Troll/Plaintiff makes a claim direct copyright infringement against Defendant Sadowski for 21 Malibu Media/X-Art movies.
  • Troll/Plaintiff fails to adequately tie the alleged infringement directly back to Defendant Sadowski.
  • The only thing Troll/Plaintiff has to tie the alleged infringement back to defendant Sadowski is the public IP address.
  • The only reason Defendant Sadowski is tied to the public IP address is because he pays for the Internet subscription from the ISP.
  • Troll/Plaintiff has only made unsupported conjecture which does not support a claim to the level required by Federal Rules.

Attorney Arsenault makes the extremely clear and understandable comparison between this allegation via a public IP address and an allegation from a telephone number.

Associating the Defendant with the claim at this point is similar to suing the subscriber of a telephone line where an allegedly illegal phone call took place without having evidence of who is responsible for the unlawful act. At best, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the internet protocol (“IP”) address used at Defendant’s home is allegedly used for the infringing activity claimed herein. In the FAC, Plaintiff does not properly associate Defendant’s activities to the activity reported from the IP address claimed by Plaintiff’s investigator, instead making unsupported conjecture. {My Emphasis}

Attorney Arsenault goes on to supports his motion with some rather well know case-law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, but it does require more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id., quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554. “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id., quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. Accordingly, Rule 8 “does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1951. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id., citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Now I’m NOT overly confident the motion will be approved, as Judge Hegarty’s history on the matter is clear.  I’m no attorney or judge, but as there is some solid case-law supporting this motion, Judge Hegarty may have to take some time to adequately review all aspects of this case.  If this motion is successful, it will kill the Malibu Media cases (as currently written) until if/when they decide to file with some real evidence tied back to a Defendant.  For the Non-Malibu Media (Voltage Pictures) Mass Doe cases in CO, it would be devastating, as they conduct even less of a so-called “investigation” into the Defendants.
If the motion is denied, I hope an appeal is possible.  Any attorney please chime in on this.

I personally believe that for the majority of these BitTorrent Copyright Troll cases, there is NO investigation beyond obtaining the ISP subscriber data.  I assume that for a minimal number of cases, Troll Lipscomb/German Controlling Firm do make some investigative steps (LexusNexus background checks & social media checks) on the ISP subscriber.  Still this is NO “Investigation;” only simple data collection efforts, template based case filings, and high-pressure settlement generation efforts.  Combine these aspects with a court that is willing to rubber-stamp the proceedings and we have a mess.  For some people (Mr. Ross) this is OK, as our system of Democracy is so flawed – we should be willing to accept the fact that some Copyright Trolls are going to abuse people.  I guess he would call this the “Cost Of Doing Business.”  Well it isn’t a cost I will easily accept.

DieTrollDie :)

“DAMN THE TORPEDOS, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!”  –  {John Steele comment (My belief) made on 20 Feb 12} – failed attempt to portray himself as Admiral David Glasgow Farragut (1801-1870)

Bike_Fine1

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Settlement Demand Letters Sent Out On CLOSED Dallas Buyers Club Case – 1:14-cv-02168 (ILND)

Well at least we can count on the greed of the Trolls to direct their actions.  As I previously wrote, an ILND Dallas Buyers Club LLC case against 46 Does, #1:14-cv-02168, was closed by the court on 2 Apr 14.  The unusual aspect of the dismissal was that Judge Castillo explicitly allowed the Troll to still obtain the ISP subscriber information.  See my previous article – Judge Castillo’s Pure Bill Of Discovery 

love_punchCopyright Troll Michael Hierl has started to send out settlement demand letters for this CLOSED case.  Now he of course fails to tell the ISP subscriber that the case is closed – implies that they are part of an active case.  DBC_SettlementLTR_02168(IL)

I have to say that at least with this settlement demand letter, he didn’t screw up with the amount they are seeking.  Here is another Dallas Buyers Club case (Archive Docket 1:14-cv-02163) settlement demand letter in the same district – The Troll cannot determine if they want $3,500 or $3,800 from the ISP subscriber.  I do find it interesting that for DBC cases in the ILND, that the amount is different.  This indicates to me that the Troll/Plaintiff is doing some sort of analysis to find an amount that an ISP subscriber is willing to pay.  I assume this is simply based on the area in which the ISP subscriber resides.   DBC Settlement Letter_02163(IL)

money_02163(IL)

As this case was dismissed without prejudice, Troll/Plaintiff could refile cases against single defendants.  As they have done nothing in the realm of an actual investigation, this action is reckless in my opinion.  Not to mention that it will cost the Troll $400 to file a case.  In the Minute Order, it clearly states what a refile of the complaint must encompass.

In the meantime, the current Doe complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate amended complaint which names individual defendants that can be properly joined together in one lawsuit.  {my emphasis}

As the Troll doesn’t have the records to properly join the defendants, the cases will have to be single Defendants.  Also, the judge stated they need to be named and not just an IP address.  Now the Troll/Plaintiff could actually do this, but they then run the risk of someone fighting back and exposing more of the German BitTorrent apparatus (IPP/Guardaley/Excipio).

Now since there is no longer an open case, there is no longer a time constraint on the Troll.  With the exception of the 3-year Statute of Limitation on Copyright Infringement, he can string this out for a while.  The biggest thing he has to worry about is over time, any evidence on a Defendant’s computer could be damaged or destroyed in the normal operation of it.  But as it will never get that far, that fact is purely academic in nature.

So What To Do?

If this applies to your situation, I suggest the following *** For those of you who are not clear on this point (Mr. Ross), this means don’t lie or make a false statement. ***  Also, I’m NOT “engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.”  Don’t be stupid.  For all of these Non-Malibu Media Copyright Troll cases, I’m of the opinion that responding to the settlement demand letter with a simple denial is best.  Nothing fancy or elaborate, just a letter that states the following:

  • I didn’t download/share the movie in question.
  • I didn’t authorize anyone to use my network to download/share the movie in question.
  • I don’t know who could have downloaded/shared the movie in question.
  • I will not pay a settlement to make the threat of a law suit go away.

This informs the Troll that you are not afraid to respond to him and probably not the best target for a default judgement (failing to answer a summons/complaint).  Then sign & date the letter and make a copy for your records.  Mail it to the Troll via certified mail, return receipt requested.  That way you will have proof his office received it.

Based on all the trouble the Trolls are having with their association to the German BitTorrent monitoring firms, I really doubt there will be very many Does who are named and served with a complaint.  This of course will be on a case-by-case basis, as the Troll will assess the likelihood that serving a Defendant will bring them to the settlement table.  Note: If this does happen to a Defendant, I do have a couple of answer templates that you can use.   Defendant Answers

DieTrollDie :)  “The Defendants have liable Plaintiff under the disguise of such childish and unsophisticated pseudonyms as ‘die troll die.’”  – a statement like that could cost you $11K!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Elf-Man LLC Dismisses Lamberson With Prejudice – # 2:13-cv-00395 (WA)

Well it was certainly something I didn’t want to see, but the judge in this case decided to allow Troll/Plaintiff to dismiss Defendant Lamberson WITH prejudice.   Doc_73_Dismissed_00395(WA)   The judge also decided to dismiss the counterclaims of Defendant Lamberson (without prejudice).  Previous articles on Elf-Man in WA – 1  &  2.

The court stated they were doing this because:

  1. Defendant Lamberson agreed to the dismissal (conditionally – only if Plaintiff pays his attorney fees/costs)
  2. Plaintiff dismissal request was “with prejudice,” preventing them from going after him later.

Note: the court DID NOT award Defendant Lamberson the requested $100,000 in attorney costs and fees as part of the dismissal.  When you read the order, you will see that the court was trying to avoid a possible appeal issue dealing with such an award condition.  I did find it very interesting to see what “words” the court used when it talked about this matter –“… imposition of sanctions against an attorney.”

The Court declines to grant Lamberson’s request that the Court impose payment of costs and attorney fees as a condition of dismissal—rather than allowing dismissal followed by a request for attorney fees. See Heckethorn v. Sunan Corp., 992 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that district court’s condition that plaintiff’s former counsel pay attorney fees to the defendant had no basis because Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is itself not a specific statutory authority for imposition of sanctions against an attorney). Rather, the Court will entertain Lamberson’s timely motion for attorney fees and costs if there are independent grounds for asserting the same.  

As the court said it would “entertain” a timely filed motion for attorney costs and fees, I expect one will be filed soon.  As the dismissal of Lanbersen is “With Prejudice,” he is now considered the prevailing side and is entitled to reasonable costs and fees.  As of 3 Jul 14, Defendant Lamberson’s attorney costs were up to $111,725 (see para #37, page 14, Doc # 68  Doc_68DeclLynch).  Note: Defendant Lamberson was given a reduced rate by Attorney Lynch.  If the fees had been charged at a normal rate, I expect the total would be closer to $200,000.  Elf-Man LLC may turn out to be a loss for the Plaintiff/German Firm.

Now if the Troll/Plaintiff is smart, they will accept whatever award the court allows and try to slink away as quietly as possible.  As I don’t think they are too bright, they are likely to claim any award is excessive because Attorney Lynch ran up the costs/fees when there was no need.  I don’t think the judge will buy this and it will just mean additional fees to be added to the total.  Sure guys, follow the example of Prenda Law.  That worked out so well.

What this dismissal (and pending award) will do is make filing any new Copyright Troll BitTorrent case in WA using the German BitTorrent monitoring firms (IPP/Guardaley/Excipio) to be a really stupid move.  I think the Trolls already figured this out, as the Lamberson case was the last one to be filed in the jurisdiction (filed on 21 Nov 13).

The information disclosed in the Lamberson case will have a far-reaching effect.  With the exception of Malibu Media LLC and Dallas Buyers Club LLC, we have not seen any new Plaintiffs. Malibu Media is fighting hard in MD and I expect attorney Morgan Pietz is taking the information disclosed from the Elf-Man cases and making good use of it.  We have a hearing on 30 Jul 14, that should be interesting to say the least.

I also wonder if/when we will see any filings with new names (firms & personnel) for the German BitTorrent technical monitoring apparatus. Maybe we can think up a new name for their shell…   For the Elf-Man cases we had the shell company of Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) and the mysterious Darren Griffin.  How about Mike Hunt?  Anybody seen Mike Hunt? – OK bad joke.  ;)

DieTrollDie :)    “Well that’s great, that’s just fuckin’ great, man. Now what the fuck are we supposed to do? We’re in some real pretty shit now man…” – Aliens – Hudson

redrum_Elf

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

Elf-Man LLC v. 7 Defendants – Motion For Default Judgments, 2:13-cv-00115 (WAED)

Happy 4th of July!!! 

Vintage_FW1LATE ADDITION -

Here are 5 document recently filed in the Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson case, 2:13-cv-00395(WA).  I will likely make them a separate post, but until then, please enjoy them with your burgers, cold beer, apple pie, or what ever makes you happy.  Note: reading these while eating/drinking may not be advisable.  ;)    These documents are going to make a big bang!  Troll/Plaintiff/Germans are really not going to like these.  Especially the fees/costs amount Attorney Lynch is asking for – $100,000!

Shared Folder containing Lamberson Documents

On this grand anniversary, I salute all the Troll fighters out there and want to thank everyone for their support – every little bit matters.

Now while keeping up with the Elf-Man v. Lamberson case (2:13-cv-00395(WA)), I came across a Motion for a Default Judgment for the Elf-Man case that Lamberson spun-off from – 2:13-cv-00115.   Doc_112_Motion_Default_00115(WA)   Doc_112-1_Decl_Lowe_Default_00115(WA)   The case shows it was terminated as of 1 Jul 14, but we have yet to see the final court order awarding the damages against the seven defaulting Defendants.

This in my view is Troll/Plaintiff trying to close out this rather embarrassing affair and possibly come away with a little extra cash.  As Lamberson (via Attorney Chris Lynch) has this Plaintiff trying to run and hide, they would like nothing better than to close out the remaining cases before it get real ugly for them.

As to the Motion for Default Judgment, I’m saddened that these seven people are sticking their head in the sand and risking the judgment of the court after only hearing the slimy words of the Troll.  Once a BitTorrent Copyright Troll case gets this far (being served with a summons/complaint), it is time to consult with an attorney knowledgeable and experienced in these cases.  Yes it may cost you some money, but it is likely to be LESS than what a court may award the Troll/Plaintiff in damages.  This is especially true if you (or a family member) didn’t do this.  For further examples of what not to do, please see the Fightcopyrighttrolls.com article concerning Malibu Media/X-Art default judgments in PA.

Bottom Line

The Troll/Plaintiff is asking the court to award them $30,000 plus costs/fees PER Defaulting Defendant!

Now I don’t know what the court will actually award, but the MINIMUM the court can award is $750 plus reasonable costs/fees. As the Defendants did not bother to respond to the summons, the court will only hear what the Troll has to say.

What The Troll Claims

  • Copyright Infringement Has Been Proven – Hard for a judge to think otherwise or even see that you are NOT some type of serial infringer damaging the lives and income of some poor Plaintiff.
  • The Copyright Infringement Was Willful – Willful infringement will allow the Troll/Plaintiff to ask for the maximum statutory damage award – $150,000.

The troll even goes so far as to tell the court that since these Defendants refused to participate, Plaintiff was not able to “explore the full scope of their infringing activity which may have included the distribution of countless copies of Plaintiff’s work.” The Troll also claimed that since the defendants did not to file an answer, they amounted to actions to evade service and escape the court and thus were still a threat to continue the infringement.

The Problem For The Troll

This case was filed on 22 Mar 13, alleging that 29 Does “collectively acted” via BitTorrent and the copyright infringement arose “out of the same occurrences or transactions, or series of occurrences or transactions and that there are questions of law and fact common to each of the Defendants.” These statements were made by the Troll to justify the joinder of the Does under one case. Troll Plaintiff further reaffirmed this when they filed their First Amended Complaint.   FAC_Elf-Man_00115(WA)

Now with this Motion for Default, the Troll is asking for ONLY $30,000 plus costs/fees. They even go so far as to tell the court that they could be seeking $150,000 per Defendant, but they are trying to be reasonable. What a load of $#@^!

30K_00115(WA)

Their problem with this motion is that according to 17 U.S. Code § 504 – Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits, statutory damages (What Troll/Plaintiff is asking for) for two or more “jointly and severally” liable infringers is limited to a maximum of $150,000 (See (c) Statutory Damages).  The motion as written asks the court to award a total of $210,000 (7 Defendants X $30K), plus approximately $23,555 in costs/fees (7 X $3,655).  Actual requested Total is $233,970.29.

Another Troll Insult

This is one I find particularly low, even for slimy Troll/Plaintiff.  Did you notice that two of the Defendants have the same last name (Barnett) and reside at the same residence???  I don’t know if this is a Husband and Wife, but I do know that the alleged date/time of infringement and the public IP address are the same.   Barnett_00115(WA) Most likely both of the Barnett’s names were on the ISP account.  So is the Troll saying that because there are two names associated with the same IP address, they can seek double damages??? OR are the idiots claiming that it was downloaded/shared via two different BT clients on the same IP address from BOTH Barnetts??? This is just wrong.

Settlements So Far

Now I haven’t had a chance to try to guess the number of settlements the Troll was able to get, but I would estimate those settlements were at least a couple thousand dollars per Doe.  The exact amount Troll/Plaintiff received could be a relevant factor in adjusting the award of damages the court will eventually order.  For example, if the Troll was able to collect $25,000 from Does who initially settled, this could be factored into (reducing) the statutory damage award.  Example: Statutory damage award of $30,000 – $25,000 (Settlements) = $5,000 plus fees/costs.  So for the defaulting Defendants, I will suggest that if Troll/Plaintiff actually comes after you for collection, you need to hire an attorney and explore this avenue.

In my opinion, this scum-bag Troll dealing is exactly why the former Troll Attorney Maureen C. VanderMay had to remove herself from this case.  Go figure.

Issues have arisen with Plaintiff’s representatives that preclude me from both continuing with representation of Plaintiff and complying with the governing rules of professional conduct. {Troll VanderMay, ECF#109-1, 2:13-cv-00395(WA)}

DieTrollDie  :)

A_FY1

 

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

Judge Castillo’s Pure Bill Of Discovery (ILND) – 1:14-cv-02168, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-46

The world of BitTorrent Copyright Troll law suits never seem to surprise me.  A Doe recently asked me if a Dallas Buyers Club case had been dismissed/closed.  I said I doubted it, as they were currently getting early discovery back from the ISPs and milking the settlements out of people.  He then provided me a link to the following document in the archive docket of case #1:14-cv-02168, ILND, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-46.   Doc_7_Notice_02168(IL)

The document is small and looks like it was done almost as a second thought.  Upon closer inspections, it in clear that this document has the court doing two almost opposite things.  If this had been done a day earlier, I would have assumed it was an April Fool’s joke.

  • Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint – Pending an Amended Complaint – named Defendants need to be properly joined (Joinder Issue).
  • Allows Early Discovery To Continue – The Troll will get the ISP subscriber information for the Does.

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, April 2, 2014:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ruben Castillo: After a careful review of this recently filed case, Plaintiff is authorized to proceed with expedited discovery and issue subpoena(s) to determine the identity of the appropriate individual defendants. In the meantime, the current Doe complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate amended complaint which names individual defendants that can be properly joined together in one lawsuit. All third party subpoenas must be complied with even though the pending complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Mailed notice (rao, )

Case Complaint and Exhibits – Complaint_02168(IL)   Complaint_Exhibits_02168(IL)

Now I had to reread this a couple of time to make sure I wasn’t losing it. REALLY…. Now why in the hell would the Judge Ruben Castillo do this?  I will say that Judge Castillo is no newbie to BT Copyright Trolling.  He is one reason why the Illinois Northern District is a Troll hot spot.   Here is an early Steele|Hansmeier case he was involved in (filed on 29 Sep 2010) – archive docket.

Judge Castillo has essentially created an Pure Bill of Discovery action in IL (Background on what a Pure Bill of Discovery is – One & Two).  The docket shows the case was closed on 2 Apr 14; but the last action is the appearance of a Doe’s attorney – Doc_9_02168(IL), indicating the Troll is getting the ISP subscriber information.  I have heard that this is not a new action from Judge Castillo, but I don’t have the cases number to show this.  If you have this information, please post or send me an email.

Now I have ZERO faith that Troll Hierl/Plaintiff is going to file an amended complaint that will actually name PROPERLY joined Defendants.  It just isn’t going to happen.  This notice from Judge Castillo will allow the Troll to obtain the ISP subscriber information and then they will start the settlement process – all WITHOUT a valid complaint.

If there is NO valid complaint, how can the public IP addresses listed in the complaint exhibit be part of early discovery???  Judge Castillo clearly states the complaint was dismissed for improper joinder (“the current Doe complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate amended complaint which names individual defendants that can be properly joined together in one lawsuit.”).

Troll Hierl is loving this – it removes any time-table with having to move the case forward – in fact it shows it as closed.  With the ISP subscriber information, the Troll can then refile a case at any time up to the 3-year Statute of limitations.  Most of the these Does will not have a case re-opened on them, but they will be subject to the harassment of Troll Hierl.  The only draw-back for Troll/Plaintiff is that over time, any evidence on the Doe’s computer is going to be at risk of being lost due to a variety of reasons – computer is stolen, destroyed in a fire, mechanical failure of the hard drive, etc.  Not that it matters, as they do not want to pay for a forensic examination anyway.

Based on the date of the notice and the representation of Doe #19, I assume the settlement demand letters have reached the Does.  For the Does – Please send me a copy of any demand letters you receive for this case or others like it.  Also, please note that I have an “Answer” template for the Dallas Buyers Club case in the Defendant Answers Page – just in case.

Based on what I have seen so far from this Plaintiff, I do not expect any of these cases to go to a full trial.  Some default judgments are expected, but Plaintiff will back down if a defendant is willing to fight.  Remember this is done for Profit, not to prevent copyright infringement.

DieTrollDie :)  “The Defendants have liable Plaintiff under the disguise of such childish and unsophisticated pseudonyms as ‘die troll die.’”  – a statement like that could cost you $11K!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Copyright Troll Malibu Media and their “Evidence” – AKA: Forcing A Settlement

Douchebag1When Malibu Media files a case against a Doe, I often get questions asking what evidence do they have and what will they be looking for.  Now when I say “Evidence,” I will define it to mean what Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media uses to justify their actions and gives them a higher probability (in their view) that they can force a settlement.  Many people have the first impression that these cases are decided on a high standard of proof.  Actually the vast majority of Malibu Media/X-Art cases ended in some form of a settlement agreement.  None of these cases have truly been judged on their merits (EDPA was a show trial) and Troll/Plaintiff likes it that way.  The Troll actions are best seen as a poker game where Plaintiff has lots of chips and likes to use their power to bluff more than show its hand.  So far this strategy has paid off and they are able to get many people to “fold” (settle) based on their “evidence” and the associated high-cost of putting forward a good defense.  Their evidence initially comes from the German BitTorrent monitoring firms (IPP/Guardaley/Excipio), supplemental background checks, ISP records, depositions, and computers forensics (as needed).

Evidence From The German Firms

Public IP Address.  The IP address (using BitTorrent) is monitored and recorded for over a month.  This long time period shows (in their view) that it is unlikely to have been a one-time guest or passing hacker; the infringer is most likely an authorized network user. This of course does not take in the possibility of a long-term neighbor on the network.  The longer the monitoring happens, the better in their view – BUT it does also call into question their lack of action to prevent further infringement.

BitTorrent Client.  The BT client identified on the IP address is also recorded (BT Client Name and version of it – i.e. uTorrent version x.x, etc.).

Plaintiff’s Movies.  Which of Plaintiff’s movies/files were being shared over BT? Single movies and/or site-rips.

Non-Malibu Media/X-Art Files Being Shared via BT.  These are the “Other” files that were recorded as also being shared via the BT client/Defendant’s IP address.  These files were initially known as “Exhibit C” to the complaint in past cases.  In the more recent cases, this information was not filed with the court, but it is still used by Troll/Plaintiff.  The Troll uses it to possibly identify who the BT user is, as well as to force a settlement.  These recorded files can also be searched for during any forensic examination – thus linking the computer in the residence to the infringing activity.

Other Evidence They Will Be Looking For

Internet Connection.  The Troll will eventually try to get the defendant to tell them how their WiFi Internet connection was run. Was is “Open” or secured with a password? What encryption was used, WEP, WPA, WPA2? Was WiFi Protected Set-up (WPS) on?  If the Doe states the WiFi was encrypted/password protected, they feel it further shows that an “authorized user” (ISP subscriber or other resident) was the offender. This is why they really don’t like to hear that someone ran their network open.

Who Are the Authorized Network Users?  Determining who the other possible residents and network users is very important.  The 50-year-old female ISP subscriber is unlikely to be the infringer, but her 18-year-old adult son is more likely.  Finding this out can give the Troll a huge negotiation advantage.  Most parents are not going to let their children face the fire even if they did it.  I would assume this part would not come about until after the Troll/Plaintiff was unsuccessful in getting the defendant to first settle.  This information could be obtained from the ISP subscriber directly, but also can be come from doing a LexisNexis check on the ISP subscriber and residence.  Addition information could also come from interrogatories and depositions if/when Discovery happens.

Computer Systems On The Network.  What are the number and types of computers on the network? Many households will have one system per individual. They will also likely try to find out how many external hard drives have been used on the network systems.

Internet Service Provide (ISP) Records

The Troll may subpoena the ISP to locate any records pertaining to bandwidth usage and other allegations of copyright infringement in the form of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notices.  They will try to find excessive bandwidth use and claim that it indicates possible BitTorrent usage.  The DMCA take-down notices will be used to add more weight to the claim that the Defendant is a serial-infringer.  I find this ironic as Malibu Media/X-Art does not send DMCA take-down notices to the ISP subscribers (via the ISPs) for allegedly downloading/sharing their movies via BitTorrent.

Depositions

This is where the Troll will try to lock-down the Defendant’s story and see if they can poke holes in it. They will seek to find out the detail on the network, authorized users, Guests on the network, any past/present BT usage, other file sharing activity, numbers of computer and external hard drives, was the systems and/or router ever compromised, hobbies and interest of the users, computer knowledge/experience, etc. Once they have deposed the ISP subscriber, they may move onto other network users (family members) or even possibly neighbors.

Computer Forensics

Computer forensics is usually the last step and by this time, a good amount of money has been spent by the Troll. Most cases will never get this far. The reason it is often done last is because it costs a significant amount and often the Troll can get a settlement without having to result to this. The forensic consultant will use the previously gather evidence and case details to tailor his searches. Don’t kid yourself, the Forensic software they employ is good (EnCase & FTK) and well-tested – in a various courts of law. They will first attempt to find direct evidence of the Malibu Media movies, BitTorrent client, torrent files, Web searches for torrents, and any of the “other” files (non-Malibu Media) that was recorded as being shared via BT. They will also look for facts that tend to indicate that the Defendant lied or that he destroyed evidence. They will look at when the operating system was installed, as well as general activity on it. An operating system installation that occurred after they were notified of the case by their ISP is suspicious. The same goes for indications that files were deleted or wiped (overwritten) prior to being provided to the defense. Even if the forensics comes back completely clean and there is no indication of evidence destruction (spoliation), the Troll is likely to claim the offending system was not provided to them for analysis – it was hidden.

So What Will They Do With All This Information?

All the information is put together to paint a picture and give them the most likely outcome they will face, as well as the likelihood that a Doe will settle under pressure. This is the same thing a good defense attorney will do for their client. Note: this picture will changes as the case progresses.  You just need to remember that for the Troll, this is strictly a business model and making a profit is the general goal.

Scenarios

Fictional Case #1:

Defendant’s public IP address was recorded sharing of 15 of Plaintiff’s copyright protected movies over two months (via the same BitTorrent client). The “other” non-X-Art media/files being shared were the complete 4th Season of “Game of Thrones,” 10 eBooks on various topics of digital photography and editing digital images, a pirated copy of Adobe Photoshop (plus key generator), 11 other pornographic movies (not belonging to Plaintiff), 7 non-pornographic movies of various titles, and one eBook for game “Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag.” The Defendant told the Troll that the WiFi was encrypted with WPA2 and there were no other authorized users besides the ISP subscriber, his wife, and two children (Boy 15, and girl 16). Seeing this, the Troll is likely to be confident that they have the right people – most likely the Father or the son. For Troll/Malibu Media, the usual procedure is to let the ISP subscriber contact the Troll and start any discussion – this is why you don’t see Malibu Media settlement letters. If the Troll doesn’t hear from the ISP subscriber (or his attorney), then they have to assess if it is financially worth it to go after this person. As has been stated repeatedly by various Trolls, they are only going after people with the means to pay.  Here is an older case that Copyright Troll Keith Lipscomb had his hands in – K-Beech v. Does 1-85, 3:11-cv-00469 (VA).  Also take a look through the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) presentation (start at slide #287) concerning this. Anti-Piracy Management Company Slide #303 is very clear –

Stage 7 – Using the monitoring system 2, BPO… will select individuals who are wealthy and are likely to settle & put those in an individual lawsuit.

So for this scenario, lets establish that the family is financially well off ($80K a year and owns the residence). By looking at the above case details, the troll is going to be fairly confident they have a persistent infringer who is “wealthy,” enough and likely to settle when faced with the evidence. So to possibly induce a settlement, the Troll could run a LexisNexis check, as well as conduct other background checks to tie one of the family members to the offense. Let’s say that the addition checks disclose the father (ISP subscriber) is very knowledgeable concerning computers. He is also a fan of “Game of Thrones” series, even so far as to making Facebook comments to watching the shows and complaining that everyone keeps getting killed off.  They also determine the father has a keen interest in digital photography, a very nice digital camera (Nikon D7100), and likes to post his pictures to Facebook along with links to his Professional Flickr account. Many of the digital images have metadata showing they were edited with Adobe Photoshop.  From the sons Facebook account, the troll determined he has a PS4 game system as well as the game, “Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag.”  A subpoena for ISP records disclosed one DMCA  take-down notice (3 months prior) from Rightscorp, for 5 songs belonging to Round Hill Music.

Fictional case #2:

For the second scenario I will use the same general details – Family of four (Father, Mother, Daughter, & Son); Sharing of 15 of Plaintiff’s movies was recorded for two months via the same BitTorrent client. The “other” non-X-Art media/files being shared is the same as the scenario #1.  The difference is the WiFi Internet connection was run “Open” (No password required) and multiple guests have used the Internet connection during the dates in question. Seeing this, the Troll is going to have some doubts as to if this ISP subscriber (or family members) did it, as well as proving it. It is extremely possible that a neighbor has been using the Internet connection and the family is not aware of it. For this scenario, the family is financially OK, but not well off ($35K a year and rents a home). LexisNexis check and other background/records checks fail to provide any relevant information.

Assessment

This is where the subjectivity of the Troll comes into play. Obviously Scenario #1 looks better for the Troll.  Not perfect, but highly workable in their view.  Individual personalities (on both sides) will affect the outcome, but there is a very good chance a settlement will be reached.  Scenario #2 is not so easy, but if the Troll applies enough pressure, the ISP subscriber MAY settle for possibly some amount, if only to make the nightmare go away.  It does not matter to the Troll/Plaintiff that the ISP subscriber (or family members) were the infringer. It only matter that they will pay some sort of settlement.

If the Troll is unsuccessful in getting the Defendant to discuss a settlement, they are only left with naming/serving them, dismissing the case, or letting the case die on the docket for lack of action. Serving a complaint/summons is likely to either get the Defendant to contact the troll directly or hire an attorney to respond (and start the discussions).  Based on their findings in scenario #1, The Troll will be confident a settlement will be reached.  Their evidence is by no means perfect, but in the civil law arena, they are confident they are into the 51%+ area – “Preponderance of Evidence.”  If a settlement does not happen, they will next have to depose the defendant and family members.  The depositions will possibly provide them with more direct evidence and/or statements that will be shown to be lies on the part of the defendant.  Again a settlement will be attempted.  Following this (if needed) is the forensic examination of the computers in the house.  The results of the examination will be compared to the previous evidence (Malibu Media movies, “Other” shared files, BT Client, etc.) and statements from the defendant/family members. For both scenarios, let’s say the forensic examination comes back with no evidence. This will not kill this case, as Troll/Plaintiff will simply claim the Defendant hid the offending systems and did not make it available for analysis.

Now based on scenario #1, it doesn’t look that good for the Defendant. The Troll knows this and will use it in the settlement negotiations.  We have seen time and again that Troll/Malibu Media does not want to go through a full trial even if the evidence is overwhelming. This is a clue that the Troll and their German background firm do not want to expose the inner workings of their operations.  They may still win, but that exposure just opens up more possible avenues of attack for us to explore. Their operation is not bullet-proof (figure of speech, not a threat in ANY way) and they know this.

Now Scenario #2 is a different matter.  The Troll knows that unless the depositions and forensics come back with something substantial, they are hurting. At this point the Troll is likely to motion for a dismissal. The problem is that the Defendant (Pro Se or via Attorney) can also motion for a summary judgement.  In my view, a scenario such as this clearly has Troll/Plaintiff lacking in enough evidence to sway the court or jury.

Now I know that most Defendants will not fit perfectly into either of my scenarios, but it does shows you how it can range.  Even with this range, Troll Lipscomb and associates are unlikely (IMO) to easily walk away from ANY case, even the weak ones.  To show any weakness costs them credibility points in the area of pursuing alleged infringers.  One aspect of playing poker is that to win, you sometime have to take calculated risks.  But as very few things are perfect, as well as the odds do not always come out in your favor.  Just ask John Steele (Steele|Hansmeier/Prenda Law) about his 1% theory concerning Appellate court rulings.

DieTrollDie :)    There’s a special rung in hell reserved for people who waste good scotch. Seeing as how I may be rapping on the door momentarily…   {Lt. Archie Hicox, Inglourious Bastards}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Countryman Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30, 1:14-cv-00073 (MI) – Waiver of Service Filed

25 Jul 14 – Update

Since last month, we have seen a couple of updates to this case (archive docket).

The voluntary dismissal of Doe #22 with prejudice is most likely the result of a settlement.  In the Order, the judge informs Mrs. Seglund that he is giving her 60 additional days (16 Sep 14) to file her answer to the complaint.  He also notes the confusion that this layperson has with the Waiver of Service (WOS) she signed and what it actually means.  I truly hope Mrs. Seglund has the strength to keep this up, but it may be hard for an older lady on social security to be able to do this.  Mrs. Seglund is the poster-child of a typical target of a BT Copyright Troll – someone who is disadvantaged and will likely settle if enough pressure is applied. 

Troll Paul J. Nicoletti, if you do force accept a settlement from her you are a low douchebag bottom feeding attorney (My opinion); actions like this is what gives attorneys a negative reputation.  You can easily speak to Mrs. Seglund and try to find out who the real offender is and where the computer is located.  At least attorney Maureen C. VanderMay (Elf-Mann LLC) had the good sense and ethics to eventually back out of these cases. 

Now we also have Defendant Andersen who signed the WOS and had until 18 Jul 14, to file his answer.  As of today, I haven’t seen his answer on the docket.  I expect that a motion for a default judgement against Mr. Andersen will happen sometime in the future.

For the remaining people in this case, I suggest you don’t give into the fear that the Troll radiates.  We have not seen any of these Does actually served and I doubt this will happen.  Troll/Plaintiff is especially concerned with all the information that is being exposed on IPP/Guardaley/Excipio and the Anti-Piracy Management Company” (APMC). 

DTD :)

————————————————————-

26 Jun 14 – Update

Well it seems like Mrs. Seglund was not happy finding out the Waiver of Service form she signed required her to provide an answer to the court NLT 18 Jul 14.    Doc_13_00073(MI)   She apparently even wrote Troll Nicoletti a letter and explained that the computer that was connected to her internet connection was not hers (was no longer in her residence), and she didn’t know who did this.  Of course Troll Nicoletti did not attach this letter to the Waiver of Service form she signed.  Why bother to inform the court that a an older lady on social security denied being the infringer???   Keep up the good work Troll Nicoletti.     

Mrs. Seglund, I hope the court accepts your letter as an “answer” (denial) and makes the Troll move forward.  If not, please use the answer template I have provided and file it with the court.  I expect Troll/Plaintiff will not like to see a case against a social security recipient, so I would expect a motion to dismiss from them.  Please do not accept anything but a full dismissal – Do NOT paying them any money OR agree to find out who did this.  They can conduct their own investigation.

DTD :)

——————————————–

So I was looking at some of the various cases by the Copyright Trolls and this one caught my eye for a couple of reasons.  Countryman Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30, 1:14-cv-00073, Western District of Michigan, opened on 21 Jan 14. The Troll is the wonderful Paul J. Nicoletti, who is working for Nicolas Chartier at Voltage Pictures.  Archive Docket.    Docket_19Jun14_00073(MI)    Complaint_00073(MI)   Complaint_IPs_00073(MI)

CMN3On first look, the cases appears to be just another Mass-Doe copyright infringement case for a crappy movie (my opinion).  The first thing that caught my eye was the declaration of Daniel Macek, supporting early discovery – ISP subscriber information.   Decl_Daniel_Macek_00073(MI)   If you remember, he works for IPP/Guardaley/Excipio and his name (Daniel Macek) was found in the Anti-Piracy Management Company” (APMC) briefing.  With all the Trouble the Trolls (Malibu Media, Elf-Man, & Voltage Pictures) are facing over the German firm/investigators, this little fact means this Troll/Plaintiff is not going to take this case to trial – they will not dare to expose the inner workings of this operation for fear of their demise.

The second thing that caught my eye was that two of the defendants signed a Waiver of Service of Summons form (WOS) and Troll Nicoletti filed them with the court on 13 and 18 Jun 14.   Doc_11_WOS_00073(MI)   Doc_12_WOS_00073(MI)   The court has set 18 Jul 14, as the deadline for both of these Defendants to file answers.

Now some may believe I’m prejudice against the Trolls, but something just felt wrong with this.  It is my belief that the Trolls are trying to trick the Does into signing the WOS and then they will try to pressure the Doe to settle after the date to file an answer has passed.  If a Defendant doesn’t then settle, they will simply move for a default judgement.  I believe most people who read the WOS will only see the fact that if they don’t sign it, they could have to pay the fee for be served by a process-server.  They do not see the part that requires them to file an answer with the court within 60 days of signing the WOS.  What is also troubling to me is one of the Defendants indicated she doesn’t have an email address.  This usually means it is a person that is computer illiterate (no offense) and is unlikely to have used BitTorrent and downloaded Plaintiff’s movie.  The security of the network from an ISP subscriber such as this is also suspect – network run open, using WEP, etc.  So this just seem like the Troll is up to no good.  Care to comment Troll Nicoletti???  This could get embarrassing.

So to possibly help these two Does (and others), I have a basic denial answer template for this Countryman Nevada case.  For the other 28 Does, there is no need to use this “Answer” at this time – that is unless you are actually served with a summons/complaint OR you sign the WOS.  I personally would not sign the WOS – make them serve you first. As 99.99 of these cases have never seen final judgement (or people being named/served), the possibility of having to pay for service is remote at best.

If you have to file an answer, don’t just slap your name on it and file it with the court. Please use the template as a starting point and make it fit your situation. I will remind everyone that providing a false statement is a serious matter and can get you in trouble – don’t do it.

CMN_ProSe_Answer_00073(MI)

DieTrollDie  :)

KCDTDO1

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments