30 Mar 12 Update
The following links are to two LA cases with multiple hash files. The 4: Twenty Media movie is “Teen Anal Sluts” and West Coast Production movie is “Super Anal Black Cougars.” (Wow! These are obviously great pieces of work that promote the progress of science and useful art (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, AKA: Copyright Clause) –
6:12-cv-00031 (Filed 10 Jan 12) – 4: Twenty Media Inc., v. SWARM SHARING HASH FILES
F1F946C2054A0F885AC01FB07A935F4F238DD391; AND DOES 1-1,341.
6:12-cv-00670 (Filed 14 Mar 12) – West Coast Productions Inc., v. SWARM SHARING HASH FILES 7A41E9DDED8675F90CDDAC6F8E4E2311BABF14E7, 25600BE3C6CC4529AC4247FA9B6BCB8B530857EB, 8653511547D205181DB2B69D2C3B4F732947F3E4, CCDA1BA63666D12E05A652B91008180724F13AB1, D895A3C7A530DDD3C8CD7E0F7DEF6B43211F4E35, EB72BDD147682AF141C1574A78DD848D01C0CDDC, and Does 1-416
I plan to do another post concerning these ripe targets for a MTQ/D, but for now here are the complaints. Complaint_00670(LA) Complaint_00031(LA) On 19 Mar 12, the judge authorized the Troll to serve the subpoena on the ISPs for both of these cases. I haven’t examined the IP addresses yet, but I really doubt that all of the Does live in the LA jurisdiction. For some reason the Trolls seem to think LA will be a good area to set up shop. Well lets not make it too easy for them in this matter.
Also of note is a DMCA Takedown notice sent to Torrentcrazy.com on 5 Mar 12, for “Super Black Anal Cougars.” (DMCA_TC_00670(LA)) Nice try guys, but sending one notice to one torrent tracker site does show you are “actively” fighting piracy. I must say that I haven’t had the chance to go over all the documents, but it doesn’t appear that any DMCA notices were sent to the ISPs for any of the 416 public IP addresses they recorded (IP_List_00670(LA)). As they already have the ISP address, filing a DMCA takedown notice is so easy. Why don’t you want to do them?
D Cumberbatch brought some information to light concerning some Louisiana cases. It appears the Troll is filing cases where multiple hash files are listed for the same movie in the complaint. What I think the troll is trying to claim is that even if the hash file (mathematical calculation) is different, viewing the all files discloses they are actually the same movie. Someone changed the file (edited it somehow) and then made it available via BT. As they are the same movie, the Troll wants to claim they should all be lumped into the same copyright infringement case. If anyone has links to these cases, please post a comment and I will update the post (Thanks D Cumberbatch!).
This type of case is a prime one for a MTQ/D because of improper joinder. Why?
The Trolls argument (and I haven’t seen these complaints – correct me if I’m wrong) is that all the Doe defendants are joined because the movie is the essentially the same one. FACT: The content of the movie may be the same, but the files allegedly downloaded/shared ARE NOT the same.
As each file is different, a BT client treats it as a completely different (and it is!). You have a better chance of winning the Mega-Jackpot lottery than getting the same SHA-1 hash number for two files (called a “collision” -1 in 1,461,501,637,330,903,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
Geek Speak: Yes, I know that duplicate SHA-1 hashes can be produced if you have a large enough field of data to pull from. That isn’t the point here. The point is that they are the same general movie (maybe the title page was deleted or a scene or two was shortened), but they are different mathematically. Plus as the Troll is using the SHA-1 hash file to show how “good” their evidence is, they cannot raise the collision issue as a smoke screen (prevented by “estoppel” – http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/estoppel).
Here are two files that basically the same. The second one has a small Red dot added to the “B”. It doesn’t change the overall content, but IT IS A DIFFERENT FILE. See the SHA-1 hash for each one.
Recent Court Orders
Recently an AZ and MI court severed all but Doe#1 in a case primarily because the Plaintiff could not show that ALL the Does downloaded/shared the single movie (only one hash file) entire period in question. The Plaintiff claimed (as do all other Trolls I know of) that because the hash file is the same, they are properly joined. Dismiss_Order_00108(AZ) Dismiss_Order_15231(MI)
The court dismissed this idea on the sound logic that one Doe might have shared with other personnel and left the “swarm” never to return. New Does could have joined the swarm and shared with others, but not all the Does. As BT clients are located around the world, the court also stated it is also likely many of the Does shared with people not listed in the complaint, because Plaintiff was limiting its case to those within the jurisdiction to avoid improper joinder claims.
Now add the fact that these LA cases have multiple different hash files and it raises even more doubt that All the Does in these cases shared ALL THE FILES for the entire period in question. For most BT users, having multiple copies of essentially the same file/movie is a waste of time and unlikely to occur.
I don’t know what the LA courts think of the Trolls and their cases, but it is worth a try to bring this up in a MTQ/D. If you already have an attorney for one of these cases, please pass this information onto them. Many courts seem to put less stock in what a Pro Se MTQ/D has to say than if a lawyer actually files it - Judicial snobbery if you ask me.