Copyright Trolling For Dummies – John Wiley & Sons Threaten to Actually Sue People in Court

 2 Jul 12 Update

Another Torrent Freak article.  $7000 Fine For Sharing WordPress For Dummies on BitTorrent.

This is a default judgement after Robert Carpenter failed to respond to the summons/complaint.  The judge fined Mr. Carpenter $5K for copyright infringement and $2K for trademark infringement.  This goes to show you what can happen if you ignore a court summons.  Plaintiff in this case had no more evidence than the public IP address it recorded.  Wiley obviously felt that Mr. Carpenter wasn’t going to do anything and pressed ahead with a default judgement. 

11 May 12 Update

Here is a recent article at Torrent Freak.  Verizon Refuses To Identify Alleged BitTorrent Pirates -

While most Internet providers generally don’t object to a court-ordered subpoena, Verizon has refused to hand over the personal details of accused subscribers. One of the reasons given by Verizon is that Wiley is demanding the information for improper purposes, namely “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”

In addition, the Internet provider doubts whether the subpoena will lead to the discovery of “relevant information.” In other words, Verizon seems to doubt that the person who pays for the account is also the infringer.

I will have to see what documents are available on this recent development.

DTD :)

————————————–

25 Apr 12 Update

I was able to obtain some documents from one of the Wiley case, specially 1:12-cv-01352, John Wiley and Sons against John Does 1-24.

  • Complaint_01352(NY) - Nothing surprising, except that ALL the Does/Public IP addresses have the same date/time they were identified (16 Feb 2012, 3:41PM EST) as sharing.  Still no information in the complaint states they shared this file between each other, but date/time is the same.  A bit harder to attack joinder.
  • MTQ_Doe_01352(NY) - Very simple Motion to Quash Wiley is going to have no problem getting denied – only stated that they didn’t do it.
  • Op_MTQ_01352(NY) - The Trolls response to the MTQ. 
  • WileySettleLTR_01352 - Wiley settlement letter from Dunnegan & Scileppi.  Only asks for $750 and there is no non-disclosure agreement attached to it.  Part of the 1st page is missing – sorry.

DieTrollDie :)

———————————————————————————-

Thanks to Ernesto and Torrent Freak for putting out the original article on this – Major Book Publisher Demands Jury Trial Against BitTorrent Pirates

I wanted to make sure this got some additional exposure.  There is the obvious difference of material involved in the “Dummies” books BT cases – compared to our standard Troll porn titles, such as “Rump Wrangler Twinks.”  The books are easy to defend under Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

A recent development in the Dummies BT piracy cases is the Plaintiff (John Wiley & Sons) is starting to name individual Does and is threatening to actually take them to trial.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/89933488/Wileey-Trial  Well, we all know that “talk is cheap,” especially when comes from the mouth of a Troll.  The Troll in this case (William Dunnegan) just named  4 New York personnel in a “Dummies” case.  Plaintiff claims they are taking these four to trial, “…as a part of Wiley’s overall copyright enforcement and education program.”

The next step for this Plaintiff will be to serve a summons on the 4 individuals and see if they will answer the complaint or possibly “default.”  It is more likely Plaintiff will see if this move scares these 4 into settling and possibly sends a message to the other Does who have yet to settle.  This reminds me of the saying, “You can take the girl out of the trailer park, but you can’t take the trailer park out of the girl.”  A Copyright Troll is still a Copyright Troll, even if you can get him away from the porn.

I personally don’t think Plaintiff will go forward with a full trial.  The risk of a loss is just too great unless there is some other credible evidence.  Just because this case deals with a “Dummies” book and not porn, doesn’t change the fact that the “evidence” is still the same (Weak) - the Public IP Address.  If Plaintiff does take one of these people to full trial, their evidence collection methods and personnel are going to be a huge target for the defense.  Once their questionable methods and lack of certification (software & personnel) are exposed, the Troll will cut and run.  If Wiley and Sons has any brains among them, they had better monitor the following cases:

  • Liuxia Wong v. HDP,4:12-cv-00469, Northern District of California
  • Seth Abrahams v. HDP,3:12-cv-01006, Northern District of California
  • Bailey Zwarycz v. Third Degree Films, 1:11-cv-01833-BAH, District of Columbia  

All it takes is one pissed off Doe motivated to fight.  They file a counterclaim and Plaintiff is in a world of #$%!  The Troll also knows that is safer and easier to work out a settlement than make money by going through a full trial.  

DieTrollDie :) 

Here is a Nov 2011 Techdirt Article on this.

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in John Wiley and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Copyright Trolling For Dummies – John Wiley & Sons Threaten to Actually Sue People in Court

  1. I like the picture “Extortion for Dummies”: very clever!

  2. I keep poking Wiley on Twitter and aslo wrote about it in my sidebar (“Anouncements”).

  3. this is a joke says:

    my favorite thing about this http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-076459981X.html wiley has a book called bittorrent for dummies lmfao

  4. this is a joke says:

    and some other fun ones:

    if you had bought our book “wireless home networks for dummies” (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470877251.html) you would not have had your network hacked

    unless the person who hacked your network bought our book “Hacking Wireless Networks For Dummies” (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0764597302.html)

    too bad we did not read our own book “Ethics For Dummies” (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470591714.html)

    i am sure you could use one of their books against them as a for of entrapment. “you taught me how to do this but then sued me for doing it”

    i did not want to spend my whole day going through their extensive library but i am sure you get my gist.

    • Raul says:

      Very clever comment! Maybe you could make a motion to sever just based upon plaintiff’s writings. On a more serious note, it is sad that a industry innovator has fallen this low.

  5. this is a joke says:

    the illegal downloads are the new version of the library…when the library system came out publishers were up in arms that they would lose sales. the reality was that more people bought their books because they were able to see if they were worth buying b4 they have to pay for them. now people download them to see if they are worth buying. in my opinion the people who suffer the most from illegal downloads are the libraries since it is easier to d/l for sampling then to go to a library.

    if you are losing sales to downloads then you need to re-examine your product. if it is a good product people will still buy it even after downloading it.

    sorry for 3 rapid fire posts but my mind kept thinking up new stuff.

  6. DieTrollDie says:

    25 Apr 12 Update (Posted in the main body also – files are linked) – I was able to obtain some documents from one of the Wiley case, specially 1:12-cv-01352, John Wiley and Sons against John Does 1-24.

    Complaint_01352(NY) – Nothing surprising, except that ALL the Does/Public IP addresses have the same date/time they were identified (16 Feb 2012, 3:41PM EST) as sharing. Still no information in the complaint states they shared this file between each other, but date/time is the same. A bit harder to attack joinder.
    MTQ_Doe_01352(NY) – Very simple Motion to Quash Wiley is going to have no problem getting denied – only stated that they didn’t do it.
    Op_MTQ_01352(NY) – The Trolls response to the MTQ.
    WileySettleLTR_01352 – Wiley settlement letter from Dunnegan & Scileppi. Only asks for $750 and there is no non-disclosure agreement attached to it. Part of the 1st page is missing – sorry.

    • Marcus says:

      $750 is way more reasonable than what porn companies are demanding. They could certainly demand more and probably get it. I’m sure alot of people got them down on the price too. I’m not a fan of these lawsuits, but when you compare them to the low budget porn companies who want 5 times that, one has to wonder why they are being given so much press ….

  7. Raul says:

    Yes, $750 is reasonable and is probably negotiable. Just goes to show you who is trying to combat copyright and who is engaged in an extortion racket.

  8. JohnDoe1 says:

    I just got one yesterday. Served to Comcast (who have sent it to me). Same plaintiff and attorneys; John Wiley and Dunnegan. No attachment to show what I downloaded so I am stumped. Also I live in California while this case is filed in NY. What should I be doing?

  9. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is a recent article at Torrent Freak. Verizon Refuses To Identify Alleged BitTorrent Pirates – Link is in the main article (above)

    “While most Internet providers generally don’t object to a court-ordered subpoena, Verizon has refused to hand over the personal details of accused subscribers. One of the reasons given by Verizon is that Wiley is demanding the information for improper purposes, namely “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”

    “In addition, the Internet provider doubts whether the subpoena will lead to the discovery of “relevant information.” In other words, Verizon seems to doubt that the person who pays for the account is also the infringer.”

    I will have to see what documents are available on this recent development.

    DTD

    • Raul says:

      Verizon got wind of Judge Gary Brown’s ORR and now sees a chance to mount a challenge and try to get these parasites of their customers off their backs. Judge Forrest has also rounded up a boatload of porno troll lawsuits. How she comes down on this issue is HUGE for SDNY Does.

  10. marble says:

    $750 is cheaper than or equal in price to any MTQ i have found (from a lawyer not pro se), they will probably get a very high percentage settlement rate. as opposed to the porn ones that want $3400. still wayy more than the actual cost of the book. i think max penalty should be 10x the retail cost of any infringed upon item, unless that product was distributed FOR PROFIT. which is what the original intention of the 150k fine was intended for.

  11. DieTrollDie says:

    2 Jul 12 Update
    Another Torrent Freak article. $7000 Fine For Sharing WordPress For Dummies on BitTorrent. – see Torrent Freak article link in the main body of the post.

    This is a default judgement after Robert Carpenter failed to respond to the summons/complaint. The judge fined Mr. Carpenter $5K for copyright infringement and $2K for trademark infringement. This goes to show you what can happen if you ignore a court summons. Plaintiff in this case had no more evidence than the public IP address it recorded. Wiley obviously felt that Mr. Carpenter wasn’t going to do anything and pressed ahead with a default judgement.

  12. Dough says:

    Yea but how many are being served an actual court summons? I assumed it wasn’t too many and in only a few states at that.

  13. john doe says:

    They had a filing in NJ back in Sep, http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-jersey-district-court/104918/john-wiley-sons-inc-v-john-does-1-48/official-court-documents/
    Last week, they voluntarily dismissed the complaint for good. I am not sure why they did that. Perhaps they smelled bad things coming to swarm/torrent cases after AZ/FL/CO developments. Too much liability if swarm cases reverse their course.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s