New Prenda Scare Letter Makes The Rounds – 1:12-cv-00808, CP Productions Inc., v. John Doe (IN)

A new Prenda Law Inc., Settlement demand letter has been released.  I guess the Mark Lutz replacement tried his hand at a little creative rewriting experiment.  Nothing shocking in the letter, but it is funny to see what is stated and even more interesting is what isn’t said.  This letter is for case 1:12-cv-00808 , CP Productions Inc., v. John Doe, Southern District of Indiana.  Here is my initial post on this case (Cornholers).  Letter – Pages 1, 2, 3

I love this line in the letter that states that “Our client’s forensics experts deploy sophisticated computer software to capture illegal downloading activities.”  Funny I didn’t know 6881 Forensics LLC (Peter Hansmeier) was working for CP Productions as their “Forensic Expert.”  I thought he was employed by Prenda Law – Sarcasm.  Come on Pete, what is your education and training in these matters.  Please show us your bona fides.

Here is another interesting bit in the letter – “A study published by the University of Colorado – and funded by COMCAST and Time Warner – determined that the software technology     utilized by our client’s forensic expert authoritatively establishes that your IP…….. was observed illegally distributing…”

Here is the link to the study Prenda is kind enough to supply.  cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dlmccoy/papers/bauer-wifs09.pdf  The study is titled, “BITSTALKER: ACCURATELY AND EFFICIENTLY MONITORING BITTORRENT TRAFFIC ”   bauer-wifs09

An interesting study, but in NO way lead any sane person to believe that just because they recorded a public IP address, the ISP subscriber is guilty of downloading/sharing the movie in question.  Here is one little tidbit from the study.

However, the active probing approach is not entirely immune from the possibility of false positive identification.  For example, peers using an anonymizing network such as  Tor may produce false positives, since the last Tor router  on the client’s path of Tor routers (called a Tor exit router)  would be implicated in the file sharing. In fact, a recent  study has found that BitTorrent is among the most common  applications used with Tor.

Following this, the letter goes onto warn the recipient that failure to promptly pay the $4000 settlement demand will get them named in a lawsuit in their jurisdiction.  Prenda then informs the Doe about two music file sharing cases in which the defendants lost – Capitol v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset & Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum.  Funny that Prenda couldn’t list out any of its successful prosecution of cases based on the merits.  Listing the Hard Drive Productions v. Wong would probably not be a smart thing for Prenda to do.  Kinda of hard to get people to pay settlements when they know you will back down from a fight.  We haven’t reach the stage where Abrahams, Hatfield, and Botson get a piece of Prenda and their clients.

I have attached the 11 Sep 12, Appeals court ruling on Thomas.   11-2820-2012-09-11   The interesting part to take a look at is on pages 5 & 6.  Thomas made the mistake of talking to the RIAA and tried to negotiate a settlement.  That is why we tell you not to speak to the Trolls.  Nothing good can come of it.  There is also the fact that the RIAA had much more evidence against Thomas (see page 6).  Not just the public IP address.

I found the claim that they were going to name and serve the ISP subscriber particularly funny in this case.  On 12 Oct 12, the judge (Debra McVicker Lynch) issued a Show Cause Order to Plaintiff.  Rule 4(m) deals with naming and serving a defendant no later than 120 days.  ShowCause_Order

The plaintiff is ordered to show cause, by November 1, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the complaint as required by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m).

Well well John Steele and Paul Duffy, the judge here doesn’t seem to believe your claims of serving defendants that don’t settle.  Forbes Interview of Steele.  Yes I know you will claim that the ISPs are slow and negotiations take time.  Same old tired line.

Otherwise this is the same Prenda letter as before, just dressed up a little different.  Same hubris, different day.  Here is a picture of the “Prenda Ship of Fools.”

DieTrollDie :)

About John Doe (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 Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to New Prenda Scare Letter Makes The Rounds – 1:12-cv-00808, CP Productions Inc., v. John Doe (IN)

  1. Subscribe says:

    Subscribe

  2. Irritated Troll Hater says:

    Nice article to come back to. Pretty damn arrogant of Prenda to claim they have sophisticated software ran by experts. Also, it’s sad they refer to music lawsuits instead of their own. Prenda’s time is running out.

  3. Anonymous says:

    How come they don’t refer to all of the RIAA lawsuits in their settlement letter? For example, they don’t even mention Capitol Records v. Foster where the court awarded $68,000 of attorneys’ fees due to plaintiff’s lame ass secondary liability theory

    http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/02/8786/

    https://www.eff.org/cases/capitol-v-foster

    or the $107,000 in attorneys’ fees awarded to Andersen?

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/06/judge-upholds-107834-in-attorneys-fees-award-against-riaa/

  4. Anon says:

    They also don’t mention that the RIAA lawsuits got such large damages because each song was a separate work, and they sued people claiming infringement of 25-30 songs. The porn suits only cover one work, so there’s no “multiply the damage by 30x” part which is what made those so high.

  5. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is the response I posted to the Forbes Interview article on Steele.
    ——————————————————————————————
    Hi Kashmir,
    Thanks for the article on John Steele. I personally think the interview portrayed him as a good guy. That is something John Steele is not. He will claim my site (dietrolldie.com) is “Pro-piracy” and that is a bold-face lie. I tell people that if you have or are doing this, to stop. Copyright infringement is wrong and the owners have a right to seek redress. It is just the way John Steele and the other Trolls are going about it is nothing more than legal extortion and a “sue them all and lets the courts sort them out” mentality. As the old saying goes, “Two wrongs do not make a right.” Note: the new Prenda settlement amount is up to $4000 – recent article with pictures on my site.

    Until Prenda was embarrassed in court back in Feb 2012, they named and served ZERO defendants. Since then they have started to name and serve a few (less than 1% overall), but they are still taking hits from this as you point out in the WONG case. The ABRAHAMS case against Prenda is still ongoing, with Prenda trying to back away (Same attorney as WONG). Prenda has twice had the “Negligence” claim defeated in CA (HATFIELD & BOTSON) and still has NEVER taken a case to full trial and had it judged on its merits. There methods of technical monitoring as well as the personnel who do it are a closely guarded secret they don’t want exposed in open court.

    Bottom line: Prenda and the other Troll only have the public IP address associated with the ISP subscriber (person who pays the bill) to go by when try to get people to settle. Based only on this information they make threats. Making claims and naming/serving people on such flimsy evidence is an abuse.

    Some will say that if the people did download/share the movie they should pay. I agree that some amount is right, but not $4000 for something that retails for no more than $40. The amount of money they seek is excessive for this activity. Also John, you dare equate copyright infringement with the crime of murder. That is about as intelligent as when you said that a person running an unsecured WiFi Internet connect was the same as leaving a loaded gun out in the open for someone to use.

    This is no effort to protect the rights of copyright owners, it is a business model purely designed to generate revenue on a repeatable basis (Greed).

    DieTrollDie :)

  6. that anonymous coward says:

    Aww you mean it isn’t running around citing LMH cases anymore?
    He was like a puppy with a bone after the $250,000 “win”, and you would expect he would have held up LMH’s single “win” for negligence as well.

  7. Pingback: Prenda Cornholers Serve Defendant At The Last Moment – 1:12-cv-00808 (Mr. Glover & 448 Does) | DieTrollDie

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