Maximum Default Judgement For CP Productions Inc. v. Glover, 1:12-cv-00808 (IN)

On 26 Mar 13, Judge  Jane Magnus-Stinson, issued the default judgement order against Gerald Glover – CP Productions Inc. v. Glover, 1:12-cv-00808.  This was not a surprise, as Mr. Glover failed to respond to the summons/complaint.   ClosedJudgem_00808(IN) OrderJudgem_00808(IN)   Archive Docket   First article on this case.

LS1What is surprising is the judge awarded Plaintiff the maximum in statutory damages – $150,000 (+ $1,425 fees/costs).  I understand the reason for the default order, just not the amount awarded.  It appears the judge took the easy route and accepted the word of the Plaintiff/Troll at face value.  By a simple review of the case, you could see the Troll was generating settlements from the original 449 Does.  The court could also see the Troll wasn’t going forward with the case and had to issue a show cause order to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s response to the order was weak and the court even noted that failed to show good cause as to their failure to serve defendants.   Turkey Day Article

Now as I have repeatedly stated, the content owners are entitled to seek redress for copyright infringement of their material.  But to award Plaintiff/Troll $150K is a sad sad joke in my opinion.  This was no great piece or work of art.  I don’t care how “good” the actress was while on her knees.  To simply take the word of the local Troll (working for Prenda Law)  is amazing in my view.  Here is a 2011 article dealing with Prenda Law and CP Productions.  It appears this was simply a quick signature on an order then onto other more pressing matters.  I understand the courts are swamped, but this just encourages other to do the same thing – my opinion.

On a good note, it is probably unlikely Plaintiff/Prenda Law will get much (if anything) out of Mr. Glover.  It is a hollow victory that will benefit them very little over time.  As the 2 Apr 13, OSC hearing is almost here, the real damages are about to start adding up.

Lastly, if you were part of the original 449 Does, you are essentially free and clear from this Plaintiff/Prenda Law.  The Does in the case were jointly and severally liable for a single charge of copyright infringement.  As this has been adjudicated, only Mr. Glover can come after you to seek that you pay a portion of the award.  This is extremely unlikely and even if he did, the math works out to this – $151,425 / 449 Does = approx. $337.00.  If you are one of the Does that settled for $3-4K, …sorry.

I actually wish Mr. Glover would do this if only to make Prenda Law release details on how much money they made off of the settlements prior to the default order.  This information would be highly relevant to Mr. Glover’s ability to seek damages from the remaining Does.  Again, an another unlikely course of action.  But one can dream.

My last point will be that there is no reason to allow a default judgement to be issued against you in these case.  Hire an attorney or at least respond on your own.  Respond Article1   Respond Article2

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.

21 Responses to Maximum Default Judgement For CP Productions Inc. v. Glover, 1:12-cv-00808 (IN)

  1. that anonymous coward says:

    Egads. I do not understand the defaulting.
    Has anyone looked at the proof of service documents yet? It would not be the first time we saw “issues” with how things were served.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      As they only spent a total of 5 hours on this case (one for investigating), I doubt they spent much time on this. I believe they even told the court they couldn’t check the Dept. of Defense data base (to see if he was active duty) because they didn’t have his social security number (SSN). If they ran a Lexus/Nexus check (Paul Hansmeier said this was a normal action by them), I bet they had his SSN.

      DTD :)

      • that anonymous coward says:

        The process server claims to have personally served him, one wonders if they asked for ID as according to their paperwork he is a III (3rd).
        And a 36 yr old (?) who downloads porn online with next to no online footprint… ummmm something isn’t adding up.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Everyone on this blog and FCT seems to take the “innocent” route (not everyone is innocent), but many know who the likely infringer is, and I for one don’t know any alternative for a guilty party to respond and not lie. Has anyone seen or know for sure if a 150k default is eligible for Bankruptcy? I understand that number means “willful” and not many people can get their judgement thrown out in copyright cases with damages that high. I used to think anything that goes un contested (like prenda would contest a bk filing by a defaulted defendant) then the debt is removed anyway, but if someone here knows it would be appreciated.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, many of the people who comment here are taking the innocent route. I don’t know what percentage of ISP subscribers are the offenders, but I know it is not 100%. For the sake of argument, we often use the 30% innocent number as one Troll made this statement to a NY court. I’m sure the percentage does vary. Some people (including the Trolls) are of the opinion that if a person did infringe, they should pay the amount demanded. I believe the settlement amounts requested by many Trolls to be excessive. The settlement amount is akin to a shoplifter getting a fine of $4K for $40 item. If the action by the Does was that offensive, why doesn’t the Troll ask for a greater amount or actually take someone to trial. The Troll in this case would have accepted the $4K (guessing the amount) to settle from Glover. Because he didn’t settle and the Troll spent 5 hours working the case ($1K), the court awarded $150K plus fees/costs. $4K verses $150K – Glover’s alleged infringement actions never changed. The amount demanded by the Trolls has very little to do with “actual damages” and more with making profit while keeping the settlement amount to less than the cost of defending yourself – hiring an attorney. The Trolls and content owners have no real evidence to support what damages they suffered from infringement. They make bold claims, but it is actually a sad joke when analyzed. The statutory damages section in the copyright law was written to for entities that are infringing on a commercial basis. As it was so poorly written, the trolls are able to use it against Does that are only doing it on a small non-commercial (making NO money off it) basis. No, it doesn’t make it right (the infringement), but neither is an award of $150K without some evidence to back up the claim of damage sustained. Copyright math is a wonderful thing – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0 This case also shows how bad defaulting can be. It is likely if Glover had made some sort of answer, the award would have been less than $150K. When you say nothing, many judges will go with what the Plaintiff is claiming.

      DTD :)

    • that anonymous coward says:

      Statutory damages are not part of it being found willful, they are something the rights holder can ask for at any point.

      Answering a summons to appear in court does not mean you have to give a defense at that moment, you need to acknowledge it.
      Defaults are when you ignore the court summoning you, and then the court just assumes you deserve to pay whatever the plaintiff wants.

      Having an idea who the likely infringer is not evidence, and its not the defendants place to do the work for the plaintiff. They claim they can prove the name on the account did it, except they can’t. I’d not answer a troll asking if I knew who did it, helping people who just want someone to pay them seems like a bad thing.
      I have an idea that Dick Cheney shot JFK from the grassy knoll, doesn’t make it true.
      The accused in these cases are often just people paying for an internet account, who get letters/calls demanding they pay thousands for something they might not have done.
      I saw a blue car drive away from the bank after the robbery, we got a list of blue cars from the DMV and we are sending letters demanding a settlement or we take them to court. Can’t prove what blue car it was, or who was behind the wheel but still willing to demand cash from everyone on that list.

      The courts have not been willing to take a stand on if the damages are unconstitutional or not. The Jammie Thomas case was not accepted by SCOTUS, so the lower court ruling stands. No one wants to ask how something that sells for $1 should result in thousands in “damages” when they can’t prove actual damages. They can claim they “lost” x income, but most of that number is based on pure speculation and questionable math. At this juncture it is good to point out according to the math models they use, the first 3 Star Wars films still haven’t turned a profit.

      Bankruptcy isn’t my forte so I have no information on that topic.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thx for the advice and input, I never looked at it that way. I am in a Jurisdiction that gave out only 750-3k+fees so these types of stories make me think it changed all of a sudden. I am also waiting to see the 23+ MM cases within the past 2 days move forward as they have dozens of titles probably and I saw a 10 page attachment on a few labeled enhanced surveillance so for me it seems more difficult to deny outright, (they will tell you that you know who it was) but we can only wait and see. Does anybody know if they waste their time with people that have zero, and I mean absolutely zero assets or income (someone living with parents) or do they name people with houses?

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I would assume once they have the subscriber info, they run a Lexus\Nexus report to find additional people at the residence. It will also help determine who likely has assets.

        DTD :)

      • that anonymous coward says:

        There are a few cases with different trolls where people were found in default for not answering the charges.

        Before that can happen they send someone to the targets home and deliver a notice that your being sued and you have to file an answer with the court by x date.

        Trolls will say all sorts of things, doesn’t make them true. When they press you for a name, they are hoping you’ll blame someone else and then spin a story about how you were negligent in not securing your connection and owe them money… except copyright law doesn’t allow for that claim.

        They are all about applying pressure, the evidence they have truly is we claim we saw this IP address, and the ISP said at that time and date it was assigned to this account holder.
        Hey you, your under 60 and you have a penis you must be guilty.
        They send out paperwork asking you for “evidence” to help them see your innocent, but its slanted and they will just use it to pressure a settlement.

        They like people with assets, and might try to pressure someone else in the household if they have the assets.

        Mr. Cashman had an awesome post about protecting your privacy…
        https://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/online-privacy-anonymous-marketing-optout-tools/

        As someone skilled in Google-Fu most people flip out when they see how much I can learn about them from just their name and a couple other pieces of information about them.

        It takes very little effort for them to call or send a scary letter, and they will keep that up hoping someone will say something they can twist into an admission of guilt. Speaking with them is never a good thing. DTD is a big believer in the Richard Pryor Response.

        Your best bet is to stay on top of the case, and all of the coverage about MM. Sometimes someone raises an issue in a court across the country that makes MM nervous and they stop bothering that person… it is good to know these things.

        Researching them is only fair, they research their targets.

      • "enhanced surveillance" says:

        rumor has it the “enhanced surveillance” is nothing more then an alleged torrent file with allegedly several titles: a simple Google search shows: https://www.google.com/search?q=x-art+torrent+pack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a OR HERE: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Itx-G7rprX4J:piratebay.kamagurka.org/browse/500/5/5+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (This is Google’s cache of http://piratebay.kamagurka.org/browse/500/5/5. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 3, 2013 17:46:34 GMT.) *NOTE – IS NOT INTENDED FOR VIEWERS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD*

      • Tandrew says:

        Malibu’s “expanded surveillance” is not the same thing as their “site rip” torrent accusations.

        The “site rip” scheme is accusing defendants of multiple infringements for touching single torrent – regardless of how many, if any, titles defendant allegedly downloaded from that index – so as to extort much larger settlements. See eg. the Pietz declaration below for Lipscum demanding $20,000 for touching two torrents. That was almost a year ago and more recent Malibu torrents, probably seeded by Malibu themselves, often contain 40 or more titles.

        http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/10-2.pdf

        The “expanded surveillance” is a list of all torrents which they claim a defendant’s IP has touched and includes material owned by entities that are not associated in any way with copyright extortion. The purpose here is to show that the accused IP has regularly used BitTorrent and by insinuation must be guilty of the offense currently being invoiced. I don’t agree with the logic that two (or twenty five) unsubstantiated accusations are more meaningful than one, either the trolls’ proprietary, closed source, tools are accurate or they aren’t, but to a non-technically literate court or jury these long lists may seem more damning.

        See eg. http://ia601700.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.wied.62632/gov.uscourts.wied.62632.1.3.pdf

  3. whitakerlaw says:

    As I have said many times before, avoiding these default judgments is too easy. Unfortunately, if you ignore the complaint, the judge doesn’t really have much choice but to give the plaintiff what he asks for.

    John Whitaker Whitaker Law Group 1218 Third Ave.; Suite 1809 Intellectual Property Lawyers

  4. Here Come The Corporate Judge says:

    A truly bad or corrupt Judge. Likely the defendant doesn’t even live at the address that process via mail was sent to.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Now I would not go that far. Mistakes are made and that does not indicate a bad or corrupt official. I wish the judge would have looked into these type of cases and adjusted the award to something reasonable for the movie. There have been a couple of default judgements where the court only awarded the minimum ($750) plus costs and fees.

      DTD :)

      • sharp as a marble says:

        almost all of the Arizona defaults in the past couple of years have been the $750 + fees. az doesn’t seem to have ever been very troll friendly yet prenda, atleast, kept filing suits there.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      Or a Judge who was angered by a defendant who for all appearances was correctly served and felt they could ignore the court. Pissing off Judges is a bad thing, by not contacting the court at all no one was there to object to them asking for $150K.
      I read the service document, was delivered in person.
      Except the process server doesn’t know who they served, not like you have to provide ID.
      Also the person named in the lawsuit was a III (3rd) they might have served any of the at least 3 people with the name.

  5. Jason says:

    Do any writers or commenters on this site actually understand basic civil procedure? Do any lawyers or JDs write/comment here? This article got things wrong that a first-year law student would know. Then there’s the whole “great work of art” comment, which is truly absurd—you want the courts judging what good and bad art is when they mete out judgment now? If you’re not gonna write about this subject with some degree of competence, just leave it alone.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Jason, you are more than welcome to provide more detail on your views. Ascfsr as the quality of the “work” comment, it is relevant because other judges make different award rulings based on the same/very similar cases. There is a recent AZ case that only got $750 stat damages. Why would you give the max damages for this case? The background on porn trolling is clear. To award these max default awards is a foolish thing for any court to do.

      DTD :)

    • Anonymous says:

      Don’t hesitate to be more specific. You are implying that you know some things we don’t, so please share them.

      We’re all trying to help each other out here.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Jason. I hoped you would return and comment. Yes we do have some knowledgeable legal minds occasionally comment here (see John Whitaker’s comment above). As I’m no lawyer, I may at time not understand certain aspects of civil law. Saying that, I think I do a decent job concerning the general nature of the porn copyright troll business model. So what did I get wrong? The default judgement? Questionable Trolls attorneys/Firms – Prenda? Why a judge would give Max stat damages to a default infringement with no proof it was anything beyond personal usage is mind boggling? This was a rubber stamp award IMO. You comment “If you’re not gonna write about this subject with some degree of competence, just leave it alone.” is ridiculous. We have had Trolls make such comments which have proved to be sooooooo wrong. Have a nice day.

      DTD :)

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