Going to make this a fun multi-topic post prior to departing for a little bit of fun. Not sure what my access to the Web site will be, but I expect some ability to see what is going on. I will make comments as possible and according to importance. I apologize in advance for any delay in getting back to people.
Until I return, please check out the following items.
- GA Copyright Troll – “Skew” (low-budget horror movie). I think the GA courts are starting to see how messed up Copyright Trolling is and how it abuses the courts. DTD Posting It looks like there is a copyright troll out there who keeping a low profile and not exposing himself to further scrutiny. The Troll is using local counsels to file the cases on behalf of Plaintiff’s of various low-budget movies. Probably not that difficult to convince some struggling low-budget movie producer/owner that they can make some easy money by going after people illegally sharing their movie(s) via BitTorrent. FYI: I did legally watch “Skew” and was not very impressed. The first 20 minutes dragged on and on and on….. Once it it got going it was OK, at best (I’m being nice here). When a movie sells for 4 UK pounds on Amazon, there is usually a reason why. The low cost and low value of the movie (my opinion) in no way justifies copyright infringement. But seriously, to threaten someone with $150K+ civil court judgment unless they pay a settlement of couple thousand for this garbage (more opinion) is sickening. In fact, how to I get that lost time of watching this movie back?!
- PA Bellwether Case. This case is getting a bit interesting as Troll Lipscomb hired a forensic firm to conduct analysis on the hard drive images of one of the Defendants (Doe #16). DTD Posting It appears that Troll Lipscomb and his forensic examiner messed up and made the allegation that this Defendant had destroyed evidence on the main computer in the house. Troll Lipscomb eventually had to admit to the court that there was actually “Two” hard drives in system in question and his expert would be changing his report soon. Note: There is another deposition of this defendant on 30 May 13. I assume Troll Lipscomb will have figured out the difference in 1 TB of “Memory” and 1 TB of hard drive storage space. He still appears to be clinging to the belief that Defendant’s story is unlikely (that he didn’t do it) and there is some sort of evidence of spoliation. As far as what the forensic expert reported, there was NO direct evidence on the hard drive image files. This means the best he can do is claim spoliation and state that Doe #16 is lying. Here are links to a couple of documents in this case. Docket Archive Doc 143 Doc 145 Doc 151 Doc 152
- The Arizona AF Holdings LLC case (Harris), is still going on and Troll Goodhue appears to providing contradictory information as to the Alan Cooper fraud. So many BS claims (my opinion) that is hard to follow the train of thought. Fightcopyrighttrolls Article Troll Goodhue responds to the order to show cause and claims that the real Alan Cooper is mentally unstable and responsible for causing huge amounts of property damage to John Steele’s cabin, as well as stealing weapons and anything else that wasn’t permanently affix to the cabin. Funny, there is no mention of any criminal complaints being made against Alan Cooper for this alleged rampage. If John Steel felt that Alan Cooper was a serious “nut-case” capable of violence, he was negligent in NOT reporting the alleged theft of weapons (my opinion). It is a sad piece of fiction to read. What about the insurance claims for the damages/loss??? Oh yeah, you can find all these documents next to the documents containing the original signature of Alan Cooper and Salt Marsh. Of course troll Goodhue claims the document signed by Alan Cooper is still valid even if it wasn’t his signature. Someone forgot to show Troll Goodhue that providing a fraudulent document to the court is still a fraud. On 27 May 13, Mr. Harris made a response to Prenda/Troll Goodhue’s response to the show cause order. Doc_58Harris_02144(AZ) Note: It also appears Prenda Law is not having as much luck with their Craigslist hiring efforts, so they got Troll Goodhue to fill in for them on an AF Holdings case in CA (3:12-cv-04221, ANDREW MAGSUMBOL). Doc44_04221(CA) Doc49_04221(CA)
- An older Malibu Media case (1:12-cv-00840-RLY-MJD) is fast approaching the One-Year mark (opened on 18 Jun 12). Archive Docket The case started out with 8 Does and know we are down to Two Does and Two named defendants. One of the named defendants has representation and the other is Pro Se. The case is still moving forward and the last document filed by the court is an Order setting a Pro Se Initial Pre-Trial Conference. Doc_62_MM_00840(IN) The Pre-Trial conference is scheduled for 9 Jul 13. Unless Plaintiff or one of the defendants objects, 16 Jul 13, is the deadline for disclosing witnesses, documents, and copies of electronic media. One thing I found interesting in the disclosure requirement is –
No later than July 16, 2013 – The Plaintiff must give the Defendant(s) a written estimate of how much money the Plaintiff claims he is entitled to for any injuries or damages the Plaintiff claims to have suffered. At that time, the Plaintiff must also give the Defendant(s) all non-privileged documents that support that estimate, including those that might prove the nature and the extent of the Plaintiff’s injury. **This estimate and the documents are NOT filed with the Court.
It looks like the judge is questioning the statutory damages provision and telling them to put some real facts behind their damage claims. These documents are bound to be an interesting read, as I truly doubt the technical monitoring firms kept any significant records showing how many people obtained copies of Plaintiff’s movies from the public IP address associated with these defendants. At best they will only be able to make general claims how the infringement harmed them. I really doubt they will be able to justify $150K in statutory damages. As this document will not be filed with the court, we can only hope one the defendants shares this information with the public or at least makes it an Exhibit to a filing.
As we have a Pro Se defendant in a rather advanced case, I would like to see if there are some IN attorneys that might want to look at assisting this defendant. If interested his contact information can be found on the docket.
Take care everyone, time for a little R&R.