6 Aug 13 Update
Here is a copy of the settlement letter sent to a Doe in this case. It looks like $4K is the settlement amount Troll Lesko is seeking. If only half of the Does settle, Plaintiff and Troll Lesko is set to make $168,000. Even if you claim $10K to run the case so far, $158K split two ways is still a great return on investment. As I didn’t see many dismissals prior to the mass one, I don’t think their returns were as good as they hoped for. I only noted Seven dismissals (ECF # 15 & 27); not counting the dismissal of Does # 34 & 48 (ECF # 14), due to the wrong hash file. Lesko_SettleLTR_02501(IL)
5 Aug 13 Update
A kind benefactor recently provided me with copies of the following motions/documents in this case. Thank you. Please enjoy and make sure to tell us what you think of them. I particularly liked Doe 18′s Reply to Plaintiff’s response to the motions from Does 18, 29, & 42. The point concerning Plaintiff’s lack of use of the DMCA take-down notices was spot on. Lots of great information here. ReplyResp_Doc26_02501(IL) MTSQ_Doe48_Doc48_02501(IL) MTSQ_Doe48_Doc48-1_02501(IL) MTAS_JD29_42_Doc21_EXB_02501(IL) MTAS_JD29_42_Doc21_EXA_02501(IL) MTAS_JD29_42_Doc21_02501(IL) MTAQSSC_Doc17_EXA_02501(IL) MTAQSSC_Doc17_02501(IL) MotionHearing_Doc23_02501(IL) Dec_JD18_Doc19_02501(IL) Dec_JD18_Doc19-1_02501(IL) Dec_JD18_Doc17-2_02501(IL) Plaintiff_Resp_Doc24_02501(IL)
On 3 Apr 13, Copyright Troll Paul Lesko (Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC) filed a porn copyright infringement case against 84 Does for allegedly downloading sharing the movie, “Cream Pie Young Girls 1,” 1:13-cv-02501 (Northern District of IL). Complaint_02501(IL)
On 24 May 13, I tweeted the fact that two of the defendants (Does 34 & 48) in this case had different hashes from the majority of Does and thus were improperly joined. On that same day, Lesko dismissed these two Does and said their inclusion in the complaint was a mistake.
The case progressed as usual with the ISPs releasing subscriber information and some of the Does hired attorneys to represent them. COMCAST_NoticeREDAC_02501(IL) The court even granted the request of a couple Does to proceed anonymously. During this period, Plaintiff dismissed some of the Does apparently after reaching a settlement. Some of the motions made to the court were to quash the subpoena, sever the Does, and have Plaintiff show why the case should not be dismissed. If you have a copy of some of these motions, please send me a copy or a link. Before the court was able to rule on the motions to sever or dismiss, Plaintiff decided to dismiss all but 10 defendants. Mass_Dismiss_02501(IL)
It appears Troll Lesko did this to reduce the chance of severance and make the management of this case a bit easier. Ten defendants are still a significant number to take to trial; but this isn’t about going to trial in my opinion. I still think Plaintiff is going to have a hard time showing that joinder is appropriate, as I doubt they have anything to show the defendants are actually linked except for the SHA-1 hash number for the movie. I have never seen any Troll case where the Plaintiff can show that two or more Does actually shared the movie (or a portion of it). Most of the time, the date/time Plaintiff’s “expert’ recorded are not even the same date. As this is the Northern District of IL (a Troll-friendly favorite location), I don’t have high hopes for severance. 1stAmendComplaint_02501(IL) 1stAC_EXA_IPs_02501(IL) 1stAC_EXB_Copyright_02501(IL) 1stAC_EXC_02501(IL)
The part of this amended complaint that got my attention starts at section 35 (page 8), where Troll Lesko tells the court that they have repeatedly tried to contact the defendants, but they refuse to talk to him. First off, this is a false statement because the three anonymous defendants (Does # 18, 29, & 42) have attorneys and they are communicating with Plaintiff.
Troll Lesko them tells the court that in their communications, they sent the defendants a FAQ sheet.
You can see Troll Lesko is trying to say that since they didn’t respond to the allegation, the appearance is “troubling.” Plaintiff is basically saying that an innocent person would at least deny the allegation. This is one reason why I think the Richard Pryor Response is worthy of consideration. The use of it prevents Plaintiff from making such an inference.
It is also extremely laughable that Plaintiff claims the “primary concern” is stopping the infringement. If Plaintiff/Troll Lesko had the “primary concern” of stopping the infringement, how come NO DMCA take-down notices were sent to the ISPs of the defendants when their experts recorded the activity??? I know I have harped on this repeatedly, but Plaintiff has an easy legally established way to combat infringement – The DMCA. By sending a take-down notice to the ISPs (of the subscribers), notice is served on the ISP to better manage the actions of its subscribers. The ISPs are in the best position to ensure the action stops, as well as collect/record possible evidence that Plaintiff could use. Failure of the ISPs to do this removes their safe harbor status and opens them up to liability for the infringing activity. No ISP is going to risk statutory damages by doing nothing to stop the infringement. Plaintiff/Troll Lesko does not want the activity to stop, as it threatens the business model of generating settlement on a repeat basis (my opinion).
Plaintiff also states that as of 23 Jul 13, some of the IP addresses associated with the defendants had uploaded “materials” via BitTorrent. They do not say Plaintiff’s movie is being uploaded, only that the defendants could “resume” sharing Plaintiff’s movie at any time. As the initial date of infringement occurred during 3-30 Jan 13, the public IP addresses for the defendants could have changed. Note: It is possible Plaintiff was able to determine it was the same BitTorrent client by matching up the Global Unique ID (GUID).
Please take a read of the complaint and associated documents and see if I missed anything interesting. Here are additional areas of possible interest -
- Exhibit C to the Amended Complaint – What is the purpose? Is there any?
- The copyright – The copyrighted movie appears to be derived from a good amount of preexisting content (script/screenplay, footage, music, & pictures). What is in the current movie that makes it substantially different from the previous material??? It may not meet the requirements to actually have a copyright.