Holiday Update – Copyright Trolls v. Harris & Harrison

NL1I wanted to get the following two posts out, but with the holidays fast approaching it is crazy.  No deep analysis here, just some simple reporting.  First in Arizona, Prenda/AF Holdings/Troll Goodhue was recently given an early Christmas present by the court.  Second, Malibu Media motions the court for a protective order in one of it’s IN cases.

2:12-cv-02144, AF Holdings v. Harris

On 11 Dec 13, Judge Snow decided to end this nightmare once and for all.  The only good thing about the final outcome of this case is I bet there is not going to be any AZ attorneys willing to put their name to any new copyright troll cases.  Mr. Goodhue, this is going to follow you for a long time.  Here is the order and judgement.   Judgement_Doc103_02144(AZ) FinalOrder_Doc102_02144(AZ)

The court killed both Prenda’s case and Mr. Harris’ counterclaims.  The part that bothers me is the court then decided to deny a motion to award attorney fees (Attorney Paul Ticen) to the Does who decided to fight Prenda’s abuse of the court.  These were the 71 Does that Prenda tried to piggy-back off the Harris case and obtain ISP subscriber information on.  Here is the reasoning (questionable at best IMO).

The Non-Parties’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 88) is denied because as the Court set forth in its Order of August 20, 2013 (Doc. 92), Plaintiff never identified the IP addresses of the computers for which it sought to subpoena ownership information.  Therefore, it is not clear to the Court that the information of the Non-Parties was ever sought in conjunction with the subpoena. Further, although Plaintiff’s position that participation in a BitTorrent swarm is sufficient, under Arizona law, to constitute a conspiracy to infringe is aggressive, in light of the fact that the subpoena never sought IP addresses, the Court cannot and need not assess whether the subpoena was in bad faith with respect to the moving non-parties.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant………  A minimal amount of research will show you that Prenda’s normal course of action was to obtain subscriber information and threaten to sue people.  With this court’s faulty reasoning (My Opinion), the 71 Does were not in any danger.  Prenda’s original motion and a copy of a letter one of the 71 Does received from Cox Communications.  What do you think?

For background, here is my original post on the spin-off case.

Enough of this.  If you are one of the 71 Cox customers who hired Mr. Ticen, Thank you for your efforts and sorry for the court’s questionable decision. Sad sad sad.

Malibu Media Claims (via Copy/Paste) They Are Threatened, 1:12-cv-01117, MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. HIND, et al

This case took a recent twist in which Malibu Media made a motion for a Protective order on 6 Dec 13.   Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order   Motion for Protective Order. Exhibit B Motion for Protective Order. Exhibit A

In his request, Defendant seeks information of a highly personal and private nature, along with Plaintiff’s confidential proprietary business information and trade secrets. Plaintiff has good cause for a protective order because disclosure or dissemination of such information will not only impair Plaintiff’s ability to compete in the market, but will also expose Plaintiff and its employees to harassment.

Plaintiff is trying to limit the information that makes it out to the public and makes it harder for them to follow their business model of settlement generation.  Take a read and try not to laugh too hard.  The part I really like (sarcasm) is when they claim they have received credible death threats.

Plaintiff has good cause for a protective order because if this information is provided to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be subject to annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Indeed, Plaintiff is aware of anti-copyright blogs and websites that follow cases by Plaintiff and disseminate defense strategies and other information. Often these blogs and websites encourage individuals to harass Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates in order to discourage Plaintiff from filing suits against individuals that have infringed its copyrights. Several of Plaintiff’s counsels have received death threats and other harassing letters and emails. Plaintiff has legitimate fear that if the information of its employees and affiliates is provided and disseminated to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be susceptible to similar threats and experience annoyance, embarrassment, and harassment.

I wonder where the police reports are that show such a threat(s)/harassment????  And to respond to the inference (If you are NOT inferring me or my Web site, tell me) that “Often these blogs and websites encourage individuals to harass Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates in order to discourage Plaintiff from filing suits against individuals that have infringed its copyrights.”  Kiss my a$$!  You don’t even have the courage to tell the court what sites you are referring to and show specific instances.

*** Late Addition ***   Here is an August 2012, motion for a protective order in a Colorado Malibu Media case.  Here is the original post I made on it.   Doesn’t the following look the same as the motion for case 1:12-cv-01117 (IN)???

5.    Plaintiff has good cause for a protective order because if this information is provided to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be subject to annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).  Plaintiff is aware of anti-copyright blogs and websites that follow cases by Plaintiff and disseminate defense strategies and other information. Often these blogs and websites encourage individuals to harass Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates in order to discourage Plaintiff from filing suits against individuals that have infringed its copyrights. Several of Plaintiff’s counsel have received death threats and other harassing letters and emails. Plaintiff has a legitimate fear that if the information of its employees and affiliates is provided and disseminated to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be susceptible to similar threats and experience annoyance, embarrassment and harassment.

I guess the “death threats” were so stress inducing that they could only cut & paste the information from past motions.  Just goes to show you that Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media are not that far removed from Prenda.  Keep up the great work guys!

On 9 Dec 13, the court required Defendant to file a response to the motion on 16 Dec 13.  Plaintiff will also have until 19 Dec 13, to reply to the response.    Entry_Doc145_01117(IN)

Here is Mr. Harrison’s response to the motion.   Doc146_01117(IN)   What do you think?

It will be interesting to see what garbage Malibu Media decides to throw out in reply – hoping that something will stick.  Here it is – Plaintiff’s 19 Dec 13, reply - Doc_147_MM_Reply_01117(IN)

Last point – I don’t know of anyone doing this, but please do not take any illegal actions (harass or threaten) the various Trolls/Plaintiffs, no matter how low and worthless they are.  Take the higher road.  BUT, please do legally fight them (in a variety of fun and interesting ways) if you have the means and ability.  Thank you.

No how about some Chinese food for Christmas dinner?   That is what I’m going to do!

DieTrollDie :)

CS_XmasFood1

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 Keith Lipscomb and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Holiday Update – Copyright Trolls v. Harris & Harrison

  1. SJD says:

    Thanks, DTD.

    I’m lazy to dig, but I have a feeling that this “threat/harassment” wording is a verbatim copy from Fantalis’s case. As in this instance, the claim was blatantly unsubstantiated.

    Also, it is kind of ironic for Lipscomb even to mention “harassment,” when his entire business model is based on harassment, threats and lies. It’s quite known (yet douchebaggerily) strategy to flabbergast the opponent by accusing him of what one’s do.

    But is anyone surprised?

  2. Anon says:

    Where is the evidence? Lipscomb making claims is not proof of anything. I don’t see how any judge can tolerate his weasel nature. .

  3. Anon says:

    So, let’s sum up. Colette comes into these threads, whining that they’re porn producers getting devastated by piracy to the point that she can’t even buy new mansions in peace anymore (she can still afford them, mind you; it’s just that she can’t do it in peace anymore). She complains that people getting dinged by her new investment operations are being petulant for not willing to roll over and take it like one of her models, and they’re gathering in large groups to be mean to her. She hires Keith Lipscomb and sings his praises for being a great lawyer and not, repeat not a copyright troll, this is important – who needs to resort to suing senior citizens, tossing in a bunch of unrelated junk that dubiously passes the smell test for evidence, and stamping his feet when judges call him out on it.

    …You know what, I’ve seen sewage plants that are less full of shit than she is.

  4. Anon. E. Mous says:

    I find the request for a protective order beyond laughable. Let’s call it what it really is, they don’t wan’t the goings on of their court filings and tactics in their settlement demands becoming public as it would lead people to fight back. As for their trade secrets, er it’s porn? Did they develop some revolutionary film or photography that makes their porn better than other porn? That has to be the biggest laugh of all. Sorry your models being on all fours isn’t a trade secret, nor is it anything that nay other company isnt having one of their models do. Much like Malibu setting up people to infringe and specifically creating an entity to sue people from so as not to have any blowback on their actually company name shows you what class they actually have. There will be a time and place and they too will go down like Lightspeed and Prenda did… and Lightspeed still hasn’t recovered from it professionally or financially and Prenda too is finding their efforts of the shakedown also flailing in the pron game and on their newest front in the ADA lawsuit game.

  5. DieTrollDie says:

    Not directly related to the Harris case, but still worth a read. Here is a 18 Dec 13, Order in the AF Holdings LLC v. Patel case, 2:12-cv-00262 (GA)
    http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/192452161-patel-order.pdf

    The Judge was not impressed with both sides, but the Prenda crew can see danger on the horizon.

    Have to love the opening sentence –
    “Having found itself litigating against a more formidable adversary than an empty chair, plaintiff turned to unfounded accusations and wholesale obfuscation.”

    On Order to Show Case Hear is pending and the judge made his feeling very clear.

    “D. A Note of Caution
    In case this order did not adequately drive the point home earlier, the court is not pleased with how this litigation has progressed. Failure to attend the show cause hearing will not be well received. Failure to attend will result in severe sanctions and may result in referral to the State Bar of Georgia. Failure to directly address the court’s concerns will result in equally severe sanctions. ”

    I’m sure Mr. Chintell will not have an easy time in the court either, but sometimes it is better to take some knocks and move on. He will sure fare much better than Prenda.

    DTD :)

  6. DieTrollDie says:

    Sorry – forgot to thank both Kat Anon & SJD for their efforts and the Doc! Cheers. 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