Malibu Media – “Never Give a Sucker an Even Break,” 3:13-cv-00204 (IN) – Plaintiff Allows Infringement For Months

NGSEB1When I read documents from the various Malibu Media/X-Art/Troll Lipscomb cases, I’m reminded of the quote from WC Fields, “Never Give a Sucker an Even Break.”  In my opinion Malibu Media considers all the people they target as pirates (AKA: suckers) and they don’t deserve an even break.  By saying this, some may claim I must be a pirate or “pro-piracy.” As I have stated over and over again, I’m not “pro-piracy,” I do not condone copyright infringement, and I ask people who are doing it, to stop.

The fact that copyright infringement occurs does not justify the running of these law suits  (My Opinion).  One major problem with these law suits is that IF Malibu Media (and the other Plaintiffs) do not play “hard ball” against ALL the Does, it shows a weaknesses to be possibly exploited by other Does.

Based on the general nature of these cases and how the initial IP address evidence is collected, there are going to instances where the ISP subscriber (or family members) are not the offender.  It is ridiculous for any Troll/Plaintiff to claim that their process is 100% accurate as to identifying the offender – That is PURE BS.  If it is not 100% accurate, then playing “hard ball” against ALL the Does is going to catch up with them eventually.  This is where the quote of WC Fields comes in – Giving an obviously innocent Doe a break is not part of their business plan.  I wonder if Troll Lipscomb has gotten to a stage in his operation where he is taking this all too personal – Doing that will cloud a persons judgment.

Even if he truly believes a Doe is the infringer but lacks the evidence to back it up, why push so hard?  Every poker player knows you may be able to bluff sometimes, but eventually it isn’t going to work.  Even if he gets a Doe to eventually take a “walk-away” deal, he has wasted funds AND rest assured the knowledge of what they did is spread across the Internet.  Keith Lipscomb – don’t fool yourself into believing you are preventing other Does from fighting.  Your “winnowing” process is not fool-proof and it is only a matter of time.

The following Malibu Media case is interesting because it could come back to bite them.  More to come on this one.  The case is  3:13-cv-00204, initially filed on 14 Mar 13, in the Northern District of Indiana.  I haven’t gone through the entire docket, but someone was nice enough to RECAP the First Amended Complaint (FAC), Malibu Media Movie list, “Exhibit C” list, Defendant Cooper’s Answer, and the Initial Disclosure by Defendant Cooper.  FAC_00204(IN)   FAC_EXA_00204(IN)   FAC_EXC_00204(IN)   CopyR_Reg_00204(IN)   Answer_00204(IN)   Init_Disclosures_00204(IN)

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges Cooper used BitTorrent to download and share 16 registered Malibu Media movies between July 2012 and February 2013.   They also recorded 10 pages of other media (movies, pictures, software, etc.) being shared via BitTorrent on Defendant Cooper’s public IP address (Sep 2012 – March 2013).  On 31 Oct 13, Defendant Cooper (via Attorney Willaim Beyers) filed his answer denying he committed the copyright infringement.

Now based on the initial disclosure (31 Dec 13) from Defendant Cooper, it appears the discovery phase has started.  Defendant Cooper informs Plaintiff that he and his wife (assuming his wife) will testify they are not the infringers.  He also states he has two computers in the residence – a desktop and a laptop.  He states in January 2013, the hard drive in the desktop system “failed” (was destroyed), and a new one was installed.  He is working to have copies of the hard drives made available to Plaintiff.  I assume the copies of the hard drives will be sent to Malibu Media’s forensic consultant, Patrick Page, Computer Forensics LLC, for analysis.

This disclosure of a hard drive failure is bound to make Troll Lipscomb suspicious of spoliation (evidence destruction).  Now as the failed hard drive isn’t available, they will not be able to examine it to determine if anything is recoverable.  They will be able to examine the laptop and new desktop hard drives.  The laptop likely cover the entire period of infringement, as well as the date associated with the “Exhibit C” files.  As Cooper states the hard drive failure happened in January 2013, claims of spoliation will be harder to back up. He was likely unaware of this case until April/May 2013 time-frame.

The new hard drive will cover parts of the downloaded/shared Malibu media files, as well as parts of “Exhibit C” files.  This leaves Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media in a bit of a “pickle.”  If the depositions and forensic analysis fail to disclose any direct evidence, they will have a hard time showing infringement or claiming spoliation – the hard drives did cover the periods of infringement.  The best they will be able to do is claim Cooper did not provide a copy of the offending system (possibly claim he removed the offending system/evidence).  Without any evidence to back-up this belief, they will look foolish to push the issue.

For this case, the forensic analysis will still be important.  In addition to the direct evidence (MM Movies, BT client, .Torrent file, Exhibit C files, etc.), Plaintiff will verify the claimed installation date of the new hard drive/Operation System (Install Date).  They may also check with Microsoft (I assume it is a MS OS) to see when the OS was registered with Microsoft (Date/Time) – was it installed in January or after Cooper was notified of the case?

They will also look for any programs with the ability to wipe files/folders/hard drives, as well as encryption programs that could be used to hide evidence.  Note: On page 1 of Exhibit C is the program “CCleaner Professional and Business Edition v3.28.1913 Incl Crack + Key [TorDigger]” (5 Mar 13) – this is the program “Crap Cleaner” (http://www.piriform.com/business/ccleaner-business-edition), which besides being used securely wipe the free space/unallocated space of a hard drive, can help keep a system running optimally.

I haven’t seen any claim from Cooper that someone else used his WiFi Internet connection, but it is a possibility.  There are multiple houses near Copper’s residence which could have accessed his Internet connection, with or without a range extending antenna.  Troll Lipscomb will claim that due to the long-period of infringement, this theory is baseless.  Of course he is wrong – it might be unlikely, but it is certainly not baseless.  I can point out a couple of criminal child pornography cases where a neighbor’s WiFi Internet signal was used to download/share media.  The victims in these cases did not know what was happening on their network until law enforcement raided their residence.

As Malibu Media does not send out DMCA take down notices to the ISPs who own the infringing public IP addresses (who would then forward it to the ISP subscriber – like they do for CEG-TEK and Rightscorp BMG), the subscriber doesn’t have the opportunity to investigate and stop the activity from happening until months after it was observed.  In this case, Malibu Media started recording the activity on 26 Jul 12 – they didn’t stop monitoring until 6 Mar 13.  The case was filed on 14 Mar 13 – Over 8 months of activity occurred and Cooper & his ISP were never notified.  If they had only monitored for just 30 days, they would have record five Malibu Media movies – Note: Exhibit C files were not noted until 10 Sep 12.  So for over 7 months, Plaintiff/Troll Lipscomb allowed their movies to be continued to be shared/downloaded illegally (via BT) and did nothing to stop it.  Why???  Because if they actually try to stop it, they will reduce the number of people they can file law suits against and generate settlements.  Also, a case with 16 movies is likely to get a larger settlement, verses only 5 movies.  Assume Malibu Media accepts $750 per movie – 5 movie = $3,750.00 – 16 movies = $12,000.00.  

Note: I do not know this defendant or the details of his case (besides what is publicly available).  I will play “Devil’s Advocate” and say even if Cooper did it (begging your pardon Mr. Cooper), the actions of Troll Lipscomb/Troll Nicoletti/Malibu Media are clearly suspect and designed to most effectively follow the business model of “Copyright Trolling.”  Sorry Keith, you may not like the title, but you have surely earned it.  Take a bite.

JD1DieTrollDie :)   “What is your major malfunction numb-nuts? {Gunnery Sgt. Hartman}

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.

24 Responses to Malibu Media – “Never Give a Sucker an Even Break,” 3:13-cv-00204 (IN) – Plaintiff Allows Infringement For Months

  1. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is a question from “DoelaDoe” on another page –

    “What, in your opinion, is the general amount of time that lapses before the alleged downloading that occurred with MM movies and when they decide to sue? In your article that you just posted, you said that they monitored for about 8 months? So, what you’re saying is that someone could have had their internet used without authorization 8 months ago and still not know of an impending case that is about to be brought against them?”

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes. There is a fine line that a Plaintiff (AND the GOV for a criminal case) has to walk when monitoring these activities. Take too little time and you are not getting all the information/evidence you want/need. Take too much time and you essentially become an active participant in the infringing activity. As I pointed out, by day 30, they had recorded 5 MM movies that were being shared. But to watch for another 6+ months is stupid IMO. At that point you (as a Plaintiff) are not taking the the necessary actions to protect your content. IMO you are encouraging the continued infringement beyond any REASONABLE investigative action and will have a hard time justifying these actions if someone makes an issue of it. I certainly would make an issue of it if I was a Doe/Doe Defender. Hint Hint wink wink. I’m sure this area will be examined in detail for all pending Malibu Media/X-Art cases – How long did they monitor and NEVER sent any DMCA take-down notices to the ISPs???

      DTD :)

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Can you say –

        DEFENSE
        Failure to Mitigate Damages

        XX. Plaintiff has made no attempt to mitigate any actual or perceived damages, which Defendant expressly denies; therefore, Defendant requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint because Plaintiff has failed to take the reasonable and necessary steps to mitigate any damages.

        OR

        DEFENSE
        Unclean Hands

        XX. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

  2. anonjohn says:

    I dig some digging today after reading a blog about the Belleweather Trial.

    X-Art uploads content to tube sites.

    Tube sites all have something similar to this in the TOS:
    You also hereby grant each user of the Pornhub Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the Pornhub Website.

    Reproduce/Distribute – This is consent ladies and gentleman.

    Now, that being said. Lets say someone other than X-Art uploaded the content to said tube sites, then another individual downloaded said content and seeded a torrent.

    If there was DMCA to the tube site prior to multiple people downloading the torrent, what recourse does X-Art/Malibu Media have here?

    Another interesting fact:
    X-Art/Malibu Media seems to send DMCA takedown notices to Google for alleged infriged work links.
    Why aren’t they doing the same to the ISP’s to mitigate the alleged infringement.

  3. Ann former Doe says:

    As we saw in the Bellweather Trial. The judge has to force Lipscomb to go to trial. A full blown trial would likely put an end to Malibu Media/X-Art’s business model of shaking down Americans and 80 year old grandmothers.

  4. Maurice Ross says:

    As one who defends cases in this area, I must say that quote often, including this time, your legal analysis, is profoundly flawed–and unhelpful to the extent it creates misunderstandings among the anti-troll community. Copyright owners have no duty to mitigate by filing take-down notices—that is a rather silly way of looking at this from a legal perspective. Further, statutes of limitations are measured in years, not months. Eight months is an entirely reasonable time for any plaintiff to investigate the extent and scope of someone’s infringement. It is not uncommon for legitimate investigations concerning widespread misconduct by an individual to go on for years, not just months. The flaw in your thinking is that while you say you do not condone infringement, you oppose any efforts to investigate and bring infringement litigation, even in cases like this where there is a very substantial likelihood that the defendant would be convicted at trial. Further, the destruction of a hard drive in a case like this can appropriately lead to an inference of a cover up. My job whether as a lawyer for the copyright owner or infringer is to be objective—-your analysis is flawed because you have no objectivity.

    One further point—since when is it improper to bring a law suit without having 100 percent proof that the defendant engaged in wrongdoing. That confuses criminal and civl cases. In our democracy, we have long believed that the doors of the courthouse steps should be open tho those who believe they have grievances against others, even if those grievances cannot be proven with certainty. In personal injury cases, it is considered entirely appropriate to sue everyone with any remote possible connection to the accident or injury, with the expectation that the judicial process will sort out those who are responsible from those who are not. We have a long tradition of allowing plaintiffs to use the discovery process to develop evidence to prove their cases—a law suit can be based merely on a reasonable belief that the defendant engaged in the conduct at issue. Certainly an association between an IP address and infringing conduct is sufficient to justify a law suit (or making a demand for settlement). Even if only 50% of the owners of such IP addresses are infringers, that is more than enough in our legal system to justify instituting a claim of infringement (or demanding settlement). Requiring 100% proof before a law suit can be brought would close the doors of our courthouses to 95% of those who have been wrongly damaged by conduct of others—that the road to corporate totalitarianism. There is nothing unfair when a citizen is required to show up in court and defend himself where there is at least a colorable argument that he engaged in wrongdoing. Plaintiffs still are required to prove their cases at trial—and what you are losing sight of here is that many of the so-called trolls are, in fact, taking some of these cases to trial (or at least through sufficient pre-trial discovery to justify summary judgment practice). We now see that the “troll” lawyers have become much more sophisticated, and their economic operations now plan for the need to take a significant number of these cases to trial—the assumption that these cases will not go to trial in now clearly wrong.

    What you are missing is that defendants accused wrongly are not totally helpless—they have the right to hire a pit bull like me to aggressively defend their cases, and force plaintiffs to put their money where their mouths are. Make the plaintiffs hire experts and conduct forensic examinations (that costs a ton for the plaintiffs’ lawyers). Offer to allow the plaintiff to interview clients (cheaper alternative to depositions). Take depositions of plaintiffs’ executives on the nature and value of their movies and show that they are pieces of trash. Send out discovery requests requiring plaintiffs to justify their damages claim based on sound, objective economic theory in a world in which the actual costs of a movie download by a paying customer are less than $20—and way less for subscribers to netflix.

    Instead of complaining about troll tactics, fight back using the legal system. Most importantly, recent case law says that prevailing defendants can obtain attorneys fees from plaintiffs in copyright cases if the defendants can show that the claims were objectively baseless. I am at a loss to understand why the anti-troll movement is not making use of this potential defendants’ gold mine to put pressure on plaintiffs in these cases—-tell the plaintiffs we are going to trial, we are going to win, and when we win, we are going to collect our attorneys fees from you. Litigate these cases aggressively, but realistically—if the defense bar is to have credibility with courts and our opposition, we have to be willing to acknowledge that infringement is bad, and where the plaintiffs prove their case, they should be entitled to significant damages—after all, it takes a lot of money to litigate these cases even where the dollar amounts are small—and there is nothing wrong with lawyers who want to get paid for their legitimate work. Defendants’ lawyers can get paid too, but their clients and their supporters have to give the defendants’ the ammunition they need to win these cases—and it does no good to look at all of the plaintiff law firms from an ideological perspective as predatory trolls—that is not fair—these are real cases, for real clients with real legal issues and real economic consequences. Approach these cases with objectivity and defendants will come out much better.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      Spoken like a lawyer…
      “with the expectation that the judicial process will sort out those who are responsible from those who are not”
      And would you care to comment on the extensive history of those engaged in “Copyright Trolling” making sure to stop the judicial process before the merits of their claims can be tested?
      Actually making attempts to mitigate the alleged damages is something that needs to be undertaken. Copyright holders seem to feel their monopoly rights are a magic pass to shift the burdens onto everyone else to bear. Google spends millions of dollars dealing with DMCA notices to “remove” content that they have no actual control over. Copyright holders go on and on about having sent DMCA notices to Google, yet lovingly ignore they have never sent a notice to the actual site allegedly hosting the content. This could be akin of sending a letter to the DMV complaining about people speeding down your street, it does nothing to deal with the actual problem.
      There is nothing wrong about bringing a case without 100% faith in the merits, but given the actual failure rate upon the merits and the public admission that they pursued someone they knew to be innocent and threatened to just raise the costs unless they settled one MIGHT need to question why they are allowed to knowingly mislead a court in the face of facts disproving the claims.
      “Certainly an association between an IP address and infringing conduct is sufficient to justify a law suit (or making a demand for settlement). Even if only 50% of the owners of such IP addresses are infringers, that is more than enough in our legal system to justify instituting a claim of infringement (or demanding settlement).”
      And how should you have to compensate the 50% who your claims were merit-less against? You caused them financial harm, the burden of having to put up with “settlement” (read extortion) demands, and threats to their good name that had no hope of prevailing at trial.
      “There is nothing unfair when a citizen is required to show up in court and defend himself where there is at least a colorable argument that he engaged in wrongdoing.”
      Then why oh why are so many of these cases never amended naming people, instead allowing discovery and unlimited use of the information outside of the courts supervision? Why do so few named cases actually get anywhere? IIRC defendants prevailing against the claims, by adjudication or more often NDA bound settlement payments to those defendants, in what appears to be an attempt to avoid judicial review of the case and methods, is much more common than you make it sound.
      “Take depositions of plaintiffs’ executives on the nature and value of their movies and show that they are pieces of trash.”
      Because MM is allowed to use an “expert” not based in the US, lacking credentials to operate in many states, and make it nearly impossible to depose them about the super secret methods they claim make the case airtight.
      Shall we cover how the rules are being ignored because no firm can actually pursue every person they files a John Doe case to unmask? That the motivations are totally financial, settlements are much easier than pursuing actual cases. It is merely a settlement mill and until the wheels of justice rebalance the costs it will continue.

      They have every right to try and protect their content, but what is being alowed is beyond the pale. Seeking millions in “damages” for content that they themselves have made freely available should be noted. They claim that a movie online that has been recut, resized, reencoded is their content… yet claim something else they uploaded elsewhere is magically different.
      And of course because the Does do not have millions of dollars they are unable to bring these claims to the attention of the courts. If only there was a “pit bull” style lawyer who would make these points and drive it home… rather than focusing on lining his pockets from either side of these cases perhaps we could see a change in the legal system.

      You speak about us having to do something to fight back in the legal system, funny we’ve done so much more outside of it. Settlements are down, bar investigations are up, referrals to US AG are up, Judges questioning the merits and outright lies in filings are up. Perhaps if your profession got off of its fat bloated ass and took its members who engage in this predatory behavior to task… until then those of us “stupid” laymen will have to keep destroying the business model by any means at our disposal. I’ve helped destroy 3 trolling operations, whats your score?

      You talk and talk and accomplish very little…
      I talk and talk and helped in the downfall of the largest firm, assisted in the media coverage, and raised public awareness.
      When you take down a troll, you’re allowed to talk… until then stop trying to drum up business by tearing down the people who actually try to help.

      As always my thoughts are my own opinions, I am not a lawyer, Your mileage may vary, objects in mirror closer than they appear, an IP != a person, and I knew John Steele and you sir are no John Steele.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        The wit and wisdom of TAC is always a delight. Thank you.

        DTD :)

      • Maurice Ross says:

        Thank you for recognizing that I am not John Steele. Why not raise a defense fund to force the plaintiffs to try more of these cases. Defendants can demand a trial on non-infringement unless plaintiffs default. You want to do more than talk and finger some bad apples? Raise ten million in seed money to fund defendants who demand a trial to prove innocence. The anti-copyright community surely could fund these cases. Then hire some pit bulls to defend and win. Make the plaintiffs pay defendants attorneys fees where the accusations are wrong. The law already provides for this. Fight back on an even playing field. Make them justify these cases on the merits in front of juries. Only then will you make real progress. Otherwise, there is no way to stop the proliferation of baseless suits.

      • that anonymous coward says:

        Sure there is, we can embarrass the entire profession into actually policing itself. We can educate Judges, the media, and people who will listen and can speak louder outside of the shadows.
        You seem to think we are well financed, that we aren’t passing the hat every month or 2 to manage to pay off the PACER bills.
        This might be part of your problem, you think we are financed, organized, and merely the front for some larger force. Until Pretenda sued to unmask several of us, it was rare our calls got returned, now some of us are freaking rockstars.
        You admit the suits are baseless, and despite rules about bringing those forward they continue… perhaps the smack needs to be laid down as described in law.

    • SJD says:

      I only have a single question, albeit rhetorical. It requires an honest answer.

      What would Lipscomb prefer: piracy to stop or to continue?

      • Maurice Ross says:

        To continue of course. But that is because lawyers have to make a living and there is nothing wrong with that. This is NOT, however, an easy or lucrative way for a lawyer to practice. It takes a commitment to stop piracy for any lawyer to devote himself to this practice

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Well Ross, a difference of opinion is what makes a horse race OR a litigation/trial (Civil & Criminal). This can be clearly seen with how the different court/judges rule on similar issues. The Plaintiff’s may not have a “duty” to file DMCA notices, but the failure to take reasonable steps to protect their content can hurt them. How the Trolls use the use DMCA notice when it suits them is soooooooo telling. It is just another aspect of cherry-picking that they are so good at. Silly? I think not – you think a judge is not going to see what they are doing??? Malibu Media makes such a big deal of filing DMCA notices with the Internet search providers (Google, Bing, etc.) but fails to do the same with the ISPs who own the IP addresses. The DMCA was written to address just such a need – it forces the ISPs to police their customers of face possible legal/financial consequences. Malibu Media know this and they will even ask the ISPs for records of DMCA notices that the Does have received. Of course no such Malibu Media notices will be found. Odd??? Not really when you know the business model of the Copyright trolls.

      The time they take to monitor the activity is relevant to these cases. IMO 8 months of monitoring on an IP address that is a simple downloader/sharer (not some king-pin copyright infringer) is stupid and they essentially allowed the person to continue the infringement. I understand the aspects of running a large operation going back up the chain to find the ultimate source or “Boss.” These cases are nothing like that. This is not “Operation Fast and Furious.” The 8 month monitoring was stupid and sloppy AND Keith Lipscomb knows this. By allowing this IP address to continue to share their content, they allowed it to further spread the movies to many other IP addresses – most of which are not in a jurisdiction Malibu Media files cases in; to include those outside of the US. How many other IP addresses were able to get a copy of the movies during this time and further spread them???

      Just because I don’t agree on the way the Trolls/Plaintiff run their operations does not mean I oppose “any efforts” on their behalf. Many of the Trolls love to call us names when we opposes their efforts – “Well you must be a pirate then.” Here is an idea, why don’t the content owners (Malibu Media) digitally mark each download with a code tied back to the paying subscriber? Then when the content shows up on the Internet, they will have the name, address, and credit card information for the person who is possibly the source. Start an investigation near to the source – what a novel idea.

      Sure the destruction of the hard drive is suspect. Do an investigation and base a decision on the facts. Troll Lipscomb has a history of doing minimal investigative effort AND even when the facts do not support their view, they continue to threaten to attempt to get their way. Big bully tactics.

      I believe I am objective. I know that copyright infringement happens and many of the ISP subscribers are likely the offender. I do not believe all the ISP subscribers (or family members) are the offenders in these cases either. I may be biased against the various Trolls/Plaintiffs, but I’m certainly not going to ignore facts either. You have a view that the content owners should be given large awards for infringement of these porn clips – I disagree. Some award is justified, but not in the life-crushing amounts. Be honest – even if Malibu Media’s movies are top grade porn, they certainly do not come close to even a low-budget movie production in terms of costs.

      Please tell me which Trolls are planning to take a “significant” number of cases to trial – besides saving up cash just in case a court or Doe forces their hand. The only one I possibly see is Malibu Media. Even with Malibu Media, the truth is in the telling. How many cases have gone to trial? ONE (Three Defendants) Yes there are going to be more discovery, but it is a small amount. Why has Malibu Media stopped filing their cases in the home turf of California??? Malibu Media could easily afford a bond in CA and then prove their case – couldn’t they? As far as the remaining Trolls, they are still working mass-Doe low-med budget movie cases – and shutting them down when settlement dry up.

      As far as the costs to fight this, I would love to see some deep-pocket organization or person take on a Malibu Media. But let’s be real – Malibu Media/Troll Lipscomb’s efforts are designed to avoid this at all cost. It is just bad economic sense. This is a giant taking on the little people – the odds are in their favor. But as I stated, the odd are not perfect and it is just a matter of time.

      DTD :)

    • Anon says:

      Looks like the gay music label just isn’t working out for you, Sorry Morry. You seem very intent on ensuring the viability of copyright trolling as a business model. “Who cares if the defendant’s innocent? I’m going to leave no stone unturned and spend every possible resource to confound, impede, harass, bleed and undermine the defendant at every possible opportunity until they either cough up or keel over.”

      Your credibility is as thin and weak as a piece of soggy tissue paper.

    • Anon says:

      You might not be John Steele – but you’re a hell of a fanboy.

  5. DieTrollDie says:

    Maurice, you comments are always welcome here – even if I disagree with them. I will respond later, but I’m sure others here will speak their mind. TAC seems to like to respond to you.

    DTD :)

  6. Ann former Doe says:

    Maurise Ross, DTD was specially addressing the tactics of Malibu Media/X-Art and their lawyer Lipscomb. You attempt to discredit DTD by painting with a very broad brush, rapidly moving to nonspecifics to make your argument. I doubt anyone would disagree with you that there are legitimate copyright cases. So what? Lipscomb has not taken a single case to trial. He was forced to do so in Eastern PA District and that case ended in out of court settlements with all three defendants and an uncontested bench trial for damages as one defendant had tampered with evident and perjured himself.

  7. Ann former Doe says:

    Also a full blown trial is going to cost a Doe $ 200,000 to $ 300,000. Who is going to risk that when they can settle for less than $ 10,000? It is a broken system that Lipscomb has figured out how to abuse. Innocent people will settle because it is much cheaper than hiring any attorney.

  8. While I have no direct reply to Mr. Ross’s comment I will note that there is a parallel between what DTD notes and a well-known tactic of the worst of patent trolls, i.e. waiting until a victim has actually become a successful large company before striking (so-called “sleeper patents”).

    While I am no lawyer, I note that the defense of laches is frequently asserted by Doe defenders (apparently as boilerplate), and it would seem to apply especially here. As DTD points out, X-Art had a solid case as early as 30 days in; there is no reason, and certainly no obligation, to continue surveillance for seven more months before filing suit.

    The anticipated defense against this is, of course, clear, as Mr. Ross has so kindly spelled out for us. However remember that the same reasons were given in defense of Exhibit C. Just because there is not an EFF filing amicus briefs for sanctions with regards to this does not mean it should not meet the same fate.

  9. Anon says:

    DTD and FightingCopyrightTrolls provide an invaluable service for any Doe under terrorist attack. As opposed to the smoke and mirrors and the big bucks lawyers seeks to make a bigger mess and add more confusion, they provide a very clear picture of the landscape and practical, real world advise.

    Lipscomb’s complaint essentially states that the Doe in this case is responsible for all bank robberies and as evidence of this their investigator spotted an unmarked $10 bill in the Doe’s wallet. Really, the investigator found one or more bits which is perhaps 1/1,000,000,000th of an actual copy. The foreign investigator that is not subject to US law found the letter “A” and is claiming this proves the Doe stole and is distributing copies of the Webster Dictionary. One doesn’t need $10 million dollars to clear up this matter. As we learned with Justice Wright, we just need a decent judge with a little technical knowledge, who can therefore see how incredulous and without merit the complaint is.

    In the Bellweather case we learned that Lipscomb has been seeking settlements worth millions of dollars however had never bothered to verify or obtain certification that his investigators technology even works. This pretty much should clue everyone in as to how unprepared Lipscomb is to actually taking any case to trail.

  10. DieTrollDie says:

    If you haven’t seen this motion to compel in case # 1:13-cv-06312, ILND, Malibu Media v. John Doe, I would suggest you take a look. http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/motion_compel_06312il.pdf

    Archive Docket – https://ia601006.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.287310/gov.uscourts.ilnd.287310.docket.html

    Attorney Jonathan Phillips is trying to get MM to respond to discovery/produce information. Want to see how Malibu Media/Troll Lipscomb likes to play???

    I enjoyed the footnote 4 on page 4 -
    “4 To properly frame the issue of burden, it is important to remember that Malibu has chosen to litigate in hundreds of cases to protect its rights rather than explore cheaper and more cost effective methods of protecting its intellectual property, e.g. Digital Millennium Copyright Act take down notices to Doe’s ISPs as utilized by other content providers.”

    DTD :)

    • Danel says:

      Lipscomb makes Collette and Brigham Fields of Malibu Media/X-Art sound totally incompetent. You can’t really have it both ways. If you can’t handling bookkeeping and accounting, you probably didn’t do anything to protect your copyright.

      It doesn’t take much speculation to think Collette or Brigham seeded the video clips in an effort to promote their website and then when it got out of hand, decided they could make more money suing people than running their pay for porn website..

    • Rumpelstein says:

      So Malibu Media’s attorney thinks discovery could subject his client to massive lawsuits. Now isn’t that a gem! It isn’t going to be Lipscomb going bankrupt rather his client.

  11. Pingback: Great forward from the copyright trolls | Will County Pro-se

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