Copyright Troll Dallas Buyers Club LLC Goes To Japan – Part 2

This is the second part to the Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) LLC in Japan article.  Here are the documents/translations I have received from a couple of people (Thank you).  DBC_Japan_POA   Japan_ISP_Page1   Japan_ISP_Page2_3

 次のドキュメントは、この資料の日本語訳です。  DTD_Part2_Japan

Troll_EDO_Japan1First, for my new readers (in Japan and elsewhere), I want to make it clear that I do not condone copyright infringement and suggest that if it is happening on your home/network, the activity should stop (and not start back up).  Saying that, I certainly do NOT condone the actions of the Copyright Troll (DBC & others), which I see as a disgusting business model to legally extort money from people under the threat of a law suit (my opinion).

If you are one of the affected ISP subscribers – I suggest you take steps to stop the infringing activity by you, family members, roommates, or unknown personnel.  I would document any unusual network activity you observed, as well as unknown/unauthorized computers that have used your network (if possible) during the period of alleged infringement.  If you were running your WiFi Internet connection “Open,” I suggest you secure it with a password and don’t freely give it out.

The translated documents are an ISP Disclosure Request Form and an Inquiry Demand Form from DBC.  The Inquiry Demand Form tells the ISPs that the copyright of DBC was violated and the attorney representing DBC in Japan (Hiroki Kawagishi), is requesting the identities of the ISP subscribers who were assigned the public IP address they recorded as infringing on a certain date/time.  The stated reason for the request is to stop the infringement and to seek a settlement.  The Disclosure Request Form informs the ISP subscriber that in accordance with Japanese law (Compensation-Law), a copyright holder is requesting your personal information based on an allegation of online copyright infringement.  The ISP is asking the ISP subscriber for permission to release the following information (what Troll DBC is asking for).

  • ISP subscriber name (who pays the ISP bill)
  • ISP subscriber address
  • ISP subscriber email addresses
  • IP address used by the ISP subscriber (They already have this…)
  • Cellular phone internet connection user discernment code that is linked to the violated data (not sure about this)
  • SIM Card discernment number and information that has been transmitted through the cell phone internet services (Unknown…)
  • Year, Month and Day /Time List of the violated information transmission (I assume they already have this…)

The ISP does note that even if an ISP subscriber does not consent to the release, the ISP may disclose this information in accordance with the law.  They also ask the ISP subscriber to state a reason for non-consent.  I would certainly make the non-lawyer suggestion that any ISP subscribers receiving this request NOT consent.  Even if Troll/DBC is going to get the information, I would not make it easy for them.  Here are some possible reasons for non-consenting ISP subscribers (“IF”applicable to you):

  • I didn’t download/share the movie in question.
  • I have not used any file sharing programs, such as BitTorrent to download/share the movie in question.
  • At the time of the alleged infringement, I ran my WiFi Internet connection “Open,” and other people have used it.  I do not know who downloaded/shared the movie in question.  I have since secured my WiFi Internet connection and have ensured no infringing activity is occurring.
  • I object to the release of my personal information based on the fact that the foreign entity, Dallas Buyers Club LLC, is what is known as a “BitTorrent Copyright Troll.”  DBC is currently engaged in a large-scale abusive litigation campaign in the USA, where it has filed over 100 copyright infringement law suits (over 3000 people are affected) in which they threaten legal actions against ISP subscribers who do not pay a settlement demand of thousands of dollars.  DBC has recently expanded its operation into Japan and makes only threadbare claims of infringement to obtain ISP subscriber/sender information to attempt to force settlements.
  • In accordance with Article 4, Clause 3, of the Law Concerning the Limits of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Request Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders, Dallas Buyers Club LLC, is prohibited from using “Sender” information (ISP subscriber) to “defame” or “disturbing tranquility of life.” Based on the well-established history of DBC law suits in the US, this is exactly what DBC will do in Japan.  DBC will use the sender’s information to forward a settlement demand letter for thousands of Yen based only on the fact that the ISP subscriber pays the bill.  DBC has conducted no additional investigative steps to try to determine if the ISP subscriber was the actual infringer.  DBC has demonstrated this in the US and will threaten further legal action unless the ISP subscriber pays a settlement.  As the legal costs of defending against such an allegation are more than simply settling, some innocent people will settle.  According to one US lawyer representing copyright holders (Mike Meier), “roughly 30% of names turned over by ISPs are not those who actually shared or downloaded the videos.”  This fact has not stopped DBC from sending settlement demand letters to ALL US ISP subscribers they can identify – claiming that they are the infringer and need to pay a settlement of thousands of dollars.

Now there is no guarantee that the ISP subscriber information will not be released, but I feel this is better than doing nothing at all.  As the Japanese ISPs do not know the Trolls, they may find it is easier for them to simply give up the information and not fight.  This may change if over time the number of Troll requests for ISP subscriber information increases.  Time is money and the ISPs may start to feel the effect in terms of increased costs and loss of employee man-hours in handling these requests.  If Japan works out to be a Troll-friendly location, I would expect an increase in activity after the Trolls/Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) find new clients (Copyright owners of movies, TV shows, etc.) in which Japanese IP addresses are downloading/sharing.  As this is a business model designed to make money cheaply and easily under the guise of copyright protection, it does have the potential to explode in Japan.

Now I have not seen anything that shows any copyright infringement law suits have been filed by DBC in Japan.  The current activity appears to be the initial Troll actions to obtain ISP subscriber information as easily as possible.  I suspect that some sort of settlement demand letter to the ISP subscribers will be the next step.  One thing I did note in the previous section about Japanese copyright law is that in accordance with Article 4 Clause 3 of the Law Concerning the Limits of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Request Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders, the Troll is prohibited from using the ISP subscriber information to “defame” or disturb the “tranquility” of the ISP subscriber.  This could get the Troll in trouble.

(3) Any person who received disclosed identification information of the sender in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not, by indiscriminately using said identification information, unduly commit any act defaming said sender or disturbing tranquility of life.

So now we wait and see what the involved parties do.  For those of you involved, please send me copies of the settlement demand letters when they start to arrive.  I will make sure they are redacted and no personal information is disclosed.  I’m not sure if DBC will take anyone to trial, but I really doubt it based on their previous history in the US.

DieTrollDie :)    “Guard your honor.  Let your reputation fall where it will.  And outlive the bastards.”   [Lois McMaster Bujold, A Civil Campaign]


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Ichi, Ni, San – Copyright Troll Dallas Buyers Club LLC Goes To Japan


以下の文書はDieTrollDieの記事の翻訳です。翻訳のために事前に謝罪 こんにちは DBC Japan – DieTrollDie

“Konnichiwa”   The business model of BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolling is one that requires the controlling actors to adjust and expand to keep the settlement generators producing.  Probably the most active non-porn BT Copyright Troll is Voltage Pictures (AKA: Nicolas Chartier).  The Voltage pictures movie that is currently being exploited is Dallas Buyers Club (DBC).  Currently in the US, I estimate that there have been OVER 140 DBC copyright infringement cases filed in multiple jurisdictions.  The number of Does in these cases is in excess of 3300.  The largest number of DBC cases have been filed in the States of IL and CO.  As the settlements from these cases generally stay in the $3,000+ range, the amount of money to be made is HUGE.  If the Troll/Plaintiff’s can get 50% of the 3300 people to pay a settlement of $3,000, the profit is $4,950,000!

Now BT Copyright Trolling is not exclusive to the US, but as our copyright laws allows for claims of statutory damages (up to $150K plus fees/costs) against non-commercial individuals, the environment is well suited for the Trolls.

Now it appears that DBC/Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) is trying to expand it business model to locations outside of the US.  I was able to obtain a couple of documents that show Troll DBC is attempting to obtain ISP subscriber information for IP addresses in Japan.   DBC_Japan_POA   The document is a Power of Attorney, US Copyright Office Certificate of Registration for the movie, and a Certificate of Corporate Nationality and Representative.   ***  The second document is in Japanese and I’m working on getting it translated.  I will post it once this is accomplished.  Here is Page 1 of it – Japan_ISP_Page1

From this 25 Jun 14, document you can see that DBC’s representative Nicolas Chartier, has authorized Japanese Attorney Hiroki Kawagishi, Kawagishi Hiroki Law and Patent Firm, to be his legal representative in Japan.  DBC’s power of attorney is in support of their effort for a “Request for Disclosure of Information of Senders.

Godzilla_Troll2As I have no knowledge and experience with Japanese copyright law, I looked for some English reference material.  Luckily I did find the Japanese Law Translation Web site.  From there I was able to find the Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders, as well as their Copyright Act.

Here are a few articles on Japanese copyright law, as well as a June 2012 change to it that would allow illegal Japanese downloaders to be fined up to Two Million Yen (approx. $25K) or face up to two years in prison.

So until I get a translation of the second document, I will not be sure if Troll Kawagishi/DBC has filed a Japanese copyright infringement law suit or is simply trying to obtain ISP subscriber information on alleged infringers of their movie.  Either way, I fully expect some sort of settlement demand letter to eventually go out to an unknown number of Japanese ISP subscribers.

While looking at Japanese copyright law, I did not find any statutory damages provisions.  I probably missed it.  :(   What I did find is that the Troll/Plaintiff is required to show what the damages are.  Actual damages are not something the Trolls are particularly found of, as they have NO evidence to show how many people ACTUALLY shared the movie, with whom it was shared, as well how much was shared (in terms of data/copies of the movie, etc.).  So I would expect them to try to use Article 114-5, to claim at least thousands of Yen/Dollars of damages per ISP subscriber.

Article 114-5 Where, in a lawsuit pertaining to an infringement on a copyright, right of publication or neighboring right, it is found that damages have been incurred, but it is extremely difficult to prove the facts necessary to establish the amount of damages due to the nature of such facts, the court may determine an appropriate amount of damages on the basis of the entire import of oral proceedings and the results of the court‘s examination of the evidence.

More to come on this I’m sure.  I would also expect DBC/APMC to be exploring this in other counties.  If you are a Japanese ISP subscriber who has received any of these DBC or ISP paperwork, please feel free to contact me at  Also feel free to pass on any Japanese BT copyright trolling cases or stories of interest.  Thank you.


DieTrollDie  :)  “I will not hurt or harm you. Just give me back the board, Lance.  It was a good board… and I like it.  You know how hard it is to find a board you like…”   [Lt Col Kilgore, Apocalypse Now]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Malibu Media (X-Art) And The Ouija Board Forensic Analysis – Butler case – 1:13-cv-02707 (CO)

First I want to draw attention to the recent Fight Copyright Troll article concerning Malibu Media/X-Art’s Prenda-like behavior – Malibu Media blackmail: deep in the Prenda territory.   Archive Docket   The article shows how reluctant the Troll/APMC/Plaintiff is to release a Defendant for fear that others Defendants will be emboldened to fight back.  Troll/Plaintiff claims the Defendant in this case destroyed his computer shortly after being notified of the law suit.  This claim is based on the fact that their ‘Expert,’ Patrick Paige failed to find any of the following direct evidence on the computer.

  • Evidence of Plaintiff’s movies
  • Evidence of ANY BitTorrent program
  • Any Internet Web searches for Torrents (Malibu Media/X-Art or ANYTHING else)
  • Evidence of data destruction (deletion/wiping) of the hard drive

The forensic report by Patrick Paige is SAD in format and especially content.

The best Troll/Plaintiff could do is state the follow. “I do not know if this is the only computer Mr. Shekoski used at his residence.”  NOTE: When this is the first thing a forensic report mentions, you can bet they failed to find any direct evidence.  Mr. Paige states he did find an old Peer-To-Peer (P2P) file sharing program (Limewire) and over 200 references to music files (Non-Malibu Media/X-Art) that were search for and allegedly downloaded.  Mr. Paige’s main report omits the dates of these Limewire files: 2009 – 2010 (Four+ Years Ago! – see the attachment to the forensic report).  It is also worth noting that Mr. Paige’s report states nothing about any findings of data destruction.  Still with all this, Troll/Plaintiff has the gall to threaten the Defendant with further expanding the case (to include two other family members) unless Defendant agrees to walk-away AND waive his ability to seek attorney fees and costs.  Would you consider this Blackmail??? – My opinion YES.

Nonetheless, rather than agreeing to dismiss its case as required by the July 21, 2014 Order, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to use the “evidence” of Amber Shekoski’s file sharing to bully Defendant into a coerced settlement whereby Defendant would agree to pay a $15,000 judgment if his IP address were ever again to be used for copyright infringement, and that Defendant would give up his right to recoup his costs and attorneys’ fees under the provisions of the Copyright Act. (My Emphasis) {ECF#22, Page 3, Section 6.}

Butler Case – Colorado

This brings me to another similar Malibu Media case of interest – Malibu Media LLC v. Butler, case #1:13-cv-02707 (CO).  Here is my previous article on it.  This is the case where Troll/Plaintiff was unable to conduct a forensic analysis because the computer in question was not under the control of the Defendant.

Specifically, while acknowledging that he was in possession of a Microsoft Dell Mini during the preceding two years, Defendant states that he is no longer in possession of any computer aside from his cell phone. Therefore, Plaintiff needs additional time to conduct further discovery as to the location and condition of the hard drives. {ECF# 38, page 1}

On 12 Aug 14, Troll/Plaintiff requested a 90 day extension to serve its “Expert” witness report.  The judge only gave Troll/Plaintiff 30 days (10 Sep 14) to serve expert witness reports – The judge also made it VERY clear that Plaintiff failed to show good cause for the extension request.  The Troll said it needed 90 days to review what Defendant told them concerning the disposition of the computer he previously had.  The judge clearly did not think 90 days was needed to check out Defendants story – Examples: “The computer was stolen” – police/insurance reports; “I donated the computer to Goodwill” – donation receipt & check with all the Goodwill location for it; “The computer broke and was thrown in the garbage” – check with his garbage company; “I gave the computer to friend” – check with the friend.  As we have not heard any allegations of spoliation/data destruction from Troll/Plaintiff, that likely means they are trying to determine how to get out of this mess.

I don’t know what Mr. Butler’s response to the initial discovery questions concerning his computer was, but I think an answer of “I don’t have a computer anymore,” Or “It was disposed of this date,” would have immediately generated Troll follow-up questions to locate and attempt to recover it.  Waiting months to make a request for more time is sloppy and telling.

New Case Filings Since The Last Article

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO SERVE EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS (10 Sep 14)Please Note: This motion was filed on the last day Troll/Plaintiff had to file its Expert Witness Report – Go Figure!  The Troll made a second request for more time (60 days – 10 Nov 14) because it is still looking for the missing hard drive.   Doc_43_02707(CO)

MINUTE ORDER (11 Sep 14) – The judge granted the requested 60 day extension (10 Nov 14) to serve its Expert Witness Report.  Discovery will be completed by 16 Jan 15.   The Colorado courts are notorious for allowing Trolls to string along cases for stupid reasons (my opinion).    Doc_45_02707(CO)

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (16 Sep 14) –  Doc_46_Order_02707(CO)   The judge affirmed the striking of the following affirmative defenses:  Failure to State a Claim, Assumption of the Risk, and Intervening Cause.  The following affirmative defenses were not stricken and could pose Troll/Plaintiff some discomfort: Estoppel and Copyright Misuse.  Even with the three affirmative defenses stricken, Troll/Plaintiff is going to have a hard time with no hard drive to examine.  Funny – I think Troll Lipscomb even told the PA Bellwether court that he never thought these cases would reach a trial because defendants would simply hide or destroy the computers/evidence (Closing Statement).  Audio Recordings from the PA Bellwether Trial

Part 1

Part 2

Patrick Paige Testimony

Lipscomb Closing Statement

Ouija_PaigeSo Troll/Plaintiff now has until 16 Jan 15, to complete Discovery.  Maybe Patrick Paige can conduct his analysis on the missing hard drive via a Ouija Board – That report would be as entertaining as the other reports we have seen from him.

SunSentinel_Paige_PillsNow let’s make this clear – I do have faith in the computer forensic software used.  Where my faith is lacking is in Mr. Paige’s ability to provide a “non-biased,” non-hired gun,” analysis, and report.  Any professional computer forensic examiner would simply conduct the analysis and provide a non-biased report on the findings.  The lawyers are the ones who determine how to use the findings.  To do otherwise hurts his credibility and calls into question all that he states.  Not that Mr. Paige’s credibility wasn’t already in question based on a 9 Mar 11, Sun Sentinel article.  It appears Mr. Paige left the Palm Beach Country Sheriff’s Office approx. 8 months after this article posted.  I assume he decided on early retirement from the Sheriff’s Office.  Very embarrassing for the Sheriff’s OfficeNote: Mr. Paige, please contact me if you think any of this is unfair or inaccurate.  :)

Hydrocodone_853_watsonUnless Troll/Plaintiff can reasonably claim the computer was destroyed or has been withheld by Defendant, their claims hinge only on what “Other” (non-Malibu Media/X-Art) files were recorded as being shared via BitTorrent by Defendant’s IP address.  That is ONLY if they can tie them back to the Defendant and/or the missing computer in question.  Not an easy task when Troll/Plaintiff does not want to spend the money on an investigation.  I expect there will be some sort of attempt to get Mr. Butler to accept a walk-away deal – freeing up Troll/Plaintiff from having to pay the Defendant’s attorney fees/costs.  Good luck on that one Trolls!

DieTrollDie :)   We took morphine, diamorphine, cyclizine, codeine, temazepam, nitrazepam, phenobarbitone, sodium amytal, dextropropoxyphene, methadone, nalbuphine, pethidine, pentazocine, buprenorphine, dextromoramide, chlormethiazole. The streets are awash with drugs you can have for unhappiness and pain, and we took them all. Fuck it, we would have injected vitamin C if only they’d made it illegal.  {Mark Renton, “Trainspotting”}

Posted in Keith Lipscomb | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Copyright Troll Michael Hierl (Dallas Buyers Club LLC) Dismisses ANOTHER Doe To Avoid Questions – 1:14-cv-02162 (IL)

The running of this one-man-band of a site can be hectic and I often find it hard to keep with the various cases.  While looking at some of the ongoing cases, I decided to revisit 1:14-cv-02162, Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) LLC v. Does 1-36, Northern District of IL.  The Troll in this case is no other than attorney Michael Hierl.   Previous post on this case.   Archive Docket

This is the case where Doe #17 filed a motion (Pro Se) and the Judge Gary Feinerman actually appeared to be open to exploring the request to sever all the Does.   MTQ_Doe17_02162(IL)   Troll Hierl responded to the motion and told the court that Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) “Blackjack” analogy that the DC Court of Appeals adopted in AF Holdings case (1:12-cv-00048 / 12-7135) was wrong.   Troll Response_02162(IL)   Troll Response_EXs_02162(IL)   The court gave the Doe until 29 Aug 14, to file a reply to the Troll response. On 24 Aug 14, Doe #17 made his reply.   Doc_31_Doe17_Response_02162(IL)


On 18 Sep 14, Troll Hierl filed a motion to dismiss Doe #17, which may mean that some sort of agreement was reached between the parties.   Doc_33_VolDismiss_02162(IL)   Doc_34_OrderDismiss_02162(IL)   The dismissal took place seven days after the 11 Sep 14, Status Hearing.   Doc_32_MinuteEntry_02162(IL)   It is worthy to note that the language in the dismissal states both parties will cover their own legal bills.  This is something we usually see when a settlement is reached.  Not that Doe #17 had any legal bill that could be claimed – Pro Se.  The “Without” prejudice dismissal tends to indicate the dismissal was done by Troll/Plaintiff to avoid having to address the motion and risk severing the Does.  This of course goes hand-in-hand with the recent dismissal of two Does from another Troll Hierl/Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) case in the ILND.  These two were also dismissed by the Troll to avoid having to defend joinder of the Does (1:14-cv-04940).  The main difference in the 04940 case is the Troll refiled single Defendant cases against both of the Does.

TrollBible_APMC2The dismissal of Doe #17 is indicative of a Troll/Plaintiff who doesn’t want to risk having to answer any uncomfortable questions concerning their operation and the people/organization behind it.  No Surprise!  As the saying goes, “Anything you say will be used against you.


Now Troll Hierl could refile a single Defendant case against Doe #17, but that is pretty pointless in my opinion.  The only possible benefit would be to send a message to any Does filing motions that it is only going to cause you more stress and heart ache, as the Troll is not going away.  Doe #17 has shown he is willing to fight and has good head on his shoulder.  Troll/Plaintiff also does like the fact that Judge Feinerman is interested in the DC court of Appeals ruling against AF Holdings/Prenda Law – Mass Joinder IS NOT appropriate.  This Plaintiff claims it is not a “Copyright Troll,” but it clearly fails the duck test.

Now a single Defendant case would likely get the ISP subscriber information of Doe #17.  Even if this happens they would still need to tie the infringing activity back to the Defendant – beyond the fact he pays the ISP bill.  The Troll would need to conduct background checks to first determine who resides in the residence, possible family members, and of course if they have the financial means to pay.  Then they would have to conduct social media checks for any possible linkage of the “Other” BitTorrent files they recorded as being shared via Doe #17’s public IP address.  Unless they find something very telling, naming/serving Doe #17 is risky – a person may then hire an attorney and fight back.  It is much simpler (and profitable) for Troll Hierl to let such a case languish on the docket while working toward forcing settlements from the remaining Does in the mass case.  If a second cases against Doe #17 dies on the docket for lack of action (or 2nd dismissal), it will be deemed adjudicated on its merits (Doe #17 is the prevailing party) and this Doe/IP address cannot be sued again for this specific allegation.

No Facts Support Joinder

The mass Doe BT copyright infringement cases common to IL and CO, are an abuse of process to both the courts and Does (my opinion).  It would be nice if the courts in these jurisdictions took note of the historic actions of the Troll/Plaintiffs and started to ask harder questions about what they are doing, who is driving these operations, and exactly how these Does are properly joined.  If the actions of the Troll/Plaintiffs are completely above-board, then their evidence shows this, I will stand corrected.  As it stands now, there is NOTHING to show that any of the Does are properly joined (In Any Of The Cases) – this is the best the Trolls can claim:

The individual public IP address associated with each Defendant (who pays the ISP bills) was recorded as sending a small amount of data to the Troll BitTorrent monitoring firm.  This data was tied back to a hash file which correlates to Plaintiff’s movie.  There is NO information/evidence that shows any of the Does/IP addresses shared any part of Plaintiff’s movie amongst themselves.  The Does in these cases are simply lumped together (wrongfully joined) based on their location within the appropriate jurisdiction.  The joinder of Does is only done to reduce filing fees/costs to this business model.  The hash file only shows that it is the same movie/file, NOT who shared it with whom.  The BitTorrent protocol is not designed to share this type of information and thus the Trolls are unable to obtain it.

DieTrollDie  :)    “We have an old saying in Delta House: don’t get mad, get even.”  {D-Day, Animal House}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

17 Oct Update – Troll Michael Hierl (Dallas Buyers Club LLC) Refiles Cases On Two Does Who Filed Motions – 1:14-cv-04940 (IL)

17 Oct 14 Update

It has been over a month since Troll Michael Hierl dismissed Does # 15 & 22, and then immediately filed single-Doe cases against them (details below).  I surmised that this was done to remove the possibility that the court would sever all Does except for #1.  The Troll dismissal mooted the motions and allowed the Troll to continue threatening to name people in the case unless they pay a settlement.

As of today (17 Oct 14), there has been no real movement in any of the cases (1:14-cv-04940, 1:14-cv-071281:14-cv-07129).  For the main case, I expect troll Hierl is still trying to get people to pay-up.  For the two single-Doe cases, I believe the Troll will keep them open until the court closes them for lack of action.  Troll Hierl could have easily resubmitted his template-based Early Discovery request for Does #15 & 22 (and possibly gotten it).  BUT as these Troll/Plaintiffs/APMC do not want to waste time and money fighting, it is cheaper to just pay $400 per case and essentially keep a trouble-making Doe/Attorneys out of their business for the time being.  They might even get lucky enough that a court will not award attorney fees/costs to the Defendant after the second dismissal.

The second dismissal for Doe #15 (1:14-cv-07128) could actually come about next month.  On 25 Sep 14, the Judge Gary Feinerman, set a status hearing at 0900 on 10 Nov 14.   Stat_Hearing_07128(IL)

More to come.  AND Go Giants!

DTD :)



This article concerns the rampant Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) cases, most notably in the IL Northern District.  Since these cases started in February 2014, I count over 3100 Does in over 125 cases in various jurisdictions.  One case of interest is 1:14-cv-04940, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-44, Northern District of IL, Troll Michael A. Hierl, Hughes Soco Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

It appears to be the standard DBC Copyright Troll Case against 44 ISP subscribers/public IP addresses.  Early discovery of ISP subscriber information was granted and the Does have started to get notices from the ISPs.  What I wanted to draw attention to is that two Does (Does #15 & #22) hired attorneys and motions were filed (4 Sep 14) seeking to quash the subpoena, as well as vacate the early discovery, and proceed anonymously.   MTSVQ_Doe22_09490(IL)   MTQ_Doe15_09490(IL)   Both motions are good, but I really like the one from attorney Ross Drath, Davis McGrath, LLC.

Subsections of interest in Doe #22’s Motion

  • This Court Should Vacate its Order as to Defendant and Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena as to Defendant, Because Plaintiff has not Shown Good Cause to Take Early Discovery and Issue Such a Subpoena under the Sony Music and Semitool Standards.
  • Plaintiff’s Subpoena is not likely to advance the case because Defendant’s counsel is already willing to accept service of process on Defendant’s behalf, and because the subpoena targets subscribers rather than infringers.
  • Plaintiff has not set out a prima facie case of copyright infringement, because it has only alleged that Defendant downloaded imperceptible data, which is not “original” and therefore not copyrightable material.
  • In Addition, the Court Should Grant Movant Leave to Proceed Anonymously Through Discovery and Dispositive Motions.

Take a read and you will see attorney Drath wrote a very good motion.  The main points in the motion were backed up by sound logic and case-law.  Responding to this motion would not have been very much fun for Troll Hierl.

So on 12 Sep 14, Troll Hierl decided to simply dismiss (without prejudice) Does #15 & #22 from the case.   Doe15_Dismiss_09490(IL)   Doe22_Dismiss_09490(IL)   Order_Motion_Moot_04940(IL)   The dismissal removes the possibility of severance for the remaining Does, as well as mooting the claim that Plaintiff has not plead even a prima facie case of copyright infringement.  Then in true Troll fashion he immediately filed single Defendant cases against both of the Does (links to archive docket below).   The move to dismiss and file single Defendant cases was likely done to send a message to any Does who are considering filing a motion or fighting back.

This tactic can work well for a Troll/Plaintiff – that is until someone decides to fight back.  Elf-Man LLC found this out the hard way when Mr. Lamberson and attorney Lynch put the hurt on them.   Troll/Plaintiff has essentially said, “Put up or shut up.”  I must say this is the reputation I have heard of concerning Troll Hierl.

CTBC_parody1As it stands, the early discovery against Does #15 & #22 is no longer in effect, as they have been dismissed from the mass case.  Troll Hierl may resubmit the early discovery request for these Does in the future.  As he still has multiple Does remaining in the main case, I expect him to focus most of his efforts on settlement collection.  I would not put it past Troll Hierl to string out the cases against Does #15 & #22 for as long as possible.  Quite possibly not even making an early discovery motion until the very last moment; or not at all.  By removing these two “trouble-makers,” he can focus his efforts on getting as many settlements as possible.  This is exactly what the controlling interest (Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)) wants.  The two Does might even get voluntarily dismissed by Troll/Plaintiff or the court for lack of action.

So Why Would There Be No Action Taken Against These Does?

By taking no action, Troll Hierl does not have to respond to any motions or risk an adverse ruling by the court.  This of course saves him time and money.  The remaining Does see that filing a motion will not resolve the issue and even may cost them more money than simply settling, regardless of culpability.   We all know that Troll/Plaintiff/APMC (What is APMC? Presentation) does not want to disclose the inner working of their operation, as it would likely first kill the mass-Doe cases and eventually the single Doe cases would be harder to work.  Even Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media/X-Art understand what such a disclosure would do to their operations.

Now I could be wrong that Troll Hierl will not immediately seek early discovery against Does #15 & #22 (I haven’t seen it as of publishing this article).  Maybe Troll Hierl and APMC actually believe they will obtain the identity of the Does and then force a settlement or “walk-away” deal (cost of doing business decision).  I’m sure that is what Troll Maureen VanderMay thought when they named/served Mr. Lamberson in WA.  It didn’t work out as planned.  Troll/Plaintiff will try to avoid any/all case activity that will raise their costs and risk their operation.

What Would A Denied Early Discovery Mean To Doe #22?

Troll/Plaintiff will not have the advanced knowledge of who the ISP subscriber is and thus will be unable to conduct any background checks on him/her, their residence, other people in the residence, etc.  They may eventually get this information, but it will likely require Troll/Plaintiff to first serve the Defendant and move forward with Discovery.  Serving the Defendant based only on the IP address is risky (and rash) in my opinion, as they are claiming the Doe is the “infringer” ONLY because his/her name is on the ISP account.

Moving forward with normal two-sided discovery is what Troll/Plaintiff wants to avoid.  Based on all the previous work that has been done by attorneys such as Morgan Pietz and Christopher Lynch, attorney Drath would have a great starting point upon which develop his own line of inquiry into this Plaintiff/APMC.  Such as the BT monitoring shelf-company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) and Daniel Macek.

Where Is This Likely To Go?

My opinion is the most cost-effective course of action for Troll/Plaintiff is to string the cases along with little to no action.  Collect as many settlements as possible from the remaining Does and then dismiss the cases.  As I have previously stated, the amount of profit made in these cases is large.  If approximately half of the Does in this case settle for $4,000, that works out to be $80,000 (20 Does X $4,000 = $80,000).  Case filings ($1,200) and ISP charges probably cost them under $2,000.  So then it is just a matter to pay out the interested parties (Troll Hierl, APMC, and Plaintiff) from $78,000.  Even if they on get 10 Does to settle, that is $40,000!  Note: These amounts will only be realized if they are able to eventually dismiss the case and avoid having to pay attorney fees/costs for Does #15 & #22.

Case Adjudicated On The Merits

This is the part that will make things interesting.  As both of these Does were dismissed from the main case, Troll/Plaintiff has to know that a second dismissal essentially mean the Does have been cleared of the allegations and are the prevailing party.  See FRCP 41(1)(B).   Prevailing parties in Copyright Infringement law suit are (in most cases) allowed to motion the court for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.  Now if the Troll can keep the case activity to a minimum, the fees/costs portion could be low enough not to eat away too much of their profit margin.  If they decide to play hard (and stupid) they will simply run up the defense bill up just like Troll VanderMay/Elf-Man LLC did (approx. $200K and rising/Not to mention the two motions for sanctions).

PUSU_Cat2I have said it before and will say it again; the BT Copyright Troll business model is much like playing poker.   You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em.  Know when to fold ‘em.  Know when to walk away.  Know when to run.

DieTrollDie  :)   Run Troll Run!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

RightsCorp Shuffle (one step forward – two steps back) – Information On 30,000 ISP Subscribers Sought (1:14-MC-00848(TX))

First I want to thank all the people who push me ideas for my articles.  I can’t promise I will write anything, but I at least try to provide some feedback.  This article concerns some recent RightsCorp activity.  Previous RightsCorp Article

So what do you get when you combine Arrogance, Greed, and Stupidity?  Well, when you mix this trio in the Federal courts, the result could be bad for the people/organization with these faults.

RightsCorp Voicemail

RightsCorp has been calling ISP subscribers to obtain settlements for alleged copyright infringement of content owned by customers who subscribe to their services.  They are able to obtain the telephone number of the ISP subscriber in two ways:  1) From the ISP subscriber when they enter their personal information into their Web site;  2) From ISPs in response to a subpoena issued by a Federal court.

Once RightsCorp obtains a telephone number of an ISP subscriber, the information is passed to one of their collection personnel.  The collection personnel then start to call the ISP subscriber to try get then to pay a settlement.  The ISP subscriber telephone number is also added to an auto-call system (Robo-Call) and set to call the ISP subscriber until a settlement is reached.  Here is one voicemail left by a RightsCorp collection agent.

Take a listen and tell me what you think.  I have had one person comment that the call might not be seen in the best light by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

RightsCorp Shuffle (one step forward – two steps back)

RightsCorp_Stupid1In my previous RightsCorp article I mentioned that RightsCorp has been using the Federal Courts (limited jurisdictions) to obtain subpoenas for ISP subscriber information.  These are not “Copyright Infringement” law suits, but simply a “Misc” cases that are opened and closed on the same day to issue a subpoena.  I noted these cases were limited and appeared to be against individuals with large numbers of alleged infringements.

On 6 Aug 14, RightsCorp attorney, Dennis J. Hawk, opened a Misc. case in the Central District of California, case #2:14-mc-00627 (CDCA).  Case documents are at the bottom of the article.  The purpose was to ask the court to grant RightsCorp a subpoena for ISP subscriber information for an undisclosed number of people they claimed were infringing.  The subpoena was granted and RightsCorp proceeded to send out the subpoenas to the affected ISPs.  One of the ISPs was Grande Communication Networks LLC, Texas.  As Grande uses Neustar Inc., to handle subpoena requests, they started to look into this request.  I think Grande/Neustar was a bit surprised to find the list of IP addresses RightsCorp was seeking ISP subscriber information was approx. 500 pages and comprised over 30,000 IP addresses.

Neustar calculated that to accomplish this request, it would take approx. two months (by dedicated personnel) to accomplish and would cost RightsCorp $32,026.  Neustar repeatedly tried to contact RightsCorp concerning the cost; time requirement; and the lack of a valid court order.  RightsCorp/Mr. Hawk eventually responded to Neustar in what can only be described as a totally rash/stupid move (my opinion) and stated,

Our client does not pay to obtain the address details on infringers.

Now Mr. Hawk has obviously failed to see how you should deal with the ISP legal departments.  He should have taken a lesson from Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media LLC and observed how to kiss a little ISP butt to get what you want – as well as pay for a service.

On 5 Sep 14, Grande filed a motion to quash the subpoena in the Texas court, case # 1:14-MC-00848 (TX).   Grande informed the court that RightsCorp is simply trying to avoid judicial review on a litany of issues (joinder, personal jurisdiction, & venue) this case raises.  Grande even cited AF Holdings v. Doe 1-1058 (Prenda Law), appellate case in which the court said that When the purpose of a discovery request is to gather information for use in proceedings other than the pending suit, discovery properly is denied.

The following day (8 Sep 14), RightsCorp emailed the attorney representing Grande and withdrew their request for ISP subscriber information.

On 10 Sep 14, Grande filed an Advisory to the Texas court concerning RightsCorp’s questionable activities.

As detailed in Grande’s Motion, the Subpoena presented an extraordinarily undue burden (over 30,000 subscriber lookups) and was issued to a cable operator without an order as required by the Cable Communications Act. (Mot., at 7-8.) Even more egregiously, it appears that the Subpoena is only one of approximately one hundred (100) or more similar subpoenas issued by Rightscorp to regional Internet service providers located across the country2 (presumably chosen because they are less likely to contest the subpoenas than national Internet service providers with larger in-house legal departments) upon the signature of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking the personally identifiable information of thousands of individuals beyond the jurisdiction of the California courts, despite the fact that such subpoenas may not be sent and issued under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) to an Internet service provider acting as a conduit under law that has been established for a decade. (See id., at 5-7, citing cases including In re Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 393 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2005).)

Under the circumstances, this Court or the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California may consider ordering Rightscorp and its counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misusing the federal court’s subpoena powers. Such an order would be appropriate in connection with Grande’s request for costs and attorney’s fees in the Motion (Id., at 9; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) (challenge to subpoena may also be addressed by the court of issuance)).3 Beyond any doubt, Rightscorp and its counsel failed and refused to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense” on Grande. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).

On 11 Sep 14, The Texas court closed this case because RightsCorp had withdrawn the subpoena.

I don’t know if the CA Central District court will get involved, but one can only hope. RightsCorp must be seriously hurting to pull such a bone-head move that puts it in for consideration for the Next Prenda Law “Equine Excrement Award.” I will admit they are at least smart enough to back down and not take this into a court.  Note: I wonder if the CACD local rule limiting the maximum of “John Does” in a case to 10, applies here???  If so, Rightscorp may have another violation to worry about.

I don’t know how many other regional ISP simply gave into RightsCorp, but I would expect a few at least.  I’m still of the opinion that you shouldn’t pay RightsCorp.  Don’t waste your time or money; Ignore the calls.  I will advise you to make sure any infringing BitTorrent activity on your network stops, as it could possibly lead to a real copyright infringement case.  Also, if you do get a recording of RightsCorp calling/voicemails, please email me a copy.  *** Late Addition – If you want some additional information on the RightsCorp Misc cases/Affected ISPs, please see Attorney Morgan Pietz’s Web site.  ***   

Case Documents - MTQ_GrandeComm_00848(TX)   MTQ_GrandeComm_Exhibits_00848(TX)   Order_Referring_00848(TX)   Advisory_00848(TX)  Advisory_Exhibits_00848(TX)   Order_CaseClosed_00848(TX)

DieTrollDie :)   The Dude abides.  I don’t know about you but I take comfort in that.  It’s good knowin’ he’s out there.  The Dude. Takin’ ‘er easy for all us sinners.  Shoosh.  I sure hope he makes the finals.”   {The Stranger, The Big Lebowski}

Posted in Copyright Enforcement Group | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Countryman Nevada Case Dismissed After One Settlement, 1:14-cv-01149(CO)

Just a short post to show you how some BitTrorrent Copyright Troll cases run.  Now I’m in NO way saying that all of them end up like this.  Each Troll/Plaintiff is different, as well as the local Troll who is running them.  Malibu Media LLC/Troll Lipscomb runs their operation differently than say a Voltage Pictures case.  BUT the following example points out that the Troll/Plaintiffs are doing this to generate settlements and the claims of cracking down on piracy is pure BS in my opinion.

Case At Hand

Color9SmellThis case is brought to us by Voltage Picture (Nicolas Chartier) and the local Troll attorney Scott Kannady, Brown & Kannady, LLC, Denver, CO.  Case is Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (12 Does), Colorado, 1:14-cv-01149.   Complaint_01149(CO)

The case was filed on 22 Apr 14, to include a motion for expedited discovery of ISP subscriber information.  The expedited discovery was rubber-stamped the next day and there after the Troll received the ISP subscriber information.  The case followed the usual path of working settlements and monthly status reports to the court.  Almost three months after filing, Troll/Plaintiff dismissed Doe (#6) after settling.  Approximately one month later (20 Aug 14), Troll Kannady voluntarily dismissed the entire case (11 remaining Does) without prejudice.   Doc_18_VolDismiss_01149(CO)

So one out of 12 Does apparently paid the settlement.  That is an 8.333% settlement rate – piss-poor settlement rate IMO.  But still, how much time, effort, or money did they really have to put out?  $400 and some electronic case filing based off pre-made templates is what I’m guessing – not much.  Assuming Troll/Plaintiff obtained $4,500 for this settlement; that leaves $4,100 to be split between the parties.  So even with one Doe settling, the business model is profitable.

Why Dismiss – Why Not Serve The Does?

This business model is purely designed to extract settlement from ISP subscribers.  The fact that these Troll/Plaintiffs could take these Does to trial does not figure into their plan.  The claims that they are only trying to reduce piracy and recoup lost revenue is another sad joke supported by the facts that –

  • The Troll/Plaintiffs do not send out DMCA take-down notices to the ISPs of the public IP addresses they observe.  Many of the Troll/Plaintiffs do send out DMCA take-down notices, BUT they are usually only sent to Internet Search engines or Tube sites.  As the Troll/Plaintiffs use these DMCA take-down notices in this fashion, I assume they are working – not perfect, but still working.  So why can’t work with the ISPs and their subscribers???
  • They only file cases in the jurisdictions they deem friendly enough for them and where they can find an attorney willing to tarnish their name by handling these cases.  The reason why some jurisdictions look down on these cases is because many of the past ones were questionable (at best) when you looked beyond the threadbare claims. As far as the tarnished reputation for handling these cases; the attorneys will have to fix that on their own – you reap what you sow.

The main reason you don’t see as many Does named/served with a summons/complaint is because this step significantly increases the risk that some ISP subscriber is going to fight back.  We saw this gross mistake made by the Troll Maureen Vandermay in Washington when her client decided to name/serve the Does who refused to settle in case 2:13-cv-00115 (WAED).  This of course led to Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson case, 2:13-cv-00395, with motions for approximately $200K in attorney fees/costs and sanctions against the Troll/Plaintiff.  Even Malibu Media LLC, is feeling pressure from its efforts to name/served non-settling ISP subscribers.  It is only a matter of time before they cannot cut and run and lose a case.

So based on what I have seen in the Troll Kannady CO cases, I wouldn’t rush off to pay a settlement demand from him.  I expect that if CO court didn’t require monthly status reports from the Troll, these cases would stay open much longer and possibly get more people to pay up.  Judge Hegarty may be making it harder for the Troll/Plaintiffs, but CO is still a BT Copyright Troll haven in need of some reform.  Now as this information makes it into the public view, Troll Kannady and his Plaintiffs may be forced to start naming/serving people in small numbers.  This of course increases their risks and possibly lowers their profit.

DieTrollDie :)   “That’s how you’re gonna beat ‘em, Butch. They keep underestimating you.- Butch Coolidge, Pulp Fiction

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Copyright Troll Elf-Man LLC Files Weak Justification for Default Judgments, 2:13-cv-00115 (WAED)

On 3 Sep 14, Judge Rice denied Troll/Plaintiff’s motion for default judgements against Seven Defendants in Elf-Man LLC case 2:13-cv-00115(WA) and directed Plaintiff to file a response to his concerns.  Previous Article.   *** Late Addition – I forgot to add this document – sorry.  ***  Doc_114_DefaultDenied_00126(WA)  On 3 Sep 14, Judge Rice also denied default judgements against 4 Defendants in The Thompsons Films, LLC, case 2:13-cv-00126.  The judge had the same concern as in the Elf-Man cases.  Judge Rice was clearly able to see this is the same operation, just filed under different Plaintiff names.  Archive Docket (2:13-cv-00126(WA)    DTD Article on 2:13-cv-00126(WA) 

I am a bit surprised that Troll/Plaintiff made a response as I believe they have no additional “evidence” to tell the court.  What does not surprise me is that what they filed is 90% garbage (My opinion & I think a generous one at that).

Here are the documents they filed – you have seen some of these before in one form or another.

DECLARATION OF KURT UEBERSAX IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT   Doc_124_Decl_Uebersax_00115(WA)   Denied Plaintiff seeded the movie to BitTorrent and says a “third party distributors” managed the pre-release of the film. Here is “gem” from Mr. Ubersax concerning the piracy of Elf-Man.

At one point there were considerations for a sequel to be made, but all such plans were canceled in part due to the piracy of the first movie and the fact that unless something could be done to stem the piracy of the second film, it would suffer the same fate.

DECLARATION OF PATRICK PAIGE   Doc_125_Decl_Paige_00115(WA)   This is the same tired Paige declaration that Malibu Media LLC used and this Troll/Plaintiff is trying to use it to show IP geolocation technology works.  Too bad is has nothing to say that the public IP address only comes back to the ISP subscriber and not necessarily the alleged infringer.  An investigation is required to determine who actually did this – something that was not done by Troll Lowe or VanderMay.

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL PATZER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S POST-DISMISSAL MOTIONS   Doc_126_Decl_Patzer_00115(WA)   Mr. Patzer claims to be an independent contractor predominantly for Excipio GmbH (German company).

Excipio contracts with Crystal Bay Corporation (“Crystal Bay”) to provide Crystal Bay with this data collection system, which is the system that Crystal Bay uses to detect infringement of Plaintiff’s works. Specifically, Crystal Bay licenses the use of Excipio’s system and servers.

Still there is NO mention of who owns or controls the SD “shelf-company” Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) or who Darren M. Griffin is.  Judge Rice specifically mentioned the concerns raised in the Elf-Man v. Lamberson case (2:13-cv-00395(WA)) about the validity of CBC and its technicians.

SECOND DECLARATION OF DAVID A. LOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT   Doc_127_2nd_Decl_Lowe_00115(WA)   Another waste of digital media in my opinion. It only claims the fees/costs requested were valid and not excessive. It in NO way addresses either of the two reasons judge Rice denied the default judgments in the first place – “Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiffs to brief and provide evidence supporting its substantive claims and amount of damages against each defaulting defendant separately. Upon a showing substantiating Plaintiff’s claims against each Defendant, the Court will reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and request for attorney fees.”   (My emphasis) {Default_Denied_Doc_121_00115(WA)pdf}

DECLARATION OF DANIEL MACEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT   Doc_128_Decl_Macek_00115(WA)   Mr. Macek (software consultant hired by CBC AND Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) employee) wastes 8 pages to tell the court something they already stated – That the Defendants are the ISP subscribers with the public IP addresses they recorded.  The declaration in NO way provides ANY evidence to show that the Defendants were the infringers.  Attached to Mr. Macek’s declaration (filed under seal) is a list of additional BitTorrent files that were being shared by the public IP addresses of the Defendants.  Mr. Macek claims this list of files is so large and disruptive to the Defendants Internet service connection that:

  1. It is “highly” likely the Defendant was the infringer.
  2. The Defendants knew the infringing activity was occurring over their Internet connection.
  3. It was likely a resident and not someone else using Defendant’s WiFi Internet connection.

Threadbare claims with NO supporting evidence.  Then combined this lack of evidence with APMC documentation disclosing that Mr. Macek doesn’t have the technical qualifications to make such a claim, as well as APMC hopes the various courts will not question them on this.

If this is all Troll/Plaintiff plans to file, then I can’t see the judge granting damages or costs/fees.  There is nothing new to the claims and evidence.  They have met the 6 Oct 14, suspense to respond, but the content of the filing in NO way justifies the statutory amount they requested -$30,000.  At best it is a simplistic long-winded recital of their claim – The ISP subscribers infringed upon Plaintiff’s movie because I said so.  This type of response is qualifies then for the Prenda Law “Equine Excrement Award.” Way to go guys!


So we continue to wait for the court to assess these declarations and make its ruling. I truly hope judge Rice see these filings for what they are and fully denies the default judgments. I assume that after he rules on this case, he will move onto the motion for sanctions and fees against Troll/Plaintiff in the Lamberson case.  That will be the fun one!

DieTrollDie :)   Treat people in your debt like family … exploit them.  {Rules of Acquisition #111}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Copyright Trolls Target Children’s Animated Movie – Khumbia – 6 Cases in IL & CO

You might have seen a recent Tweet (27 Aug 14) of mine concerning a new BitTorrent Copyright Troll Plaintiff (at least in name): Khumba Film Pty. Ltd.  This Troll/Plaintiff filed 4 multi-Doe cases in the Illinois Northern District.   Complaint_06610(IL)   Complaint_EXs_IP_CpyRt_06610(IL)   Copyrights  Upon closer inspection, I found out I missed Khumba’s first filing in Colorado on 23 Jul 14.  Sorry :(   Here are the current Khumba cases (more to come I bet).

  • 1:14-cv-02049 – 12 Does – CO – 23 Jul 14
  • 1:14-cv-02075 – 14 Does – CO – 25 Jul 14
  • 1:14-cv-06610 – 42 Does – ILND – 27 Aug 14
  • 1:14-cv-06609 – 41 Does – ILND – 27 Aug 14
  • 1:14-cv-06608 – 38 Does – ILND – 27 Aug 14
  • 1:14-cv-06605 – 39 Does – ILND – 27 Aug 14             Total of 186 Does

Khumba_TrollColorado and IL again – no surprises here.  Both locations are well-established as friendly for filing BT Copyright Troll law suits.  Khumba is an animated movie about the adventures of a “half-striped” zebra.  You can find the DVD for sale for $10 – $20.  The movie is by the same people who brought you Zambezia, another animated movie that was the subject of 33 Copyright troll cases filed in IL, CO, TN, GA, DE, and FL (16 Jan – 9 Apr 2013).  For the Zambezia cases I counted a total of 981 Does.  As far as I know, no Zambezia cases went past the settlement demand phase – no need to with all the money to be made.  I don’t believe any of the cases even went as far as a default judgment (please correct me if I’m wrong – *** See comments below ***).

Follow The Money

I will use a little Copyright Troll math to highlight why BT copyright trolling will continue – GREED!!!  Let’s say for the previous Zambezia cases the Troll was able to get 50% of the Does to settle for $3,000.

  • 50% Settlement Rate – 490 Does X $3,000 = $1,470,000.
  • 25% Settlement Rate = $735,000.

Troll Costs – Filing 33 cases costs $13,200.  Estimate local attorney fees of $3,000 per case – $99,000 (That is generous IMO).  Estimated Fees/Costs = $112,200.

So after subtracting fees/costs, Troll/Plaintiff still has made a serious profit.  At the 50% settlement rate, the Troll/Plaintiff has made $1,357,800.  25% settlement rate = $622,800.  Wow!!!  Note: the amount the Troll/Plaintiff actually made is unknown and would have varied depending on the percentage of Does that did settle and the settlement amounts the Troll obtained.  As long as they are making a profit, this business model will continue.

More Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) Garbage

Another interesting point is that for the CO Khumba cases (and will assume the same for IL cases), we have the Troll/Plaintiff using the Infamous BT technical monitoring firm/SD Shelf-Company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) and the German consultant Daniel Macek.   Motion_EarlyDisc_02049(CO)   Decl_Daniel_Macek_02049(CO)   The complaints and declarations from Macek do not bother to disclose who Daniel Macek is, what company he actually works for, or even a basic resume of experience.  The lack of technical experience is not a shock to many of us, as we know Mr. Macek works for the Anti Piracy Management Company (APMC) LLC and they hope that US judges do not question Mr. Macek’s qualifications when he submits these template based declarations seeking early discovery of ISP subscriber information from the ISPs.  As the ILND and CO courts seem to be full of rubber-stamping fools (my opinion), these greedy Trolls keep on filing cases in these jurisdictions.  I can only hope that Judge Rice in WA makes his ruling on the Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson (2:13-cv-00395 (WA)) motion for attorney fees/costs and sanctions (against Troll/Plaintiff).  In the Lamberson case, CBC was the BT monitoring firm and it used Daniel Macek.  Attorney Lynch informed the court that another “Ghost” of a technician,  Darren M. Griffin, was part of CBC (Known SD shelf company and possible sham) and called into question the truthfulness of Troll/Plaintiff’s technicians and the case as a whole.   If Griffin/CBC ends up being discredited, then these new cases that use CBC (via Daniel Macek) will have a harder time – they might even get dismissed by the Troll en mass.  *** Sorry – correction: I first had Griffin listed as part of the Lamberson case – it was Macek. ***

For the Colorado Does, please drop me an email if you have received your ISP notification, as well as when the settlement demand letters start arriving – please send me copies. Same goes for the IL Does when the notifications start.

Previous Zambezia Articles – 1  2

DieTrollDie :)  “Love the one you’re with.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments Is Three Years Old – Malibu Media Settles 1:14-cv-00262 (CO)

Happy Birthday All!!! is three years old (as of 30 Aug 14).

BDayTartI almost let this get by me again.  The world of BitTorrent Copyright Trolls is still in existence and adapting to the changing environment.  I wanted to take a moment to thank all of the people who have made this last year so interesting for me and the Web site.  I expect no less for the next year!  So on 30 Aug 14, please find the time to raise a glass of you favorite beverage as I toast you all.

Here’s to a long life and a merry one.
A quick death and an easy one.
A pretty girl and an honest one.
A cold beer-and another one!

Update on Malibu Media LLC v. Richard Sadowski, 1:14-cv-00262 (CO)

Here is a short but very interesting update to the Malibu Media case against Mr. Sadowski (1:14-cv-00262 – IP address   This is the case where attorney John Arsenault filed a very good Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff failed to plead the necessary volitional act in its complaint.   MTD_FSC_Doc26_00262(CO)   Previous Article   My view was (and still is) that attorney Arsenault clearly showed Troll/Plaintiff was only targeting the Defendant because he was the ISP subscriber.  He backed up the motion with sound analysis and case-law to boot. 

Even in a Troll friendly environment such Colorado, Troll/Plaintiff decided NOT to file a reply and decided to settle the matter with the Defendant.  Why???  Because in the off-chance Hegarty/Wiley required Malibu Media to provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,”  they would have to disclose more of their internal operations.  Now Malibu Media is ALL about “settlements,” but I surmise this settlement agreement was more to Defendants liking.  On 18 Aug 14, Troll Kotzker dismissed the case with prejudice.   Doc_28_Settlement_Dismiss_00262(CO)   Doc_29_DismissOrder_00262(CO)

Please also note the wording of the dismissal.  The rather common statement that both parties will cover their respective legal bills is missing…  Does this mean that Malibu Media paid  Defendant Sadowski’s legal bills???  I don’t know, but the silence around this case is “interesting.” 

This just goes to reinforce that Malibu Media does not want to litigate these cases unless they can be assured that the defense will not be asking uncomfortable questions concerning their operation and “Who” is really pulling the strings for these cases.  Troll Lipscomb and minions are facing increased pressure from various courts and it is simply a matter of time before they get called to the carpet.  Until then, they will make each Defendant who chooses to fight incur a substantial defense bill to do so.  For those who have the will and ability to fight back – I salute you.

DieTrollDie :)   “I have had people walk out on me before, but not… when I was being so charming.”  {Deckard, Blade Runner}


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments