AZ Cases for Patrick Collins, K-Beech, & Raw Films Limited

I want to thank Aaron M. Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, for forwarding the information on these Arizona cases to me.  He is an AZ attorney who has filed a Motion on behalf of one of the John Does for Patrick Collins v. 1-54 John Does, Case # 2:11-cv-01602-GMS, filed 15 Aug 11.  P_Collins_v._54Does_AZ_2-11-cv-01602-GMS 

A quick review of the complaint shows the same old complaint that has been used in many other copyright infringement case previously.  I would love to see the template case file they provide to the sub-contracted lawyers (This one is Ryan J. Stevens).  They do change-up the case details, but for some reason they like to attach the same unreadable screenshot from a BitTorrent client (I think – hard to read).  Well, Mr. Stevens, you are likely to get a nasty surprise that this “Easy Money” case is going to cost you in time and money! 😉 

Here is the basics.

  • The work is “Cuties2” (SHA-1 Hash: EE7B1E84B6FD741359D99A0397DF043842BAB4D7
  • They claim each of the John Does installed a BitTorrent client on their computer and downloaded/shared the movie.  Wrong – Having the IP address does not mean the ISP subscriber did this.
  • IP address and BitTorrent information was collected by IPP, Limited (IPP) – previously seen in other cases.  As far I know, this software and the agents using it have never been tested in a lab or in court. 
  • Plaintiff claim ALL the Does took part in the same series of transactions.
  • Range of activity noted by Plaintiff – 1st Doe (#3) was seen at 18 May 2011, 11:45 AM UTC; Last Doe (#23) was observed at 15 July 2011, 4:45AM UTC.  Approximately time frame of two months. 
  • They attach a BitTorrent vocabulary exhibit from Wikipedia!  Couldn’t find anything more reliable than Wikipedia?
  • Plaintiff attached the application for copyright for Cuties2.  Filed the application on 26 May 2011.  The date of first publication for Cuties2 is 19 March 2011.  I don’t know where AZ stands on the view if a work is fully protected as soon as the owner applies for the copyright or has to wait until the application is approved.  

I haven’t looked up the case in PACER, so I don’t know the status of Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain subscriber information from the ISPs (Cox & Qwest Communications)

Well AZ, welcome to the fight!  If you know anything more on these cases, please send me the information.  If I get a free moment, I may try to tailor a template for this one.  🙂

One thing I want to NOTE is from a John Doe in the VA case (3:11-cv-00531-JAG, Patrick Collins v. Does 1-58) who filed an additional argument to the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena, on 21 Oct 11 (Motion to Q_Additional_Argument_00531).  In this additional argument, the Doe states he did an Internet search for Cuties2 and found the movie on “thousands” of Internet sites for free.  I’m haven’t searched the Internet for the free version of this movie yet, so I don’t know how accurate his statement is.  The Doe also attached a copy of the Nicholas Ranallo article, “Who are MCGIP (and Why are They Suing for Other People’s Movies?),” 25 September 2011. 

K-Beech Incorporated v. Unknown Party et al
Copyright Infringement – Arizona District Court
Filed: 8/15/2011


Patrick Collins Incorporated v. Unknown Party et al
Copyright Infringement – Arizona District Court
Filed: 8/15/2011
Raw Films Limited v. Unknown Party et al
Copyright Infringement – Arizona District Court
Filed: 8/15/2011
K-Beech Incorporated v. Unknown Party et al
Copyright Infringement – Arizona District Court
Filed: 8/15/2011

Plaintiff’s Attorney

Ryan J. Stevens (AZ Bar No. 026378)
309 N. Humphreys Street, Ste. 2
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Phone: (928) 226-0165
Fax: (928) 752-8111

Doesn’t appear he has a wealth of experience with copyright infringement or copyright law in general.   Looking at a Google Cache of his Web sites shows he primarily deals with criminal law, DUI/Drugs, and Traffic law.   

About 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 -
This entry was posted in 2:11-cv-01602-GMS, bitTorrent, copyright, copyright Troll, cuties2, dietrolldie, eff, infringement, IPP, IPP International IPTRACKER, IPP Limited, Kelly Law Firm, Motion to Quash, p2p, Patrick Collins, Ryan J. Stevens and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to AZ Cases for Patrick Collins, K-Beech, & Raw Films Limited

  1. Raul says:

    Sounds like Mr. Stevens is about to get an abrupt lesson in copyright law and the FRCP. What is remarkable to me about these porn lawsuits is that former (current?) ambulance chasers are all of a sudden copyright litigators WITH NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE. Obviously there is a larger law firm that is giving these guys a file with all pleadings and motions and settlement letters for these local ambulance chasers to modify to local rules/statutes. The funny thing is that these local guys are so clueless about the Copyright Act and how their particular Circuit interprets it that they are, for example, filing copyright infringement actions where there is no registered copyright and asking for statutory damages and attorneys fees for which they are clearly not entitled pursuant to 412 of the Copyright Act. I have just begun to give my adversary some education and hope to have him sanctioned (Rule 11 of the FRCP) by the time his bullshit case is dismissed.

  2. Raul says:

    LOL -I was just as pissed off in October as I am now. Nonetheless more laughs can be found here in which a defense attorney “…hereby submits the following Memorandum in Support of its concurrently filed Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Strike the Complaint filed against it by Patrick Collins, Inc. (hereinafter “Gang-bangers”), a California corporation” and then repeatedly refers to Patrick ?Collins, Inc. as Gangbangers. This motion is interesting for two reasons. The first is that this is the first time I have seen a defendant move to dismiss a troll complaint on the ground that it fails to adequately plead a claim upon which relief can be granted (i.e the complaint does not plead ownership of a valid copyright!?). The second reason is that his motion touches on an issue that is near and dear to my heart and again to quote defense counsel:

    … the Complaint confusingly only states that Plaintiff is the owner of the “…Registration for the Work which contains an original work of authorship.” (Court Doc.#11, para 47). The Registration certificate itself cannot contain anything, so it is unclear whether Plaintiff is actually claiming that Gangbangers itself is an original work of authorship as required, or whether it is making an end run around the requirements of the Copyright law to actually prove that the Work itself is an original work, and also importantly if there has been actual copying of constituent elements of the work itself that are original. That the subject matter may not be original is a serious concern particularly since “Gangbang” movies are apparently a type of generically named, non-original pornography that has been around long before the “Work” in question—so there is real doubt that any particular element of the Work is original. Without risking an infestation of malware on its computer by actually clicking on any particular website, the Court could take judicial notice that a simple Google search of “Gangbang movie” reveals a plethora of website entries boasting identically or similarly themed movies and websites.

    Clever argument but I am not sure whether it will carry the day. Now whether the content as opposed to the subject matter is original; that is an issue for the future.

    • AZ Curious says:

      BTW, Loved you commentary on Stupid America. Truly the “pen” is mightier than the sword and thanks for speaking out. Though I had to keep thinking your vernacular was strangely curiously familiar. Maybe it is just in this pit we take on similar traits.

  3. Watching the fall says:

    Interesting new developments on what I believe is the last Ryan Steven’s case in the great state of

    Two default judgements were motioned, one granted and one is being decided if it will be set aside. As in all the others it is the usual minimum $750 judgement. Sorry, but that is a lot less than the $150,000 dollars in the extortion letters and even a good deal less than the ~$3,000 to settle.

    Karma returns in kind!

    Just waiting to see if Ryan will be bringing any more suits, or if all his defaults in the other 3 cases have netted him enough to pay off his student loans and get back to more appropriate work that would make his mommy proud.

  4. AZ Curious says:

    Has anyone got an update on the AZ Raw Films case. It was to be automatically dismissed with prejudiced two days ago?

    Have been following Ryan Stevens for some time and not seen anything new in a long time.

    Would appreciate any updates from others in the know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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