New FL Case # 4:11-cv-00584-RH-WCS, DIGITAL SIN, INC. v. DOES 1-145 (Troll Terik Hashmi)

Thank you Doette for pointing me to this new case for the Northern District of Florida – Filed on 16 Nov 11.  Case # 4:11-cv-00584-RH-WCS, DIGITAL SIN, INC. v. DOES 1-145.  The Troll for this case is Terik Hashmi (Transnational Law Group, LLC), 429 Lenox Avenue, Suite 5C13, Miami Beach, FL 33139, Phone: (888) 731-8955, Email: terik.hashmi.esq[@]transnationallawgroup.com.  There appears to a number of other similar cases by this Troll, probably just changes to the the Doe IP address and the movie in question.  I will say the Troll has been busy trying to tailor this case to make challenges to joinder harder.  They have also limited their period of evidence collection for this one movie to the month of September 2011.

Even with these clean-up efforts, the fact remains that the Troll does not want to take anyone to trial if possible.  Trial doesn’t equal a direct payment or a possible long-term benefit to their operation.  Those Does they eventially take to trial (Highly Doubtful) will likely only be against personnel who incriminated themselves.

This following profile of Terik Hashmi was created using data from Florida Department of State (Corporationwiki.com).  Terik Hashmi is associated with several companies, including Hashmi & Hermanni, Pllc, Immigration Law Group, LLC and Legal Media Group, Inc.  Terik Hashmi has 3 known relationships including Louis Eloy (President & VP of Legal Media Group), Terik Hashmi (manger at Hashmi & Hermanni, Pllc) and Kurt Hermanni (manger at Hashmi & Hermanni, Pllc) and is located in Miami, FL.

DIGITAL SIN, INC., 21345 Lassen Street, Chatsworth, CA.  This company is the sister-label of New Sensations, founded in 1993, by Scott Taylor.

The court granted the subpoena request for the Troll on 29 Nov 11.  So that means the Does should begin to see letters from their ISPs in the near future, advising them that their personal information will be released unless they file a motion to quash with the court.

One thing different in the complaint was the Troll stated DMCA Take-Down notices were sent to the ISPs along with a request that a settlement request be sent to the IP address subscriber.  Not sure if any of the ISPs forwarded the settlement request to the subscriber OR if any subscribers responded.  The complaint states that the list of IP addresses is for those IP addresses that didn’t respond to the DMCA Take-Down/Settlement Request.  Any Does out there receive these notices?

My SCRIB folder for this case – contains the complaint, exhibits, as well as the order granting the subpoena for subscriber information.

The Complaint

Movie – “My Little Panties 2” & Hash file “f144ffdb4d167a2dc23a5fcbe7ca5c8e331fffd4” released on 4 Nov 11, and registered for copyright in February 2011.

Jon Nicolini, Vice President of Technology for Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG) LLC, 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 220, Beverly Hills, California, 90211, makes a declaration concerning the following:

Effect of piracy – BitTorrent technology/software – How CEG monitors BitTorrent for Plaintiff’s movies – What information (evidence) they collect – That DMCA Take-Down notices (& settlement reqests) are sent to the ISPs to forward to the subscribers, and how the IP address they collected can be used to identify the person who illegally downloaded/shared Plaintiff’s movie.

Taking advantage of this technologyand the unique metadata associated with the file containing unlawful copy of CEG’s client’s motion picture, CEG’s System inspects file-sharing networks for computers that are distributingat least a substantial portion of a copy of a copyrighted work owned by Plaintiff, and when CEG finds such a computer, CEG’s System also collects the following publicly accessible information:(a) the time and date the infringer was found, (b) the time(s) and date(s) when a portion of theaccused file was downloaded successfully to the accused infringer’s computer, (c) the time and date the infringer was last successfully connected to via the P2P network with respect to theinfringer’s computer’s downloading and/or uploading the accused file to the Internet (hereinafter referred to as “Timestamp”), (d) the IP address assigned to the infringer’s computer, (e) the P2Psoftware application used by the infringer and the port number used by the infringer’s P2Psoftware, (f) the size of the accused file, and that file’s MD5 checksum, and SHA-1 checksum(the last of which is the unique “hash” referred to above), (g) the percent of the file downloaded by us from the infringer’s computer, (h) the percent of the accused file on the infringer’scomputer which is available at that moment for copying by other peers, and (i) any relevanttransfer errors.

One thing this expert does not bother to tell the court is that the IP address alone is NOT a sure-fire way to identify the person who committed the alleged act. Here is what the expert has to say on the IP address::

As indicated above, an Internet Protocol address uniquely identifies each computer connected to the Internet. If one knows a computer’s Internet Protocol address, onecan, using publicly available reverse-lookup databases on the Internet, identify the ISP used bythat computer and the city (or county) and state in which the computer was located at the date and time that the Internet Protocol address was obtained. However, the actual name and address of the person subscribing to the ISP’s service is neither publicly available, nor available to CEG.

Well the first part of the is blatantly wrong.  The “Public” IP address their expert collected DOES NOT exclusively identify “each computer connected to the Internet.”  If you only have one computer connected to your modem and NO router, then the statement would be correct.  As a majority of people have a Wifi/firewall/router connected to their modem, the statement on-average is incorrect.  The firewall/router allows for multiple computers (wired and/or wireless) to connect to the Internet via  a single (Public IP address).  These computers connected to the router have an “internal” IP address that nobody on the Internet sees.  Plaintiff’s expert knows this, but omits mentioning it to the court.  Nor does the expert mention the fact that personnel other than the ISP subscriber could have used the Internet connection to illegally download/share Plaintiff’s movie without the subscribers knowledge or consent.  So much for being an expert.

More to come on this Troll and his cases.

DieTrollDie  🙂

“Some ships are designed to sink… others require our
assistance.”

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 - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in 4:11-cv-00584, Copyright Enforcement Group, copyright Troll, Digital Sin, Scott Taylor, Terik Hashmi and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to New FL Case # 4:11-cv-00584-RH-WCS, DIGITAL SIN, INC. v. DOES 1-145 (Troll Terik Hashmi)

  1. anon says:

    “They have also limited their period of evidence collection for this one movie to the month of September 2010.”

    September 2011 🙂

    Also of note is all of his declarations are from John/Jon Nicolini of Ira Siegel’s Copyright Enforcement Group.

  2. John Dough says:

    My question is.
    If the forensic investigation proceeds before the published date on the copyright, Can one infer that that the holder or his agents seeded the inital torrent so that he could have a cause of action?

    • Raul says:

      Very interesting idea and very applicable to the K-Beech cases pending across the nation.

      • Anonymous says:

        Publication date or date of registration? If there are cases where the alleged dates of infringement precede the date of publication on a copyright registration record, that would certainly be interesting and might be indicative of a honeypot or at least an application that was filled with false data which might be useful in defending the case.

        If the registration date is well after publication date, that is not necessarily a sign of anything untoward (although it may be a sign that someone suddenly decided they were interested in enforcing that copyright…). However, one interesting aspect of this is that US copyright law only provides for statutory damages (and these are the big numbers Trolls use to scare) for works that are registered, and only for infringements that occurred *after* the registration date unless the work was registered within 3 months of publication or one month of learning about the infringement. The text of the law is here:

        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412

        There are many of these mass suits where the works were not registered at the time of filing, although the Trolls claim in the complaints that applications are pending, but if the registration was not made in a timely manner or wasn’t made at all the Trolls would not be eligible for statutory damages. Due to the cut-and-paste nature of many of the suits I suspect there may be many cases where they are filing suits for works that never even had an application filed, it would be interesting to look at this on a case-by-case basis (perhaps this would make a good community wiki project for DTD or SJD’s site…). I did a little searching in the online registration database (http://cocatalog.loc.gov/) and found that for a few of the plaintiffs there were precious few registrations, although some have many registrations (in general it seems that content published on DVD is more likely to be registered than online-only content). Not sure if the online database is complete though, maybe it’s not enough to base a legal strategy on.

        I’m not a lawyer so trying to read legal analysis gets me in a little over my head, but some sources I found suggest that there has historically been a split between circuit courts where some will only allow copyright infringement cases to proceed based on the date of application while some go by the date of registration, although currently the Copyright Office website states that once an application is accepted, the registration date will be the date the complete application was received. I also read that some courts will not allow a copyright case to proceed unless the plaintiff has a certificate of registration for the work, which again could turn into a stumbling block for cases where the Trolls just claim registration is pending but don’t have the certificate.

        I found this series of articles on statutory damages in copyright litigation that covers stuff like requirements to be entitled to statutory damages, limits on statutory damages, etc. Goes into a lot of depth, definitely more informed than a Troll settlement demand letter; after you read an actual IP attorney’s analysis you realize it’s amateur hour at Troll HQ:

        http://www.ipinbrief.com/ending-confusion-re-statutory-damages-i/

  3. doe says:

    hey dietrolldie i just wanted to talk to you about this case. Apparently i am one of the does involved in this case. Having never been involved in a court case in my life or even having to hire an attorney im pretty terrified. I read your article and it sounds like cases like this are pretty common. Obviously i feel im innocent having never downloaded or uploaded any such movie but of course the courts arent going to accept that. I have no money for an attorney, and i am willing to submit my electronic devices as evidence as i know im innocent. I just got the quash notice today and really i dont understand most of what its saying. I have never in my life even used bittorent so im just asking for some advice any help would be appriciated as im really angry that im being accused of this and that they are requesting my personal information to be public thanks

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Hello Doe,

      We understand your confusion and please start reading the posts here and at http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/.

      Here is a good one to start with – https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/newbie-noob-start-here/

      1st thing – Don’t go and talk to the Troll or offer up you system for examination. Even if you had nothing to do with this alleged activity, the Troll will use anything say against you. Right now they have very poor evidence – the “Public IP Address,” assigned to you from your ISP. Without something else to go on, the Troll isn’t going to take you to trial. At worst he will sends letters, emails, and call you claiming they will take you to trial unless you settle – pay a couple thousand dollars! Even if someone compromissed your WiFi firewall/router, they will claim you are responsible and demand you settle with them.

      Here is my advice – Research what you are now involved with – Copyright Trolls. Consider filing a motion to quash the subpoena. If you personal information is released to the Troll, ignore the threats – it is all BS. Note: Never ignore any “Official” court paperwork. Post to this blog and others what you are experiencing from the Trolls. You will be fine. Remember this is just a money-generating business for the Troll and the Copyright owner. Taking someone to court costs money and with their evidence, they have a GREAT chance to lose. The history of these cases proves this. Also note that I was in your shoes – subscriber information was released to the Troll, threats were made, I ignored them, and eventually the case was dismissed.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  4. Euclid says:

    I am also “named” in this case. However, I was never served a DCMA takedown notice by my ISP.

    Is it generally advisable to file your own court paperwork? I have made contact with several attorneys and it would potentially costs thousands to avoid thousands in settlement. What about drafting my own documents and having and attorney review and file them?

    Thanks for what you do here.

    • Euclid says:

      Oh, oops. I’m actually part of 11-CV-583.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      As far as the DMCA take-down letters, many times they are never sent by the copyright owner. Many copyright owners see them as a waste of time and effort of them. The only thing the ISP subscriber gets at first is a notice from their ISP stating their subscriber information will be released to the Troll (in a federal case) unless they file a motion to quash with the court. Did you receive the subpoena notice from your ISP?

      As far as doing your own legal paperwork, that has to be your decision. If I had money to burn, I would have a skilled attorney working for me. As myself and others don’t have the extra cash, we take a stab at doing it ourselves. If you are going to have an attorney do some review, might as well have them do it all.

      Yes the Trolls know how much the average attorney is going to charge you and set their settlement amount to just below this. They do this to make settling (even if not guilty) a good option for you.

      Take the time to read all the information here and at fightcopyrighttrolls.com. If you didn’t do this and there is no evidence to show this, the Trolls will have a hard time proving it in court. Right now the Troll only has your “Public” IP address – very weak evidence. As of today there have only been a small number of “default” judgments against some Does who refused respond to an “official” court summons. The Troll don’t like to go after people who fight back and can show they didn’t have anything to do with this. A full trial will expose all the dirty little secrets the Trolls have (weak evidence, questionable collection methods & personnel). Have you started here yet? — https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/newbie-noob-start-here/

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  5. pew pew troll says:

    Can you tell me what the northern district of florida mail address is? I Am trying toI cant find there mail address anywhere on there website.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      U.S. District Court of Florida
      Northern District (Tallahassee)
      110 East Park Ave., Suite 100
      Tallahassee, FL 32301

      Also –

      Transnational Law Group, LLC
      Terik Hashmi
      429 Lenox Avenue, Suite 5C13
      Miami Beach, FL 33139

  6. TONY77 says:

    I’VE RECEIVED 2 SUBPOENAS FROM TWO DIFFERENT MOVIE COMPANY, BUT FROM THE SAME LAW FIRM, (TRANSNATIONAL LAW GROUP. TERIK HASHMI) THIS GUY WAS BORN IN SHERBROOKE, QUEBEC. WAS BORN 12/1967. ADMITTED TO BAR 1994 OHIO. HE’S NOT ADMITTED IN FLORIDA. FROM AN ATTORNEY I TALK TO HE DOES NOT HAVE A LICENSE IN FLORIDA.

  7. jd says:

    check the other posting – northern court allows someone with a bar from any state as long as they pass an online exam. loophole.

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