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.
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.