Welcome to 2012! – The Fight Continues

2012 is bound to bring some new and interesting developments for the Copyright Troll’s business model.  In 2010 the cases started with mass John Does, multiple different titles (in the same case), and Does from different jurisdictions.  In 2011, the Trolls adapted their cases to try and avoid the various motions and amicus briefs from the Troll fighters.  I wanted to make sure all the Does (old, new, and those yet to be tied to case) are aware that it is due to their efforts.  Depending on your situation, please continue to do something to fight this unethical business practice.  Please post what you are seeing from the Trolls and if possible file motions to challenge the Trolls. 

Yes, not all the motions will be granted and the Trolls may get your personal information from the ISPs.  Just remember that the only information they have at first is the “Public” IP address associated with your ISP.  This is extremely weak evidence.  That is why they send out the scare letters and telephone calls to get you to settle fast or at least call them.  Talking to the Trolls is an extremely bad idea in my opinion.  They are not going to listen to why you didn’t do it.  They don’t care.  They know that if they keep up the pressure, some of the reluctant Does will settle.  For those who don’t settle, most of the cases were eventually dropped.  As we have begun to make advances in the courts, the Trolls are adapting as expected. 

At the end of 2011, we have seen some cases where non-settling Does have been named in an amended complaint.  Now don’t just pull out your credit card and feed the Troll because you get named.  Bottom line:  If you didn’t do it and there is nothing to prove you did, the Troll still only has very weak evidence.  It will be interesting to see what the Trolls do when a Doe gets an attorney and responds to their summons with a flat, “I didn’t do it” and “bring it on.” 

I will state this very clearly everyone (to include the copyright content owners & the Trolls).  Don’t illegally download/share copyright protected media.  It is wrong.  Saying that, I will tell you that the extorting practices of the Trolls (with the full support of the copyright owners) is just as wrong. 

The old saying of “Two wrongs do not make a right,” is applicable.  The Trolls know this and their actions make it clear they are not trying to correct any wrong, just trying to get as much money as possible from the Does.  They will make some very weak claims of reclaiming lost revenue and that the cases are preventing new instances of copyright infringement.  The copyright owners involved with this love the cash that is coming to them.  They don’t have to do anything except apply for a copyright for their content.  The Troll will cover all initial costs up front and then split the settlements.  Going to trial is another matter, as the risk of losing on weak evidence and the loss of settlement profits is a great possibility.  Losing to a Doe and having to pay his legal fees isn’t something they want.  It will also expose the details of their evidence collections methods and the technicians who do this.  Their loss will also be posted to the Blogs and spread far and wide.  There are many of us out there who are more knowledgeable than the Trolls on the technical aspects of computers/networks and the Internet.  Any information we can get will be analyzed and weaknesses will be attacked.  😉

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 copyright Troll and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Welcome to 2012! – The Fight Continues

  1. I agreed with pretty much everything you wrote here. The only reason the plaintiff attorneys are adapting and changing their strategy is because we are adapting and we are educating ourselves as to what is really going on. We are winning in the courts and they have not yet received ONE JUDGEMENT in their favor. That’s a pretty bad track record. These new adaptations on their part are concerning, but you are not alone — there are a lot of us attorneys fighting against these cases. The only thing I can add is 1) be smart, and 2) don’t do anything stupid. They ARE in the wrong here.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank you and I appoligize for not mentioning our attorney troll fighters. 🙂 Thank you all for your efforts.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

    • Doe #1 says:

      I noticed something when reading the amended complaint against that one Doe in eastern california. This nuggest is from amended complaint against the single Doe in eastern california that DieTrollDie posted.

      “It is also Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant used a BitTorrent “sharing” client – Vuze (f/k/aAzurreus) – to not only to unlawfully reproduce those videos for himself, but also to transfer portions of Plaintiff’s Videos to thousands of his coconspirators. Defendant, and those he “shared”Plaintiff’s copyrighted works with, had no legal right to distribute Plaintiff’s Videos. the expects to request an order from the Court to unmask the identities of Defendant’s coconspirators to reveal the full scope of Defendant’s liability in this matter.”

      Maybe I am crazy but I don’t think Prenda cares about the individual Doe in these 20+ cases they filed on November 21st. Prenda plans to use the one Doe to get the identities of many others. Worst case is they get the $3k+ from the one doe. This seems like their way of adapting to judges severing their cases except for the first Doe. Now they will file against one doe or an unknown doe and then try to identify all the others as “co-conspirators”. I may be totally wrong but that part caught my attention.

      • what says:

        The problem there is what is that 1 doe likely to have? Does bittorrent software actually log the computers you interact with? That log seems like it would be a bit excessive in short order and would be purged regularly even if it existed. home routers are also likely to not have the information or not store it for long.

        Seems like just another scare tactic or a means of getting uneven discovery. Hey you doe I got a subpeona saying I can look in your computer, but you can’t look at my software because you aren’t a party.

  2. John Doe says:

    How can I receive information on the status of my action if I file as John Doe? I can only monitor on RFC after the fact. I received a letter from my ISP and I filed a motion to quash. The troll filed a voluntary dismissal then I received another letter from the ISP. I then filed another motion to quash and now the troll has filed a memorandum in opposition and I have missed the response date.

    • bing says:

      You can get a pacer.gov account. And follow your case daily or every other day (judges require usually 3 days notice for motions) for a minimal cost of a 8 or so cents day. If you come in under $10.00 in a for a quarter you don’t have to pay anything.

      It will let you track your individual case for nothing. Be warned though if you go snooping around other cases you can run up a bill reasonably quick

  3. John Doe says:

    I had located a template for filing a motion under seal in federal court for this and now cannot find it on my browser. Can you direct me to one? I think that is the next steo I should take.

  4. John Doe says:

    Well, this is now a moot point as the party in question received a phone call today saying they were from the K-Beech people and he gave them my number as he was told not to talk to anyone………….of course they called me within 5 minutes and I told them I did not know what they were referring to………they kept saying they were from K-Beech and they were going to send out a subpoena to the party and that this was my chance to respond and I kept saying I didn’t know what they were talking about…have a nice day.

    So I guess it is now time to get an attorney or should I wait for the paper to show. It appears that in NC ……..Charter blinked and gave up the names and addresses.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      So who is the parties involved? Is this a roommate situation? If all they have is the public IP address, they only have very weak evidence. If someone has made statements to the Troll implicating another person, that changes the situation a bit. Send me an email with additional details and I can better give you some possible options – as a lay-person of course (not a lawyer). For your case, do you live in the jurisdiction of the court where the case was filed?

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      • John Doe says:

        Party is son………….we live in NC ……case filed Western District…Charter gave son’s name…………….I did not have chance to re-file as anonymous motion before this occurred.

  5. R C says:

    This article about security flaws in routers – they can be easily hacked accord ing to a US Govt agency. Does it help as a defense?


    A vulnerability in millions of wireless home routers in use today makes it possible for hackers to crack a network’s password, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) has warned.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes. If you have a device with WPS, it raises some doubt. It is not a free ticket out of this, as the Trolls don’t care if you did it anyway. They just want your money.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  6. R C says:

    If I am sued in my own State w others is there any chance we could hire one lawyer to fight back and reduce expenses. I can’t afford a defense even though I am innocent.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, but the problem becomes trying to notify all the Does. The Troll and the ISP isn’t going to give you the personal information.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      • R C says:

        Right, but if a lawyer here took a case, he or she could appeal to others also name, say on dietrolldiee, and ask if they wanted to be represented too in the case, and have the same fee for the paperwork. This would drag out the case and deny the trolls easy money. The trolls use the same paperwork of each other so why not the defense?

      • DieTrollDie says:

        That could be worth a try.

  7. John Doe says:

    Just looked on RFC and the party is named.actually the ONLY one named……………..Amended Complaint with Jury Demand filed, amended report on the filing and electronic summons issued with Counsel to print and serve with case opening documents………….is it now time to look for a copyright lawyer or move to Brazil…………….

  8. John Doe says:

    This is the Troll in North Carolina……………gee…if you go to his site…he is all about helping the underdog…………………guess no one knows his DARK side………………or how he can AFFORD to take on all those Pro Bono cases by being a TROLL !!!!!

  9. John Doe says:

    Ooops…………..so excited I forgot the link…………………….
    Law Office of James C. White P.C.

  10. Raul says:

    This asshole is all about serving summons and nothing more, I am afraid that you have to pay to lawyer up but I think your case will thereafter wither on the vine.

  11. John Doe says:

    My last Motion to Dismiss appears to have been successful. Troll filed a Motion to Extend after my MTD and then filed a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. WOO HOO………I guess the Troll figured I was not going to just roll over and pay and was not going to be worth the aggrevation as there appear to be enough that are paying to make it worth his while.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Great news. Can one of our great legal minds tell us why some of the recent dismissals have been WITH prejudice? Are they hoping people will go away and not think of this scam ever again?

      • Raul says:

        Maybe to give the false (correct?) impression that everyone paid up?

      • Anonymous says:

        Well there have been a couple people on SJD’s site claiming they are being harassed with settlement demands after a dismissal with prejudice. I assumed they were just mistaken at first but one posted a link to the dismissal which was indeed with prejudice.

        A couple possibilities come to mind. One is that the Troll just accidentally dismissed with prejudice. These guys make some pretty obvious copy and pasting mistakes (i.e. claiming a work is registered in a case where they haven’t even applied, or getting the wrong number of Does in the case title vs. complaint). I also considered that they may do it just to make it look like people are settling, for the consumption of courts, other defendants, and their clients. It is even conceivable that in cases where they have a client that is not happy with the settlement rate, maybe they lie and say a couple Does settled and pay the client’s cut out of the war chest, for the sake of preserving the client base long term. The entire business model is predicated on fear and the Trolls being able to convince Does they are at risk. Remember when John used to come by and make threats and tell us how pointless it was to resist? He doesn’t do that anymore for some reason, but the point is they need to run their PR campaign and it’s important to keep up the appearance that people are choosing to settle for some reason or other. Without enough dismissals with prejudice, nobody will buy what they’re selling.

        It’s still a mystery why they would continue to pursue Does they had dismissed with prejudice. Seems like that’s just asking for trouble… But then again is does forum shopping, fraudulently requesting statutory damages for unregistered works, fraudulent declarations regarding their IP harvesting, etc, etc. So they probably are just that brazen and greedy.

      • Raul says:

        There is always the remote possibility that the attorneys who have been quietly representing Comcast Does in PA somehow learned of the troublesome copyright pedigree of plaintiff’s DVDs.

  12. Raul says:


  13. DOH!! says:

    I hired a lawyer in my current case to MTQ.
    I have a couple questions to any computer savy people providing insight to this wonderful website.

    1 – For the hell of it, I decided to compare my computer’s IP address with the IP address listed on Nuestar’s letter to me to see if they are the same. I performed both an IPCONFIG and a IPCONFIG/ALL in the command prompt on my computer. Needless to say, the letter’s IP address in question did not match up with anything these command prompts produced. Not even close. I looked at everything the IP CONFIG commands produced. All DNS numbers, gateway numbers, the IPV4 number…everything. Three times over. What does this mean??

    2 – The computer supposedly in question ALWAYS downloads everything online directly to a flash thumb drive connected into the computer’s USB port. I mean always…for the many people who have used the computer. For some reason I made this a rule from day one…probably to not clog up the computer itself. If so, can anything be even found on the computer’s own hard drive? At all?? Any “log” type files…”temp” files…anything??

    Thank you

  14. pirate?please! says:

    If your ISP assigns you a dynamic (temporary/changing) IP address then you would have to contact them to find out what your IP was on the date of alleged infingement. If your ISP assigns you a static (permanent/constant) IP address then it would be the same as the one you have now.

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