“Coffee, Tea, or Copyright Infringement” – Media Products Inc., v. Does 1-31, 1:11-cv-02299-BAH, DC (Troll Meiers)

Thank you to the nice Doe who provided information on this case to me. At first glance it looks like the normal small number of Does Troll template case.  Closer inspections reveals Doe #1 is not a person in the traditional sense.  Doe #1 is the public IP address (IP for a Coffee & Tea House in Washington, DC, “Soho Tea and Coffee”, http://www.sohoteaandcoffee.com/, 2150 P Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20037.  Complaint_02299(DC)

Not that the Troll really cares if it is a business or not. Squeezing money out of people is the same – pure profit.  You’re going to love the title on this “fine” piece of original content (sarcasm) plaintiff alleged copyright infringement of: “dont tell my wife i assfucked the babysitter 7” (registered on 7 Oct 11). Meiers even had to abbreviate the title in the complaint “”Don’t Tell My Wife that I A… The Babysitter 7”.  What is the problem with typing it out Mike?  Couldn’t get your employee to type “Assfucked.” The only aspect of this movie that is probably new (different from the previous Six titles) is the girl getting “corn-holed.” Copyright Information:  http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=dont+tell+my+wife+i+assfucked+the+babysitter+7&Search_Code=TALL&PID=NRzq8nVKiU5fGfbS4-CjuiYWQ&SEQ=20120321125424&CNT=25&HIST=1

Meiers also relies of the ridiculous swarm theory to join 31 Does over a 56 day period. Plaintiff claims that since the file hashsum is the same (7389c2c3bc0713cb8baa1e96a6e42ce6e545a217), then “joinder” is appropriate. Exhibit A to the complaint shows the “Last-Observed” infringement for all the public IP addresses. Earliest date on the list is Doe #10, at 18 Oct 11; The last date on the list is Doe #1 (The Coffee House) at 12 Dec 11. Please explain to me how the public IP address for Doe #10 (which stopped illegally sharing the movie on 18 Oct 11) is tied to the same swarm as Doe #1?  As there is no complete start/stop dates/times listing, the court cannot adequately see that all these public IP addresses were not acting together as Plaintiff claims.

Exhibit B to the complaint is the standard “Jon Nicolini, CEG,” declaration that is the basis for the court granting the subpoena. Note: In another DC case, one Doe obtained two sworn statements from IT and Computer Forensic personnel, essentially stating much of the information in the complaint and the Nicolini declaration is inaccurate.

it is impossible for Plaintiff to be able to ascertain the Identify of the actual infringer with only the public IP address OR that the John Doe willfully and intentionally downloaded/shared the movie in question.

(https://dietrolldie.com/2012/03/16/doe-makes-counterclaim-against-third-degree-films-inc-troll-mike-meier-and-seeks-20-million-dollars-in-damages/) I know the Troll will try to claim negligence on the part of the Coffee shop owner, but the current complaint does not address this claim.

On 28 Feb 12, the owner of the Coffee House (Helene Bloom) filed a hand-written motion to quash. The motion to quash states the coffee house has WiFi access and they do not control what a customer downloads or uploads from their laptop. According to their Web site, they have WiFi and a computer on site.  Doe1_MTQ_02299(DC)

On 4 Mar 12, Mike Meiers, responds to the Mrs. Blooms’ motion. He must have been just so happy that Mrs. Bloom filed a response with her true name. Save him all the trouble of having to wait for the ISP to provide it to him. Probably thought it was even better, because now there is an asset they can threaten to target – the Coffee House.  Troll_Response_02299(DC)

Meiers claims the Mrs. Bloom has not apparently placed any safeguards on the use of her WiFi at the Coffee House. He states this apparently because the Web page does not list any terms and conditions for the use of it. He does not say if there is a “Warning Banner” page displayed the first time a user accesses the Internet via the Coffee Houses’ WiFi. Probably didn’t even bother to determine this. Throw out a worthless allegation supported by weak evidence and then threaten people – standard Troll methods.

Meiers states that a business can take step to prevent customers from illegal downloading. He provides the example of blocking Web sites and throttling download speeds.

OK Mr. Meiers, blocking Web sites URLs is a joke, as they change on a daily basis. You can also circumvent a Web site/URL block by typing the IP address directly into the browser (Try this one – Throttling doesn’t prevent illegal downloading, only makes it take longer – “I guess I will have another coffee please.”

Meiers tells the court that since Mrs. Bloom has already exposed herself, the motion to quash is moot. He also states that Doe#1 didn’t contact his office to review the matter. I guess “review the matter” is code for turn up the heat and get Mrs. Bloom to pay out a couple thousand dollars.

As Doe #1 is a DC business and has some value, I doubt if Meiers will walk away easily from this one.  I think Mrs. Bloom will need the assistance of one of the experienced IP attorneys in the DC area.

DietrollDie 🙂

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 Mike Meiers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to “Coffee, Tea, or Copyright Infringement” – Media Products Inc., v. Does 1-31, 1:11-cv-02299-BAH, DC (Troll Meiers)

  1. Ah Meier. What a clown…

  2. Anonymous says:

    Absolute scum of the Earth. This is the lowest of the low. In the usual dragnets they are at least sweeping up some guilty parties, but in this case he knows the business owners are not responsible.

    This is the kind of thing that ruins quality of life for everyone. If shitheads like Meiers start hassling small businesses some may decide it’s not worth the trouble to offer services like free Wi-Fi, and this will impact quality of life for everyone who likes to go to coffee shops and browse the Internet. This is an attack on every American citizen.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      What about sending out DMCA Take-Down notices? If the copyright owners did this, the ISPs and businesses (such as this one) could actually try to control this activity. Give the owner a chance to do something instead of trying to get money from them. If they were trully interested in fighting piracy, this would be the first step. Instead they want it to continue so they can move on to new Does to get money from. I would love to see how the Troll would show the court that this is “new” content compared to the previous six versions. “Your honor, see how the babysitter juggles those knives and recites poetry, all the while being sodimized.”

      DTD 🙂

  3. Raul says:

    I am surprised that that the troll did not let this one slide as this coffee shop owner has a fantastic defense and is sympathetic . This story would be bad PR for the trolling community if the mainstream media got a hold of it. The fact that he didn’t and strenuously opposed it speaks volumes as to the moral character of the trolls . Would not be surprised if the judge schedules a conference with Meier before deciding the motion to discuss this matter.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is precisely why it’s great that DTD ran this as a feature — the unfortunate lady caught up in this mess is an ideal “face” to represent the victims of the Trolls form of “justice.”

      The defendant here should do several things:
      1) Find a good IP attorney (hopefully some will see this and reach out to her)
      2) Get the press involved; this makes a great story for a local news investigative report.

      I wish the trolls could explain how Internet users can bulletproof themselves against third parties committing torrent-related piracy offenses using privately-leased Internet connections. I’ll tell you one thing I did at home after my experience as a Doe — I terminated use of WiFi entirely and now only use wired networking.

      ANY form of WiFi can be hacked, no matter how secure you make it — Google it and read some how-to’s on lifehacker.com. Blocking websites? Nope, you could copy the magnet link to a torrent from home and then go to the coffee shop, paste the link into your torrent app, and download freely. Oh yeah, there’s the Tor browser too, and VPN services, which will get around anything (the method of choice in Iran, Syria, Egypt, China, and other illustrious countries that prohibit freedom of speech).

      Thanks to the trolls, I am now paranoid over who uses my home Internet connection. I don’t even let family members plug in to my home network when they visit. As the trolls’ poison spreads, it will lead to a large loss of value to society for the meager gain of a few trolls and pornographers.

  4. Guest says:

    Throttling? Correct me if I’m wrong, but since when can coffee shops – or other similar providers of service – do that? Aren’t ISPs the only ones with power to do that? I’m pretty certain that coffee shops don’t have ISP power for that.

    Aside from the above, Meier sounds like he’s biting into more than he can chew.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Depending on the type of access point, you could possibly adjust/limit the speed. Most people don’t have a clue on how to do this.

      DTD 🙂

      • Anon says:

        Yep, and it’d be an undue burden on society to demand this. Not that throttling helps. All it takes is one bit of data from one IP to the troll honey pot (which is continually commiting piracy by seeding).

  5. fearnottrolls says:

    Dosent this just make you want to kick Mike Meier in the balls (if he has any)?

  6. LeftThinking says:

    Any update on this case?

  7. Judges_Schmudges says:

    I saw on Pacer that Mike has asked for another 120 days extention and it was granted till Aug 30th. Three people have been dismissed as they have settled.
    The judge in this case, Beryl Howell, is a lover of copyright cry babies, she used to represent music industry in similar cases and I don’t see how there is not a conflict of interest. From her response to quash all Motions on this case, it is very evident that she is pro with these matters and hears only what she wants to hear. I would argue that since her lobbying and prior work did not produce the desired results, she might even side with trolls to validate her past work. Her insecurities and prior failures might manifest in a very jaundiced view.
    I have downloaded the docs if someone is interested, Judge Howell response to Motion to dismiss might leave you wondering when will this crap end as the trolls seem to have enough well wishers in judicial system.

    • testycal says:

      how to receive a copy of the materials…we are named as a hotel that had a guest allegedly use hacked passwords to gain access to Lightspeed content….St Clair case…deciding whether to sit tight and do nothing or nip it in the bud. If the trolls are going after a one off coffee shop I suspect they will come after the small family hotel business as well. thoughts?

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