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 188.8.131.52) 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 – http://184.108.40.206/). 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.