1st Amended Complaint, Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions and Does 1-50, Case # 3:12-cv-01006

On 26 Mar 12, the 1st Amended Complaint for Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions and Does 1-50, Case # 3:12-cv-01006, was filed in the Northern District of California.  Amend_Complaint_01006(CA)       {Previous Post on this matter}

The only major parts that appears to be changed from the original complaint is in sections 36 -46. 

36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive knew or should have known of the IP addresses of the BitTorrent trackers that were being used to distribute the work.
37. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the website http://www.chillingeffects.com and found no exemplars of any Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“D.M.C.A.”) takedown notices issued by Hard Drive.
38. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the Federal PACER website, and of the 59 lawsuits filed by Hard Drive, none of them involve a lawsuit against a BitTorrent tracker defendant for D.M.C.A. liability. 
39. Plaintiff, through his counsel, requested Hard Drive to provide any evidence that it has issued D.M.C.A. takedown notices to any BitTorrent tracker owner, or that it has sued any BitTorrent tracker owner for D.M.C.A. liability yet Hard Drive refused to provide such information.
40. Based on Hard Drive’s previously stated refusal and the previously stated allegations, plaintiff can only conclude that Hard Drive has no such evidence as a reasonable person would have provided such information in lieu of attempting to move for sanctions under rule 11.
41. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the Federal PACER website, and of the 59 lawsuits filed by Hard Drive, none of them involve a lawsuit against a BitTorrent tracker defendant for D.M.C.A. liability.
42. Based on the previously stated allegations, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive never issued any D.M.C.A. takedown notices to the owners and/or operators of the BitTorrent trackers that were being used to distribute the work.
43. On or about March 6, 2012, Hard Drive filed a lawsuit against 59 Doe defendants for infringement of its purported copyright.
44. On or about March 2, 2012, Hard Drive filed a lawsuit against 54 Doe defendants for infringement of its purported copyright.
45. Hard Drive’s agent’s custodian of records has declared under penalty of perjury that it has filed at least 37 lawsuits naming 3,480 Doe defendants yet has served no defendants.
46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive continues to track and log IP addresses, and continues to sue Doe defendants corresponding to these logged IP addresses for infringement of its purported copyright since March 2011 yet at the same time has never named the owners of these BitTorrent trackers as defendants for D.M.C.A. liability in these lawsuits.

Key Points:

  • HDP either knew or should have known that BitTorrent public IP addresses were allegedly sharing their work.  Easy to prove as 6881 Forensics LLC collected that information for them.  Hi Pete! 😉
  • Plaintiff (Seth Abraham & counsel) search for ANY record of a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices issued by HDP.  They search http://www.chillingeffects.com, PACER, and even asked HDP/Prenda to tell them if ANY DMCA takedown notices were issued for this movie (or any others HDP movies).  HDP/Prenda refused to answer this question.  I will take that as a “NO.”
  • Plaintiff found 59 HDP cases in PACER.  None of these cases invole a “lawsuit against a BitTorrent tracker defendant for D.M.C.A. liability.”
  • Plaintiff believes HDP (through it agents) continues to log and monitor public IP addresses that allegedly share its copyright works for the purpose of filing copyright infringment law suits, BUT have not filed a single DMCA takedown notice.  Paints a picture that HDP/Prenda are not trying to fight piracy.  It looks like they want a continual stream of Doe defendants from which to threaten and extract settlements from. 

Looks like some “fine-tuning” of their case.  The lack of the DMCA takedown notices is nothing new to us fighting this.  I have mentioned it and even included it in a declaration.  It is a simple, logical, cost-effective step that doesn’t hinder or prevent filing a copyright infringement case.  It does puts the ISP on notice that if they don’t handle the alleged offense, they can lose their “Safe Harbor” provision and become liable for the copyright infringement.  That is certainly a better way to fight piracy.  Hell, they even have software out that will automatically send out the DMCA notices.    

*** Also wanted to add the Copyright Registration information for “Samantha Saint” (Amateur Allure – Hard Drive Productions, Inc.)

Coming soon

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 Brett Gibbs, Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to 1st Amended Complaint, Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions and Does 1-50, Case # 3:12-cv-01006

  1. Raul says:

    Nice post and it does look like some “fine tuning” is going on here. This fine tuning I hope will be used for Yuen’s next client’s benefit:


    Seth Wong, on Behalf of Himself and for the Benefit of All with the Common or General Interest, Any Persons Injured and All Other Similarly Situated,

  2. Doh!! says:

    Great article. This is along the lines of the Lightspeed case Im unfortunately involved with. Ive written earlier in this website about all these free password sites that the trolls use to exploit the innocent. Nobody did any hacking and were all just clicking away…just like clicking thru TV channels. One of these sites even brag about “being in operation for over 8 years”. Total entrapment. Ive got a lawyer for my case so the troll does not get my personal info. If my motion somehow gets denied, which I doubt considering I reside in a different state, I will countersue the bastards…and have the resources to do so. Thank You DTD, SJD and Raul for putting my mind at ease and educating all Does. Ive gone from being scared to being really pissed off about this….and its because Ive read EVERYTHING this site and others have to offer on the subject.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      The problem any defendant is going to have (that is if anything ever went to court – I know, stop laughing), is the law as written does really care if you were clicking through links, etc. As far a Title 18, section 1030 is written, a person accessed a protected system/Web site (user name & PW) with information they did not pay for (they are not the subscriber) and viewed/downloaded the content (the item of value). As I stated, this isn’t going to trial – so it is purely academic. And it isn’t hacking, it is just unauthorized access.
      Also, an entrapment claim is going to be hard because first off it deals with the Police or their agents. Even if you change the name of the affirmative defense “Baiting,” the Plaintiff is going to say you already had a predisposition to do this activity, as you voluntarily went to the Web site that contained the compromise account information (user name & PW).
      DTD 🙂

      • Anonymous says:

        But doesn’t that section also state that they have to prove over $5000 in loss for it to apply? Someone clicking through or even using a hacked password isn’t causing anywhere near that value. It would seem to me that they would have to prove that you gave out the password to other people thus multiplying the damages or that you downloaded content from the website and uploaded/shared it with other people. The only way that they can do that is by going to trial and doing some very expensive forensic investigation which we all know they are never going to do that…

      • DieTrollDie says:

        The way I read it is this -I added BOLD. Anything of value – access to the content they sell. OR if the only thing obtained was the access to the computer – i.e. the person just explored the system/network AND the VALUE OF SUCH USE is not more than $5K…

        (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;

        DTD 🙂

  3. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been following the Lightspeed cases closely too and they are definitely pretty shady. At least with Bittorrent you have to actually find a torrent and use a separate program to start up a download. With these cases, all you have to do is click on the wrong link in a google search and you’re logged in to some porn site and guilty according to them! What does your lawyer tell you about the case? Does he think case will get dismissed before the trolls get the subscribers info?

  4. Doh!! says:

    The UNtypical thing I noticed about my case is the time we have to submit the motion or else my info gets released. Ive noticed with every other case it seems like Does only have a couple of weeks…or even days to file a MTQ before the release of their personal info. All Does involved in my case have two months! Im thiking it was planned this way so uneducated Does would end up calling the troll that had HIS name and phone number on the letter provided by Neustar. By allowing for more time, the troll will end up gettimg more phone calls from Does before this case gets started. Im sure Troll OMalley planned it this way. I almost called him myself once I got the letter. I realized though if I called, he would have my phone number via caller ID. So instead I started to educate myself. Because the release date is still a month away, my lawyer has not yet provided any specifics. I lawyered up because I have the philosophy of putting out the spark before a fire occurs. A MTQ and a letter to Neustar is forthcoming from the lawyer.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I noticed that too… and I think more than a few people have gotten that letter from Neustar and made the mistake of calling the troll. They’re almost as bad as the trolls!

    I see that the Lightspeed case in Miami Dade has a MTQ motion from last week but no indication of the outcome. It’s a pain that the you can’t get the motions online for the FL cases. There are so many cracks in these cases that they should really be able to be dismissed before giving up the Does information but I think you are right that they know that and are only using the long lead time to sucker in as many does as they can.

  6. Raul says:

    Instead of being scared you are on the warpath and that is,in my opinion, the right path. I think your instincts are correct about the return date on the subpoena. Everything about this case stinks of lawyerly manipulation outside of the rigors of federal practice. Best of luck to you and your lawyer in combating this state troll and please let us know how it turns out as your case is, as you know, unique.

  7. AnonymousDoe says:

    Hey DTD,

    First, thank you for your efforts and information!

    Forgive me for posting this here but I was wondering if you had any idea what movie was in question for this particular case? http://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2012cv10538/142868/

    I tried through the PACER site and I am having trouble with it. Sorry for any inconvenience and thanks in advance.

  8. Raul says:

    The movie in question is “My Little Panties #2” and the case docket is here http://ia601201.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142868/gov.uscourts.mad.142868.docket.html where you can click on Document 1 to view the complaint.

  9. Raul says:

    No biggie, someone else had already RECAPPED it.

  10. Raul says:

    I RECAPPED Gibb’s second motion to dismiss Seth’s complaint.

  11. Pingback: 31 Jul 12 Update – Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions, Case # 3:12-cv-01006 | DieTrollDie

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