This was some great information that shows what a single Doe Defendant can do. I will try not to get too long-winded, but there are a couple of points to this case that can be applied to other K-Beech case (Virgins #4) still open in CO and other States.
The Beginning of a Fraud
On 8 Sep 11, K-Beech (Troll Jason Kotzker), filed a single Doe defendant case, in the district of CO. The Troll claimed that on 23 Apr 11, the single Doe illegally downloaded/shared the movie Virgins #4 via BitTorrent. The Troll claimed the movie had a copyright application of 22 Apr 11, and was first published on 9 Feb 11. By looking at the copyright application, it also appears to be an original work – no mention of what parts are derived from any other copyrighted material (Remember this). The Troll made the usual request for actual and statutory damages, legal fees, and anything else the court deemed appropriate. Complaint_02371(CO) 1:11-cv-02371-CMA, K-Beech v. John Doe, District of Colorado.
Kiss My @#$! Troll & Plaintiff
Well the Doe defendant here is not one to take this lying down. He starts conducting research and reviewing everything about this case, especially the law regarding copyright application and registration.
- On 31 Oct 11, the court authorized the Troll to serve a subpoena on the ISP for the Doe defendant’s subscriber information.
- On 11 Jan 12, the Doe files a motion to quash the subpoena. The Doe also filed a request to restrict access to his filed motions, so I’m currently unable to view and attach them to the post.
- On 27 Jan 12, the Troll files a response to the MTQ.
On 2 Feb 12, the court issued a show cause order as to why the defendant has not been served with a summons. Show_Cause_Order_02371(CO) The court scheduled a 5 Apr 12, conference so the Troll could show why the case should not be dismissed IAW Rule 4(m) (served with a summons NLT 120 after a complaint is filed).
The Court WAS WRONG
On 9 Feb 12, the court denied the defendants MTQ and told him he had 14 days to respond with substantial objections if he had any. Order_Deny_MTQ_02371(CO) And YES he did! The Doe responded and EDUCATE the court on a FEW key points IT HAD WRONG. Doe Defendant immediately sends the court an objection to the courts recommendation to his motion to dismiss. Doe_Obj_to_Court_02371(CO) On 8 Mar 11, the Doe sends the court a motion for reconsideration of defendants objection. MTR_02371(CO)
- A valid copyright is required before a claim of infringement could proceed.
- YES, Plaintiff did make a valid application for the copyright on 22 Apr 11.
- Copyright office granted the copyright with an “effective” date of 1 Dec 11 – NOT back dated to 22 Apr 11. John Doe contacted the U.S. Copyright Office directly and they confirmed the REAL date of Copyright is 1 Dec 11. This was due to Plaintiff not getting ALL the required items to the copyright office as required by law. Another words, Plaintiff SCREWED UP and forgot to get the Copyright office the required items. LMAO!!!!
- (To quote “Red” from that 70’s Show, “Dumb-ass!”)
- As the effective date of copyright for Virgins #4 is 1 Dec 11, Plaintiff is NOT entitled to statutory damages (up to $150K) and reasonable legal fees. All plaintiff can try to get is a the cost of the movie – $20.
Fraudulent Copyright Application
Here is the big kicker! During the course of this entire event, John Doe somehow gets wind that Virgins #4 is a remake of another movie – “Virgins of the Screen 4,” Copyright 12 Feb 08 (Reg #PA0001611218, Combat Zone Corp.).
From some online reviewing, John Doe finds out Virgins #4 is the same movie. See the image below. As U.S. Copyright law is pretty clear on only issuing copyrights for an entirely original movie OR a derived one, he started to dig deeper. Copyright restrictions for Derivative Works – circ14 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf). The copyright registration for Virgins #4 DOES NOT show it is a derived work (From Virgins of the Screen 4), so Plaintiff is claiming everything in his movie is original (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see nothing in the registration that states it is derived from Virgins of the Screen 4. Maybe the Copyright office has more information, but I really doubt it.).
John Doe decides to compare the movies side by side and see how much of a copy Virgins #4 truly is. I don’t think I will surprise anyone with the following information: