Troll Jason Kotkzer Busy Filing 10 Colorado Cases For Malibu Media and Patrick Collins

After hearing Troll Jason Kotkzer dismissed a CO Doe WITH prejudice because they could only go after “actual” damages (say $20) for “Virgins #4” (K-Beech movie) – lets not forget about their fraudulent Copyright Registration for an “Original” work (Virgins of the Screen #4 is the original), another Doe pointed out he recently filed more cases in Colorado.

New CO Cases

I took a look at RFCExpress and for 2-3 Apr 12, there are 10 new cases filed in the CO court.  Eight cases are for Malibu Media and two are for Patrick Collins.

  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00834-DME (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-28), 2 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00835-REB-BNB (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-21), 2 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00836-MSK-KMT (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-23), 3 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00837-PAB-MJW (Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe 1-10), 3 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00839-PAB-MJW (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-17), 3 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00843-MSK-BNB (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-11), 3 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00845-MSK-MEH (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-6), 3 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00846-WYD (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-9), 3 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00848-REB (Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-12), 3 Apr 12
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-00849-PAB (Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-6), 3 Apr 12

I decided to download the initial filings for 1:12-cv-00834-DME (Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-28).  Complaint_00834(CO)  IP_List_00834(CO)  CpyRight_List_00834(CO)  Civ_Cover_00834(CO)  BT_Vocab_00834(CO)  BT_Screenshot_00834(CO)  Decl_TobiasFieser_00834(CO)  Decl_TobiasFieser2_00834(CO)

Same Old Garbage

It is the same template based mass John Doe copyright infringement case we have seen for K-Beech and Patrick Collins.  They even have the same bad copy of BitTorrent vocabulary and an even worse copy of what appears (I think) to be a screenshot of a BitTrorent client.  I really detest having to pay for copies of this garbage, especially as PACER just increased its price to .10 a page.  Oh well.  As you can see from the copy of the case docket, the Troll has applied to serve the ISPs with a subpoena on 3 Apr 12.  I will assume the court will grant this request in its normal laissez-faire way.  The ISPs are Baja Broadband (1), Qwest Communications (4), & COMCAST (23). 

One Doe provided the following information concerning the recent Malibu Media filings in multiple States.

    • CA – Adam M. Silverstein of Cavalluzzi & Cavalluzzi in California
    • VA – David Wayne O’Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm in Virginia
    • CO – Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group in Colorado
    • MD – Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC in Maryland
    • PA – Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC in Pennsylvania.

I haven’t looked at the Patrick Collins cases, but the Malibu media cases are for the site-rip of the X-Art Web site.  Take a look at the Copyright Registration list the Troll submitted.  There are 11 movies with actual copyright registrations (Reg_Works_00834(CO)) and 46 that are unregistered.  For case 1:12-cv-00834, the SHA-1 hash file for the this particular site-rip is 121AC0B46088E7C235A23D4379BE65A1840E9B77, “X-Art Siterip #1.”  All of the listed dates on the IP list appear to be after the copyright registrations were granted. 

Plaintiff’s agent records the 28 CO public IP addresses (John Does) downloading/sharing the X-Art site-rip between 21 Nov 11 and 8 Mar 12 (109 days).

Good Target

I believe these Malibu Media cases are a good target for a Motion to Server Does and a Motion to Quash.  On 3 Apr 12, Judge Thomas R. Jones, Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of Virgina, recommended that similar Malibu Media X-Art Site-Rip cases have all but Doe #1 severed, due to the lack of information that all the Does took part in the same “swarm” for the entire period in question.  In fact, due to the nature of BitTorrent and that peers are located in other part of the U.S. (to include other Malibu Media X-Art filings) and the world, these CO IP addresses are more likely to have shared with peers not associated to this CO case.   9_Cases_Rec_Sever_Does 

…  Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to join several defendants in an action based on filesharing activity, the magistrate judge finds that a plaintiff must allege facts that permit the court at least to infer some actual, concerted exchange of data between those defendants. In these cases, as in K-Beech and Hard Drive Productions, the spans of time shown in plaintiffs’ investigations make it difficult to draw the conclusion that there has been any actual exchange of data between and among the defendants in each case.

The VA Troll (D. Wayne O’Bryan) has until 17 Apr 12, to respond to the recommendations.  I can’t see the VA Troll putting forth any sensible argument that will persuade the judge to change his mind, but I expect some laughable response to be filed.   Remember he is the Troll that a VA judge slapped down for being a sleazy –  Judge blasts personal-injury lawyer for running P2P “shake down”

Here is another article that is well worth looking into for additional support – Court Says BitTorrent Users Connected To The Same Swarm Are Not Involved In Any ‘Conspiracy’

Moreover, it appears that the claims of civil conspiracy themselves are unfounded, because the plaintiffs have not pleaded the existence of an agreement among the alleged conspirators… Additionally, based on what has been pleaded, it does not appear plausible that plaintiffs could plead the existence of a conspiracy. Consequently, the court finds that the complaints’ allegations of civil conspiracy are only unjustified attempts to bolster the obtaining of irrelevant discovery about non-parties.

Here is a link to “Malibu Media, LLC – Friend or Foe? Foe,” from Cashman’s Blog. 

The problem with Malibu Media, Inc. is that their cases allege not one file downloaded at a time, but WEBSITE RIPS — in other words, a huge multi-Gigabyte (e.g., 2.3GB) download containing a large number of their videos. Defendants in Malibu Media, Inc. cases will not be casual pornography downloaders or people who like to “click on stuff,” but rather, their John Doe Defendants will be serious collectors of pornography.

To make matters worse, the entity behind the Malibu Media cases has authorized its attorneys to name and serve many more downloaders than their other companies have done thus far. “Naming” defendants have been an occasional and noteworthy occurrence. Here, it looks like it will be a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach of “name often, and name early.”

If anyone would like to forward me copies of the other CO case (Or upload them to RECAP, SCRIBD, etc.), I (and the CO Does) will be greatly appreciative.  I will add them to this posting and update as needed. 

DieTrollDie 🙂

“Some ships are designed to sink…other 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 Colorado, Jason Kotzker and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Troll Jason Kotkzer Busy Filing 10 Colorado Cases For Malibu Media and Patrick Collins

  1. Joe says:

    One of the CO cases filed by Malibu Media today is interesting ( v. Khalid ). It’s two defendants, two different movies. Each accused of downloading both torrents, but different days. Correct me if I’m wrong, but both relevant concepts ( joinder and conspiracy ), have been rejected in prev. cases already. It looks like chasing site rips and this approach are both aimed at presenting a strong case for scaring settlements out of folks. All CO today should be on Recap now.

    Mark Randazza filed two today in CA East Dist. One is sealed. Other avail. Recap.

  2. DieTrollDie says:

    Thanks. I will try to update the page soon.

    DTD 🙂

  3. RippedByTrolls says:

    I saw that in two cases Jason A. Kotzkehave named folks. 1:12-cv-00886-MSK (Malibu Media), 1:12-cv-00887-REB-MEH (Patrick Collins, Inc), would this be a follow up to an earlier case and they have now decided to name the folks? How else could they start with naming right away?

    • Raul says:

      Patrick Collins has filed 11 pure bill of discovery lawsuits in the Miami-Dade Circuit Court and my guess is that the defendants’ info was harvested that way.

  4. Jerry Ericsson says:

    Just a note, Norton’s dns servers have this site flagged as a PORN site and blocked. I just removed them as my DNS servers because of this. Could it be that the TROLL’S are trying to keep your site from being accessed?

  5. Raul says:

    Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty is rounding up all the CO Malibu Media cases (16 so far by my count). The Judge in a few of the cases has granted the issuance of third party subpoenas, reserved ruling on the issue of joiner and “cautions Plaintiff that improper use of this
    information may result in sanctions.” See for example, http://ia601207.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132373/gov.uscourts.cod.132373.14.0.pdf

    • CR says:

      “The Plaintiff may serve third party subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 on the identified ISPs with the limited purpose of ascertaining the identities of the Doe Defendants as identified by the nine IP addresses listed in Exhibit B, docket #6-4.”

      I wonder two things: first, does this mean that the remaining 19 (28 minus the 9 listed in Exhibit B) cannot be named by their ISP? and secondly, has anyone seen Exhibit B, docket #6-4 yet? If not, I’d be willing to download it from PACER or elsewhere and share it here.

      Yes, I’m a John Doe, recently served notice by my ISP and find all of this quite alarming. I am not very tech savvy and assume that someone was able to use my wireless network without my knowledge. How can I tell if that is the case? I want to be able to mount a defense against these allegations.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        If you email me (doerayme2011@hotmail.com) with the some details on your WiFi device, I can help you take a look at it, as well as what you want to record.

        DTD 🙂

  6. SK says:

    I have just received papers pertaining to this case, I just found this site and Comcast has sent me a notice along with an order from the court. Civil Action No. 12-cv-00836-MSK-KMT. Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

  7. TK says:

    I also just received 12-cv-00836-MSK-KMT. Ridiculous, and incredibly annoying. If push comes to shove I would gladly team up with the above poster to “RPR” them in a legal way. For now though, it seems the best thing is maybe submit a MTQ and wait.

  8. SK says:

    I am a student and receive free legal advise, so I will keep this posted with any findings I come across. I am planing to submit a motion before 5/14 which is my deadline before Comcast releases my information.

  9. bruce fenn says:

    Thanks,

  10. bruce fenn says:

    I just got the notice today. Not sure what to do.

  11. DOEcolorado says:

    I will leave some information here. I was one of Does from cases that were filed earlier in Feb. and I worked with an attorney to get my problem fixed through settlement as I was too busy and did not want to get involved too far. Information from the attorney that I worked with claims that a Doe who site-ripped settled for an amount near the ten thousand dollars mark. I am not here to scare anyone, but just wanted to pass out some information regarding people who are settling in Colorado. If you are guilty, or not wanting to drag this problem far you should use laywers listed in EFF website who will work with flat rate for helping with settlements to give much coverage as possible in regards to different film titles that are being argued of infringement from similar cases that were covered by this Kotzker guy.

  12. malibudoe says:

    Does anyone have evidence these guys are naming does? I’m part of one of these cases in a different state…

    • DieTrollDie says:

      It depends on what you consider “naming” a Doe. If you mean that sometimes cases are filed with the actual name of a Doe. Yes, sometimes they do. Even less of these named does are severed with a summons. The common fact about all of these cases is that for 99.999999 of them go to trial. The default judgements are the only cases I know of where a judge basically had to rule in favor of the Plaintiff. Plus, just because your name comes out, it doesn’t change the evidence at all – same weak public IP address is all they got – unless you talk to them.

      DTD 🙂

  13. The experienced subpoena defense attorneys at Tamaroff & Tamaroff, P.A. are now handling Copyright Troll cases filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. Call us at (305) 403-2020 for a free consultation if you have been targeted in one of these cases.

  14. name says:

    I recommend everybody uses RECAP extension app to Firefox to make all downloaded from PACER docs free, once for all.
    https://www.recapthelaw.org/

  15. go says:

    I recommend everybody uses RECAP extension app to Firefox to make all downloaded from PACER docs free, once for all.
    https://www.recapthelaw.org/

  16. terondoe says:

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31030100/detail.html
    Channel 7 News just covered the extortion scheme by Kotzker and his plantiffs.

  17. terondoe says:

    Another good Colorado EFF lawyer in to contact is John Arsenault — http://www.frontrangelegalservices.com/. I have a friend that is using this lawyer and is very pleased with his knowledge on the issues and provides a very fair price for his services.

  18. Concerned_Dad says:

    Does anyone have a sample motion to quash or dismiss? I had an unprotected wifi setup that has been updated and secured. I live paycheck to paycheck and am trying to file the motion to maintain my anonymity with my ISP. Help!

  19. CoDoe says:

    Does anyone have any more information on the previous suits filed in CO (such as 11-CV-01656-CMA-MJW?)

    I see that some people have settled, but what about the rest of the Does? Is this lawsuit still pending?

    Just wondering since i got my letter yesterday..

  20. jn says:

    i was delivered a court summons/subpeona last night. Saw they dropped the does 1-17 case but now they’re coming after me directly. Not really sure what to do here…

    • DieTrollDie says:

      David Kerr is one to possibly contact. With a summons, you will have 21 days to respond to this. Don’t bother with lawyers that are not familiar to these cases – attorneys that do not specialize in Intellectual Property (IP) cases. David Kerr is one CO attorney. Also take a look at my Copyright Defense Lawyer page on this site – there are a few other good CO attorneys listed.

      I would love to see a copy of the summons/complaint if possible. If you or someone else has not talked to the Troll, then all he has is a public IP address for a specific date/time of infringement. NOTHING more. That equals weak evidence. That does not mean you did it (ISP subscriber). If they are naming you as the infringer with only the public IP address, I would suggest filing counterclaims for abuse of process. They know how weak the public IP is and to name you as the infringer is irresponsible and reckless.

      DTD 🙂

      • jn says:

        i tried googling david kerr to get a phone number and there seems to be several listed around denver, fort collins and co springs. i didn’t see any listings for him on the resources link. can someone tell me which one i’m looking for or what firm he’s with so i call the right one?

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Look at the EFF Subpoena Defense Web page. Contact info should be there.

        DTD 🙂

    • bfenn says:

      Did they serve you yet? I talked to someone from Florida who called trying to get money.It’s interesting that they filed in the Douglas county courthouse rather than in Denver, wonder why? I’m unemployed with very few assets, so as it’s not a criminal case I’ll see what they think they can get from me. It’s basically an extortion scheme, as the copyrighted work that we are being sued for can be viewed online for free (without downloading) I’d think that they would have bigger fish to fry…like the people who are putting the works in question onto online video…they just want your money and the government lets them get away with it. Good luck, there are several good copyright attorneys here in town.

  21. PD says:

    Has anyone been successful filing a motion to quash in any of these CO cases? If so, can you share what you filed please. Or can someone give me a link to the latest greatest motion to quash available. Thanks

  22. SP says:

    Just got one over Christmas. Order dated December 7th, 2012 with an alleged date of 11/2/2012. I’d love to see a current “motion to quash”, and barring that, the name(s) of a couple lawyers in CO that I might be able to talk to. Thanks in advance!

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