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).
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.
“Some ships are designed to sink…other require our assistance”