Case Closed – Wong v. Hard Drive Productions, 4:12-cv-00469 – Judgment Against HDP

June 2012 Update – Case Closed

I meant to get this out a little sooner, but I was having too much fun (and not enough sleep).  Just wanted to put some final analysis on the case closure of Liuxia Wong v. Hard Drive Productions (HDP),  4:12-cv-00469.  I know I have said this before, but sometimes you need to pay attention to WHAT IS NOT SAID; it can be more important than what is said openly.  Here is where the saying “silence is golden,” is appropriate.   

The following document is the stipulated judgment signed by the judge on 31 May 12.  First note that this is a judgement, not a settlement in which Wong dismisses HDP after reaching an agreement.  Now I know that this came about after agreeable terms were negotiated, but I like the term “Judgement.” 😉    Stip_Judgement_00469(CA)

That means there has actually been a judgement against the Trolls.  Here is the difference –

A judgment is an official designation entered on a court’s docket that signifies that a plaintiff has prevailed in his court case against the named defendant. A settlement is an agreement by both parties to the lawsuit that resolves their dispute prior to trial.

Yes the terms of the judgment/settlement are confidential, but it is a start.  As this case was the model for the Seth Abrahams case, I expect it to go the same way in the future. 

The judgment stipulates that Mrs. Wong in no way infringed on any HDP rights or copyrights and was entered in her favor on 31 May 12.  It is signed by Mr. Steven Yuen, Brett Gibbs, and Judge Yvonne Rogers.

Even though this is not the victory we would have liked to have seen, the fact that HDP (Prenda Law) was pushed into this corner and decided to settle is still a victory.  HDP/Prenda’s position was so weak that they couldn’t even get Wong/Yuen to dismiss the case.  As we have not heard from the Master Troll on this outcome, it is telling in itself.  The judgment is now a record that the Troll can lose on the simple fact that they CANNOT tell who actually downloaded/shared the movie in question. The use of the public IP address as the single critical piece of evidence in their case is a sad joke when comes down to it.  wait…….  Do you hear it?  ………  Yes that is the silence.

The other copyright defense lawyers out there saw what happened in this case and took note.  I will liken it to a small animal hurt and making noise in the wild.  The predators nearby hear the pain and see a target.  The Seth Abrahams case will go the same way and add another building block in fighting the Trolls.  I wonder how long it will take before another CA law firm decides to take a stab at a Prenda client.  *** See the post after this one – Nicholas Ranallo is now the attorney for Josh Hatfield (3:12-cv-02049, AF Holdings LLC. v. John Doe and Josh Hatfield) ***   Hey John, I don’t think Mr. Yuen came out so bad with this case.  Who knows, we may see Prenda eventually leave the State of CA.        

DieTrollDie 🙂

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 -
This entry was posted in Brett Gibbs and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Case Closed – Wong v. Hard Drive Productions, 4:12-cv-00469 – Judgment Against HDP

  1. Nobody says:

    A judgement is nice, particularly against the troll. Judge Howell tossed Bailey a bone last month. Weretroll Meier tried to dismiss without prejudice and the Judge changed it to with.

  2. Anonymous says:

    As long as we are trolling the Master Troll, I’d love to know what happened to the 100 named (really, actually named, for real, this time) cases that were supposed to be coming in the 3rd week of April. Then there are the 1000 named cases in May he predicted on SJD’s site in a drunken rant.

    It’s now June, and no evidence of any of that coming to pass.

    But we all know the Master Troll is Full of Shit.

  3. Anonymous says:

    As long as we are trolling the Master Troll I’d love to know what happened to the 100 named (Really, actually named, for real. This time) cases that were supposed to be coming in the 3rd week of April. Then there are the 1000 cases in May he predicted on SJD’s site in a drunken rant.

    It’s now June, and no evidence of any of that coming to pass.

    We all know the Master Troll is Full of Crap.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      There have been a few people actually served since then, but I don’t have information to say how many. Most likely this is a combination scare tactic AND a way to show the courts that they do name and serve defendants. So instead of calling the Master Troll “Zero,” we will have to call him, “.001%”.

      DTD 🙂

      • Anonymous says:

        Maybe 50 single-Doe cases. Still Does though, a far cry from Buffy’s claim of “wholesale” naming defendants. Remember it was going to be 100 named defendants by April 23, and then 1000 in May, and they were all going to be up on Prenda’s site? He’s behind by 1050. Has there even been one case that has started life as v. Named Individual? Or are the cases where they have served all amended complaints that started life as a John Doe case?

        I have a theory. Someone on SJD’s site claimed to have knowledge that Steve Jones went ballistic and demanded Buffy sue all the Does in his cases after SJD’s site doxed him. Don’t know how they would be privy to that info, but maybe Angry Lightspeed posted those claims posing as Buffy, hoping to use Buffy’s ego to goad/shame him into actually suing a bunch of Does to save face after the claims were made in his name.

        Far fetched I know, but I’ve been wondering how John could have be so stupid to make those claims, including a specific time frame, if he wasn’t going to back it up. Yeah, he’s all FUD all the time, but that was idiotic even by his standards.

        But wait! He decided not to post the cases on Prenda’s site so we can’t keep an eye on them. And they are now county court cases so we conveniently can’t find them (even though county courts have electronic records systems and copyright cases have to be federal). And of course nobody has popped up here or on SJD’s site claiming to be involved in one of these mystery cases (maybe we’ll see an imposter show up now that I’ve mentioned it).

        Sounds to me like maybe there was one Buffy making the claims and another doing damage control.

      • That’s an interesting theory, but we do have some proof (arguably inconclusive) where these comments came from. And it’s southern Florida. Sometime Steele uses Mullard VPN, but there are bits that strongly connect such posts with ones not routed through a VPN.

        Also, it maybe was a “doxing” in very wide sense of this word, yet contrary to “bros,” it was not “outing” of their idol. We, Raul and I, merely pointed to the publicly listed location of two businesses, not even hinting that Steve Jones lives there.

        In my vocabulary “doxing” involves publication of information that is rightfully private. Not that happened in this case. We try to stay clear of that, especially when trolls’ families are involved.

        It’s understandable though, given scumbags’ sick sense of entitlement, that Raul’s article made Lightspeed angry, and I hope that the lack of natural anger management caused some stupid actions on his part, exposing his douchbaggery to the extent we did not initially hope for.

      • Anonymous says:

        My apologies SJD. I didn’t mean to imply you and Raul had done anything shady.

        The reason the term came to mind is because of their reaction more than anything. Even though you were using public listings Steve and his Bros were apparently blindsided and bewildered by your elite Google skills. It appears to have sent Steve into a paranoid panic, so it was more a reflection on what a clueless moron this guy is, starting a nation-wide extortion campaign under his name while apparently failing to give the slightest consideration to what people would find when they did basic research to find out who the people on the subpoena/threat letter/answering machine message are.

      • No problem: as I said this term loosely applies, I simply wanted to clarify, and mostly not to give ammo to adversaries who lurk here and try to find any reason to accuse us of being lower than them, which is not possible by definition 🙂

  4. Subscribe says:


  5. that anonymous coward says:

    Sigh… I want to know how badly she managed to hurt them in the wallet.
    It is nice to see more admission that their infallible methods are crap and should never be the basis for any lawsuit.

  6. Watching the fall says:

    Just thinking. I know a bad thing to do. Like getting a call back asking why you made the call when you left your cell phone at the coffee shop and nicely enough someone turned it in after others had a little fun making prank calls. Does that make you negligent for laying your phone down? What if the neighbor asked to use your phone cause his service was out. Are you negligent if he makes prank calls while you happen to be taking out the trash and thinking you are being a good Samaritan? Really, how far will they go with this?

    Or dare say your elderly neighbor asks to use your WiFi because living on a fixed income she cannot afford her medicine, meals AND Internet and really enjoys getting emailed pictures of the grandkids living overseas. So trying to be nice you leave your router open because you are trying to be nice. Does that qualify as negligent?

    Dare I say that these bottom feeders would have you feel that you are a criminal just for trying to help someone out. Probably not that non-understandable, as I’m sure they be the first to refuse giving you a jump on a blistering cold day at the train station.

    I have been in those very shoes and always remember the comment I received when getting helped out years ago. “The only payment I want is that you remember this next time you see someone in need.”

    Enough said!

    Fortunately, the education is being put out there by a number of good Samaritans on these forums and good will overshadow their negative karma any day!

  7. Pingback: What to Do About the Prenda Law “Informal Discovery” Papers? | DieTrollDie

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

  9. Pingback: Disappointment in Hard Drive Productions v Does 1-1495 « copyrightclerk

  10. Pingback: Websites Can Legally Pirate Porn Movies, Prosecutors Rule | TorrentFreak

  11. Pingback: Websites Can Legally Pirate Porn Movies, Prosecutors Rule |

  12. Pingback: Websites Can Legally Pirate Porn Movies, Prosecutors Rule ... » Chuda Chudi Blog

  13. Pingback: WeAreChangeTV.US – Websites Can Legally Pirate Porn Movies, Prosecutors Rule

  14. Pingback: What is torrents? | Websites Can Legally Pirate Porn Movies, Prosecutors Rule

  15. Pingback: Websites Can Legally Pirate Porn Movies, Prosecutors Rule » Geeks Cafe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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