Troll Mike Meier Tries to Hide the Name of Digital Sin Movie, 1:12-cv-03873, Digital Sin Inc., v. John Does 1-27

While assisting a Does come to grips with a Troll Mike Meier case, I noticed something new.  In the body of the complaint and the Exhibits, the title of the Digital Sin movie was blacked out.  This is for case 1:12-cv-03873, Digital Sin Inc., v. John Does 1-27, Southern District of NYComplaint_03873(NY)   Order_Discov_03873(NY)

The Motion Picture at issue (the “Motion Picture”) is identified in this Complaint only by the file number of the U.S. Copyright Office. It was produced by Plaintiff and released on January 19, 2012. The copyright was applied for on January 23, 2012, the Service Request Number is 1-714915653. See Exhibit C. It is offered as a DVD through various vendors, including www[.] for $22.89.  {Section 8.}

Now if you take a look at Exhibit A, you will find the following.

Funny thing about .PDF files, if you don’t correctly black out area, all you have to do is copy before and after the blacked out area and then paste it into another document.  Doing this I came up with “So Young So Sexy POV 5.”

On a side note – this is probably what gave Marc Randazza and Oron trouble about their confidential settlement discussion.  Some of the settlement papers were likely posted to PACER incorrectly redacted.  Torrentfreak Article     XBiz Article

I also did a Google search of the hash number (7208828099f0edeb9c4f016b86f355ddfb786ed4) and came up with the same title.  One of the search results was a MA case filed by Troll Marvin Cable, 1:12-cv-10945, Digital Sin Inc., v. John Does 1-45.   Complaint_10945(MA)

The Motion Picture “So Young So Sexy POV 5” (the “Motion Picture”) is an original work, authored and produced by Plaintiff with the Copyright Application Service Request No. 1-714915653 filed on 2012-01-23. See Exhibit C. It is widely available and offered as a DVD through various vendors, including www[.] for $22.89.  {Section 8.}

So what is the deal with hiding the title of the movie?  It certainly doesn’t sound as bad as “Teen Anal Sluts.”  I don’t think it is that the judge in this case is sensitive.

The only one who benefits by hiding the title of the movie is Plaintiff and Troll Meier.  Maybe he is hoping the Does who get his settlement demands will call him to find out what movie they are claiming was downloaded/shared.  Once he has them on the telephone, there is always the chance the Doe will make some comment or admission. 

US Copyright Office

There is also the issue of searching the US Copyright Office (USCO) database for the movie.  You can’t do a search of the USCO database with only the Copyright Application Service Request number (No. 1-714915653, filed on 2012-01-23). 

But by searching on the title, I come up with the following. 

Registration Number / Date: PA0001780990 / 2012-03-14

So this look like just some new stupid troll antic.  Anyone have any ideas on this?

DietrollDie 🙂

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

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 Digital Sin, Mike Meiers and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Troll Mike Meier Tries to Hide the Name of Digital Sin Movie, 1:12-cv-03873, Digital Sin Inc., v. John Does 1-27

  1. Raul says:

    Surprised that Meier was allowed expedited discovery as there was no registered copyright on the record, more attentive law clerks have picked up on this deficiency in the SDNY.
    That being said I suspect a goof as Meier must be filing an increasingly number of troll lawsuits with increasingly diminishing settlements (thanks to you and SJD :)) and, accordingly, quality control is falling apart.

  2. doecumb says:

    Hey DTD & others,

    Did you glance at Exhibit C, the copyright registration for this case?

    The name of the Certification person is Sonia Bang. Sonia Bang aka Salma de Nora aka Salma aka Sonia Black is the pseudonym of a pornstar. Since the porn studios don’t like to guarantee salary or benefits, it’s possible she was an “independent performer” and not a regular employee at the time of this registration. A pseudonym as the certifying registrar ?!

  3. d says:

    dtd appreciate you posting this, as well as having so many resources for us average joes. honestly without such a resource, i think people would have given up a long time ago. As for the issue at hand, we will have to see how this pans out, anyone with any information, pleast post. thanks again dtd

  4. How a troll appears in front of a judge will often help or kill a case. Purposefully hiding the title of a pornography video might suggest to the judge that the title is offensive, and that those accused of downloading it are even more vile… and for that reason, the troll is on the defendants’ side (if you follow the twisted logic). After all, if a troll can’t say the name of a flick, then it must be really bad. Then, when you get to the title “So young…” it makes the suit sound so much worse, as in under 18 and illegal. Psychological tactics.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      See now I look at this and the cynical part of my brain is screaming they hid the name so they can play the concern troll card.
      We don’t want these people feeling threatened that their names will be attached to porn in a google search.
      We understand not everyone we contact will be the person who infringed, and it would be wrong for us to torment them in this way.
      We are being very sensitive with how we handle this… of course once they send out threat letters all bets are off.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        TAC, I think you are spot on with this. “We are not trying to embarrass anyone into settling.” Yeah right. It also makes it harder for anyone to find out the details of the allegation and refute them. For me it was easy to search out the answer – but many others don’t have a clue what is going on. The only way a person can find out the movie in question is to contact the Troll. WRONG! Then the Troll has the person on the phone and can possibly get them to say something incriminating.

        DTD 🙂

      • that anonymous coward says:

        It is all head games in the end. Depending on how the person responds to him, he can play any number of cards…
        I never downloaded that! How can you know, you don’t even know the name.

        People talk about this think called ethics, and there is supposed to be people making sure they aren’t violated… would someone like to poke the with a sharp stick already?

      • SJD says:

        As I learned from Ray Beckerman’s motion today, Mike Meier was sanctioned $37.5K back in September for abusive litigation practice. It’s unbelievable we did not know about it!

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Mike Mike Mike…… This is going to hurt your operations. We may miss things for a while, but you can’t hide this forever. 😉

        DTD 🙂

      • that anonymous coward says:

        Wow… and if you look at the stunts he pulled in that case it shows he has no shame in trying to win.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Finally, the assertion by Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Meier, that he “does not employ abusive practices” (Opposing Memo, p. 2) reflects, at best, a case of amnesia. Mr. Meier is no stranger to such practices. Indeed, while representing plaintiffs in a sexual harassment lawsuit against entertainers Siegfried & Roy, Mr. Meier was sanctioned $37,415.00 in September 2011 on account “of the subjective bad faith demonstrated by Plaintiffs arguments and method of litigating this case.” Preiss v. S & R Production Co., 2011 WL 4402952 at *4 (D.Nev. Sep. 20, 2011).

  5. Guest says:

    Wasn’t it in a recent case where the judge refused the case, and the trolls whined that the judge referred to the plaintiffs as “pornographic copyright holders” and they complained that pornography has a right to law? Funny how this time they’d rather keep things under hush-hush. If pornographic copyright holders have a right to enforcement why the name secrecy, eh?

  6. doecumb says:

    AFAIK Mr. Mike Meier, local legal rep for porn purveyor troll cases, is admitted to practice in 4 states and D.C. It’s probable he’d be required to report a court sanction against him to each state licensing body he’s licensed by. The incident occurred nearly a year ago. Some state websites listing lawyers include notes of infractions involving an attorney.

  7. buddhapi says:

    I think the real reason he tried to hide the title, was because he is a partner in a firm with a woman named Soyoung Lee, this is a “family practice firm” and I’m sure So Young isn’t to happy about being associated with porn titles such as teen anal Sluts…..just sayin…

    We’re preparing to do some reporting on Mike Meier over on, as we have in our possession an extortion letter regarding some now he gets a little more free pr as well as those associated with him.

  8. Jd says:

    Doe 1 has filed a motion to dismiss and quash. Dtd if u want to post the links. I thought I best leave it to ur discretion.

  9. MC says:

    If Doe 1 filed a motion, should any other Doe file a motion? Also how long before we know if the motion was granted?

    • Jd says:

      Im not sure if that motion covers everyone but depending on when the release of information from isp is. You should have some sort of backup plan.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      It depends on what the motions states and what the judge decides to do. The judge will grant all, none, or some of the motion. If you are seeking something that isn’t in Doe #1’s motion, then you need to file yours. Even if what you are seeking is the same, it doesn’t hurt to bring it up to the judge. Just make sure you can stand the possible heat by drawing attention to yourself. Since it is Troll Meier, I wouldn’t worry too much about that.

      DTD 🙂

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