Marvin Cable (C.E.G.) & The MA Cases – ISP Subscribers Are Not Defendants (Yeah Right!)

Sorry for the short post here, but I wanted to get this out so everyone can read and digest the information contained in the hearing transcript and other related documents.  I will do some follow-up posting as I can.  Also, if you are a MA Doe for one of the Marvin Cable (C.E.G.) cases, please see the note at the bottom of the post. 😉 

Have fun with this one Marvin!

DieTrollDie 🙂

Background

Samuel Perkins (Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP) Represents Doe 22 in 1:12-cv-10805, Discount Video center, Inc., v. John Does 1-29.  On 30 Jul 12, a hearing took place in regarding Doe 22’s Motion to Quash.   12CV10805doe22.tn.mhrg.07-30-12

Sorry it is so long of a read, but I think you will enjoy it.  The other documents are the Supplemental Memo from Doe 22, Motion for a Protective Order, and a Response from Troll Cable.  Doe 22 Supplemental Memo   Doe 22 Mot Protec Ord Filed   Cable 8-7 Response

Here is one interesting bit from Doe 22’s Supplemental Memo:

At the hearing on Doe 22’s motion, held July 30, the Court asked plaintiff’s counsel whether the court-approved subpoenas seeking subscriber names and addresses were simply a “first step” in finding the infringer:

THE COURT: — and what you’re seeking is the subscriber’s identity as the first step, so you can figure out who the infringer might be. And then once you figure that out, you can substitute for Doe whatever, whichever Doe it is, the name of the person you believe to have been the infringer or the persons of Doe –

MR. CABLE: Right.

Transcript 7-30, p. 23.

In fact, however, Mr. Cable and his client have no interest in ferreting out the true infringer: the target victims are the subscribers, and they always were. Exhibit A to this memorandum is a copy of a letter Mr. Cable sent to a Comcast subscriber July 5, 2012, after Comcast had responded to his subpoena with the names and addresses of the subscribers identified by IP address in his complaint in Combat Zone, Inc. v.
Does 1-22, C.A. 3:12-cv-30086-MAP.1 (The name and address are redacted.) Once Mr. Cable had the identity of the subscriber, he applied the screws:

Pursuant to a Court-approved subpoena in [this] case, the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) named above and other ISPs have disclosed personally identifiable information about such subscribers, and you have been identified as one of those subscribers.

On behalf of Plaintiff, we will formally name you as a defendant (i.e., as an alleged infringer of Plaintiffs copyright in the above-named motion picture) in the above-identified case or in a subsequent case if you do not reach a settlement by the close of business on Wednesday, July 25, 2012. 

In connection with any such case, we will seek, among other things, an award against you for damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement, and up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement. . . .

To settle your infringement now, the settlement fee is $4,500.00. As indicated above, the settlement fee must be received by us, on behalf of Plaintiff, by the close of business on Wednesday, July 25, 2012. Otherwise, we will proceed to enforce Plaintiff’s copyright with the understanding that you do not intend to resolve this matter without a lawsuit. 

Exhibit A, July 5 Letter of Marvin Cable (emphasis added).

Call For MA Does

Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, are working on defending Doe for these cases.  They would be interested to hear from any MA Does who would like to be the lead Plaintiff in a possible law suit against C.E.G. (including its clients & lawyers).      

Samuel Perkins (Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP)
1 Exeter Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 880-7100

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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Marvin Cable (C.E.G.) & The MA Cases – ISP Subscribers Are Not Defendants (Yeah Right!)

  1. Brad says:

    Hmmm, Has he filed any cases against anyone in any case…funny the court did not ask him this….or why he has settlements and settlements from people scared if he is not doing this…If the Judges ever catch him in a lie, they will make his life miserable…

  2. Raul says:

    Another great post and Doe Defender Perkins seems as if he is truly loathes Troll Cable;
    “The letter attached as Exhibit A confirms that in seeking court-approved ex parte early
    discovery the plaintiff has tricked the Court into assisting in a shakedown, and has lied to
    the Court about its goals and intentions. The subpoenas issued with Court approval
    should be quashed across the board, not simply for Does 22, 6 and 2, because they
    “subject a person [the subscribers who receive subpoenas obtained under false pretenses
    and for illegitimate purposes] to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv).”
    Bravo!

  3. Anonymous says:

    I sent something to sjd about this yesterday. Cable responded to that motion with the letter by saying that not all people receive settlement demands, not even most and that one was a special case not indicative of the general population.

    I told her she should put out a call for ma does to send in their demand letters so they can go to Perkins and he can show chief magistrate sorokin that cable is lying to his face. This case (and other cable cases) have sorokins eye on them now so it’s a good time to strike. Perkins is definitely putting the screws to Cable right now.

    Did Perkins indicate to you that his firm is interested in pursuing a class action? Or is that part just assumption.

  4. Irritated Troll Hater says:

    I’m not involved in a Marvin Cable case, but it seems to me that he went to the “John Steele School Of Intimidation & Extortion”. My guy is Joseph Perea, and other Prenda ‘Esquires’. By reading this post, I hope Mr. Cable receives a good slap upside the head by Mr. Perkins. In my prayers, Mr. Cable and Mr. Perea are the next 2 con-artists to join Evan Stone on the “We Got Sanctioned” block. DTD, great post as always.

  5. Irritated Troll Hater says:

    By the way, DTD, I noticed that your last 4 or 5 posts have really struck a nerve with these guys for them to come talk their shit. Great job and keep it up. I tip my cap and my glass to you.
    Down with all Trolls

  6. nixoncomic says:

    so there were 3 does at that hearing? were all the arguments the same? only have seen docs for 22. just read the response and cable sounds like a flippin moron

    • nixoncomic says:

      I think this is my favorite part after reading the hearing…
      ______________________
      (Right after the Court gets Cable to admit that Doe 22’s client is not a party…)
      THE COURT: … If I follow the path that (Doe 22’s Attorney) suggests, are you prepared to take — is what you’re going to want to do is seek depositions of these people?
      MR CABLE: We would prefer interrogatories as opposed to depositions, because of the practical matter of going to each deposition; but yes, we will go through on all of them.
      THE COURT: Okay.
      DOE 22s ATTY: Can’t do interrogatories to a non-party.
      The COURT: What about that?
      MR CABLE: We depose them.
      ________
      So basically Doe 22’s attorney just punked Cable in front of the Judge who looks to me like he’s playing dumb and seeing if Cable will actually spend a bunch of money to do all this… send another notice, then you’ll do depositions (oh no too expensive) but you said they weren’t parties so no interrogatories…. did i say interrogatory, just kidding, depositions, obviously, totally yah. Is it just me or is Cable playing the ‘i’m just not that good of an attorney’ card very well.

      • Anonymous says:

        Wow, Prenda really missed out by letting CEG scoop up Marvin Cable first. He would have fit right in over there with Brett Langdon Gibbs.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      Reading it I think the lawyer for 22 showed up, the other 2 Does filed motions anonymously, and even without getting permission first the Judge allowed them that way. The end of the order touches on various issues raised by the other Does who filed anonymously, and many of them were moot given the orders of the court.

  7. James says:

    Hi, I’m Doe 64 in case 1:12-cv-10944, and I’m wondering if I’m the only person who has challenged the legitimacy of the way the CEG gathers defendants. Has anyone actually read the “Declaration of Jon Nicolini”? in short it is a selectively detailed admission to contributory infringement. New Sensations has repeatedly hired these jack asses knowing full and well that the CEG’s monetization scheme requires their clients to allow their works to be copied. in other words, the CEG’s clients are permitting the copying and distribution of their works via torrent. Copyright infringement is heavily dependent on a lack of consent by the copyright holder, however when the copyright holder allows their works to be copied their is no infringement. even if they claim infringement they are equally liable for “contributory infringement”

    • Anonymous says:

      I think they dance around that. Cable specifically said in that hearing that they don’t upload to anyone in the swarm, only download. However a since removed (available on sjds site) Page from ceg website explains that they do upload to the swarm. Probably would take a real trial to find out, with proper discovery. They won’t ever let it get that far.

      • Anonymous says:

        That’s a very convenient defense but I’m not sure its accurate. From what I understand, most trackers will boot clients that don’t upload to the swarm. Unless of course they were running their own tracker but wouldn’t that create issues of entrapment?

      • anonymous says:

        Not entrapment, but unclean hands – which is exactly what the problem is if they are uploading. If they are a representative of the owner of the work, and are sharing it for free, that means the owner is allowing it to be shared for free, and can’t sue anyone for being part of that sharing.

        I think you don’t see many Doe’s using that as their defense, because it is risky to do so. It means you basically are admitting “Yes, I downloaded & shared this file, but since you did too, that makes it not copyright infringement.” – If you claim that defense and a thorough examination of their software proves it DOESNT share back, then you are up a creek.

      • James says:

        Not entirely, even having knowledge of infringement of your own works and doing nothing to stop it is contributory infringement. If i am actively waiting and watching for people to infringe my work or i hire a firm to do the same, then i have allowed such infringing file to continue to exist. If i allow that file to exist, for whatever purpose, and am able to prevent any such resulting infringement then i have contributed to the infringement of my own work, thus negating my claim of infringement. Contributory infringement by the owner of a copyright construes consent.

        Many copyright troll attorneys use secondary infringement to rope in both the infringer and the subscriber using an even weaker “negligent infringement” argument. however, considering the fact that e CEG’s entire business structure is contributory infringement for hire, no matter what loopholes they try to create for their client the fact still stands, after using their services once the client becomes aware to the practices of the CEG and thus have a choice to make; use their service and continue allowing people to copy their work or find a company with integrity. not only that, I’ve filed for discovery to look into their contracts to see if they are similar of equivalent to the U.S. Copyright Group’s which required permission to upload the material themselves. it really isn’t a far fetched or weak theory, it just takes some digging and investigative work. And I do intend to take them all the way to trial. still thanks for the counter arguments, I already have arguments prepared that expose the attempts to create such loop holes that release them from liability, unfortunately for them i have their own words to use against them.

      • anonymous says:

        Very nice! Make sure to check out on the weretroll page on SJD’s site, there is screenshots saved from CEG’s old website where they explicitly state they ARE uploading. http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/11/25/copyright-troll-subspecies-weretroll/

        Kudos to you, and I hope you crush him. I’m still waiting on my demand letters to arrive at this point, and plan to go on the offensive once they do. I really really hope the work Perkins laid here helps everyone in MAD fight Cable.

    • James says:

      thanks for the link bro. I have heard of and seen this before, problem is i forgot how to find it again, lol. the link is a great help and will really help me drive the final nails into their coffins

  8. derper1234 says:

    Have the Trolls ever contacted your family members? I googled my name earlier and was able to dig up several immediate family member names. I wanted to know if they are at risk of harassment. This is illegal if they do, correct?

  9. Pingback: “Who Are You?” ISP Subscriber or Defendant? (1:12-cv-10805 (MA)) | DieTrollDie

  10. AC says:

    My favorite part is right in the beginning, when Cable says “Good morning” (It’s 3:48 PM) and right after him the Defendant’s Lawyer says “Good afternoon.”

    • anonymous says:

      It is pretty clear throughout the entire proceedings that Perkins has ZERO respect for Cable, and more like something bordering on complete and utter contempt.

      • nixoncomic says:

        I’d argue the judge agrees with you. Which is why he’s playing dumb and letting Cable volunteer to go do a lot more paid hourly work to do it right, knowing he won’t follow through. I mean this is already a profitable venture. They’ve already gotten 4 settlements, so probably somewhere between 12-20k for a $350 filing fee and a couple of hours to Cable for his time. I’d bet they’ve already made 10,000 grand on this scare tactic. Makes me sick.

  11. Pingback: Another day, another defendant is fighting back « Fight Copyright Trolls

  12. Pingback: Attorney Samuel Perkins: Troll Marvin Cable must be stopped, all the 34 of his cases should be dismissed with prejudice « Fight Copyright Trolls

  13. fighttrolls says:

    Another one of Marvin’s cases bites the dust
    Order Issued Yesterday) 1:12-cv-10760
    http://ia601200.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143652/gov.uscourts.mad.143652.28.0.pdf

  14. fighttrolls says:

    heads-up on an update regarding one of Marvin Cable’s cases in Massachusetts (case: 12-cv-30085-MAP)

    On 11/25/12, Marvin submitted a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal for a single Doe. The following day, Magistrate Judge Jennifer Boal issued an order for Marvin to submit a response as to why a settlement was issued, in apparent violation of court order issued on October 4, 2012 (#70). In his Response to this Order (#71) Marvin states:

    “The circumstances surrounding JD80’s situation, are different from other John Does in
    this case, but not unique – many John Does are involved in other similar cases in this District.
    Many John Does, like JD80 are alleged to have used the same IP address to infringe
    copyrights.
    The other case JD80 was involved with also approved an early discovery order, in a
    similar process to the one in this case. JD80’s IP address identified him in both cases. Often
    when a John Doe contacts the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Counsel for the Plaintiff will alert a John
    Doe, or his or her counsel, to the alleged use of the same IP address to violate other
    copyrights in other cases in this District, even in cases where the subpoena process has not
    been approved in those other cases. John Doe may choose to use this information in whatever
    fashion, in assessing the potential upcoming claims against him, as was done here.
    Further, JD80’s Counsel was aware of the Order in this case. At JD80’s urging, both
    cases were negotiated and settled at an amount acceptable to JD80 to avoid ongoing legal
    defense costs. Both cases were negotiated and settled at the same time as JD80 did not wish to
    leave one case pending. Defense counsel’s time spend negotiating both settlements easily
    included both matters with no additional costs to JD80. In the event, this Courts Order was to
    discourage settlements altogether, Plaintiff is ready to return the settlement sum for the given
    case. However JD80, through counsel, respectfully requests that the settlement is allowed and
    Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal is accepted by the Court.”

    This response apparently did not satisfy Judge Boal, as she later issued another order that scheduled a Status conference regarding the recent order and response for 1/3/13
    Attorney Marvin Cable then submitted a Motion on 12/20/12 to request that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date, citing:

    On January 3rd, Counsel for the Plaintiff is already scheduled to appear before
    Judge Saylor for status conferences. Third Degree Films v. Does 1 – 72, No. 1:12-cv-10760-FDS,
    ECF. No. 30 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); SBO Pictures v. Does 1 – 41, No. 1:12-cv-10804-FDS,
    ECF. No. 41 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1 – 21, No. 1:12-cv-
    10947-FDS, ECF. No. 21 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); PW Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 – 19, No.
    1:12-cv-10814-FDS, ECF. No. 24 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); Paradox Pictures v. Does 1 – 20, No.
    1:12-cv-10815-FDS, ECF. No. 17 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1 – 175,
    No. 1:12-cv-11721-FDS, ECF. No. 13 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012).

    Upon closer review of each of these cases

    1:12-cv-10760 — Court Order on 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10944 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10804 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10947 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10814 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10815 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-11721 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    Marvin cites that he had scheduled conferences for the original date of January 3rd with Judge Saylor. The ECF’s that Marvin lists, do not appear in any docket list that I am able to find. Unless there is some off the record action going on here, it would appear that Marvin was misleading the Judge Boal in order to get the continuance. He even cited that the 1/3/13 date was his birthday.

    Can you enlighten me? Are there additional docket items that would not be listed?

  15. NintenDOE 64 says:

    Marvin Cable has been sued!!!! looks like a former doe strikes back

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