On 6 Dec 12, Troll Goodhue responded to Mr. Harris’ motion for security for non-resident plaintiff. PL_Resp_02144(AZ) Not a shocking thing, but in true Prenda Law fashion, he misses the boat of Mr. Harris’ motion. MotionSecurity_02144(AZ) ProOrderSecurity_02144(AZ)
Troll Goodhue claims Mr. Harris is not entitled to attorney fees and thus a security bond is not required for this case. He tells the court that the $150,000 requested by Mr. Harris is absurd and he estimates Mr. Harris has only spent $10 in allowable costs – “… and that is a liberal estimate.”
Troll Goodhue then goes on to claim Mr. Harris is wrong in his assertion that he will more than likely prevail. He tries to inform the court that the public IP address ties back to Mr. Harris and thus he can be rightly sued. I assume he was trying to allude that Plaintiff will prevail in this case because of the public IP address. Do you actually believe that Troll Goodhue??? Or is John Steele feeding you technical dribble that has no basis in fact. You know that to make this stick you are going to have to get Peter Hansmeier to a deposition and/or trial. It will not happen – we all know this. He will get eaten alive and details of 6881 Forensics LLC will be exposed for all to attack. Please, go ahead and add that to the “Alan Cooper” mess that is going on – Fightcopyrighttrolls article.
Alas, Defendant once again misses the point. Each of those entities is not, indeed, an individual, but each can be used to allow for the identification of an individual who has perpetrated a given harm. For example, if someone repeatedly receives threatening phone calls by an anonymous individual from a given telephone number, he could sue the Doe whose telephone number that is; if someone is savagely beaten by an individual who came out of a given house, and then ran away before he could be identified, the victim could sue the Doe whose address that is; if someone suffers food poisoning after eating a ham sandwich, he could sue the Doe who prepared the ham sandwich at a given time. In each of those situations, as well as the instant action, the proxy identifier provides the only basis by which justice can be sought and the respective harms can be redressed.
Nice try Troll Goodhue. Those were sad examples that do not tie back to the public IP address and how it will prevent Mr. Harris from prevailing.
- If a Plaintiff receives harassing telephone calls or is beaten by an unknown person, you or the police investigate to determine who is responsible. You don’t just file a law suit because the telephone records show a defendant pays the bill. You don’t file a law suit because the person who caused bodily harm to your Plaintiff came out of a house belonging to the defendant. Conducting oneself in such a manner is why FRCP Rule 11 (Sanctions) are made against people such as yourself.
- In your food poisoning example, you try to make the leap of faith that the ISP subscriber is the same as the person who actually prepares and serves the sandwich and is thus responsible. Do you also think that BitTorrent is being run by “Rah-ool” out of a cave in Eastern Europe??? The negligence claim is a lost-cause that you cannot win. There is NO legal or contractual duty for the defendant to secure his Internet connection to protect Plaintiff’s movies. You should also be aware that the Communication Decency Act (DCA) protects the ISP and ISP subscriber from liability for actions taken by a third-party using the service.
- The ISP subscriber information you get from the ISP is just the start. You then have to investigate to determine who was the actual infringer. To simply send out your settlement letter with a threat that the ISP subscriber could face damages up to $150K is unethical and simply legal extortion. Does Theft by Extortion sound familiar???
You claim the ISP subscriber is the only avenue your client can seek justice from.
In each of those situations, as well as the instant action, the proxy identifier provides the only basis by which justice can be sought and the respective harms can be redressed.
Wrong again – This is only the start for your client. The public IP address by itself does not equal culpability. By following this simplistic and all together unethical business model, you accuse the masses and disregard innocents, just to make a profit.
Troll Goodhue only makes a brief response to Mr. Harris’ allegation that Paul Duffy has committed a criminal act against him. He simply states, “Plaintiff finds no avenue by which respond to Defendant’s unsubstantiated, undisclosed accusations.” Well we will see if Paul Duffy will actually show up to the 17 Dec 12, court ordered meeting between Mr. Harris and Plaintiff/Prenda Law.
Mr. Harris Responds
It is always a pleasure to read Mr. Harris’s responses, as they bring to light the shear idiocy of Prenda Law Trolls. Mr. Harris does not tread lightly or mince his words. On 10 Dec 12, Mr. Harris fired back. Harris_MTS_02144(AZ) Harris_MTS_EX_02144(AZ)
Mr. Harris tells the court that Plaintiff did not own the copyright to the movie at the time of the alleged infringement and the copyright assignment agreement between AF Holdings LLC and Heartbreaker Films does not correct this problem.
On it’s face, the assertion by the Plaintiff that it has damages caused by the alleged infringement that may be recovered in Federal Court is seen in the best light as utterly incompetent or in the alternative fraud upon this court.
17 U.S.C. § 501(b). Therefore, to be entitled to sue for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must be the “legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright.” See Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2005). If the plaintiff “is not a proper owner of the copyright rights, then it cannot invoke copyright protection stemming from the exclusive rights belonging to the owner, including infringement of the copyright.” Id.(quoting 4 Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts, at 1062 §65.3(a)(4) (Robert Haig ed.)). Section 106 of the Act defines and limits the exclusive rights under copyright law.1 Id. at 884-85. While these exclusive rights may be transferred and owned separately, the assignment of a bare right to sue is ineffectual because it is not one of the exclusive rights. Id. Since the right to sue is not one of the exclusive rights, transfer solely of the right to sue does not confer standing on the assignee. Id. at 890. Additionally, the “bare assignment of an accrued cause of action is impermissible under [the Act].” Id. One can only obtain a right to sue on a copyright if the party also obtains one of the exclusive rights in the copyright. See id.”(Righthaven v Hyatt no.2:10-cv-01736-KJD -RJJ ECF 42 at 2-4 thru 3-8)…″ [My Emphasis]
Now the ability to grant/assign the right to sue a person for past allegations of copyright infringement will be a hot issue. One that can make or break many of these types of cases. If it was the only issue at hand, I would have some concerns. As there are other issues and the simple fact that none of these copyright trolls want to (or have) allowed a case to be judged on its merits, I welcome this.
Mr. Harris informs the court that Troll Goodhue is mistaken and the security bond is not for attorney fees, but for litigation costs.
… This reveals a very disturbing mind set displayed by the Plaintiff, the fact that he agrees Defendant has actual costs in this suit, but is not entitled to compensation when and if he prevails, shows an absolute disdain for the Defendant and the rule of law. That explains how he can knowingly file a frivolous lawsuit against Defendant knowing full well his complaint does not meet the minimum legal standard and not fear retribution from this Court …
Mr. Harris states that Troll Goodhue knows exactly what the criminal allegation are. He provides the court exhibits to his motion (See above) that show he informed Duffy of the criminal complaint filed with the Mesa AZ Police Department for Theft by Extortion. Mr. Harris has also demanded Paul Duffy be present at the 17 Dec 12, meeting, or at least be given enough time to seek a subpoena for him. Funny how after Mr. Harris told Troll Goodhue this, there was no word from Goodhue or Prenda. Duffy probably couldn’t find his way to AZ, he has “bad eyes” and his seeing eye dog “Prenda” has memory issues. Mr. Harris is of the opinion that these Eight hastily filed AZ named defendant cases are part of an attempt to fight back against the criminal complaint against Duffy. If Prenda Law can obtain a default judgement for one of these cases, it will provide them with an affirmative defense to the Theft by Extortion claim.
17 Dec 12 Meeting
This is going to be interesting to see what happens. Prenda/Duffy has already sent the court a document stating he is the lead counsel for all AF Holding LLC cases. You think it would be important for the lead counsel to be at a meeting for a case that is actually going to trial – something UNHEARD of in the history of Prenda Law. I really doubt Duffy will show up. Who knows, maybe we will see the return of the clueless and impotent corporate representative for-hire, Mark Lutz. Mr. Harris, how about getting some pictures of the people in the meeting? It may be funny if you also ask them why they haven’t posted the required $48K security bond in the Trinh case (AF Holdings LLC v. David Trinh, 3:12-cv-02393 (CA)). I would also be informative to find out who this “Alan Cooper” person is.
DieTrollDie 🙂 “Some ships are designed to sink … others require our assistance.”