While answering a question for a Doe, I decided to dig a little deeper into the various “Thompsons” cases filed throughout the US. I apologize for missing an ‘interesting‘ aspect in case The Thompsons Film, LLC, v. Does 1-155, 6:13-cv-00469. complaint_00469(OR) The SHA1 hash number I listed was ONLY ONE of THREE hash files in the IP address listing. I was a bit shocked, as this type of activity is very old-school copyright troll, as well as stupid in my opinion. John Steele (Steele-Hansmeier/Prenda Law) liked to do this with his early cases. We had another Troll try this a while back in Louisiana over a year ago – Multiple Hash Files.
The reason I call it stupid is because it shows that some of the BitTorrent activity is not related and thus some of the Does are improperly joined with the others Does. The movie may be the same, but the SHA1 hash number is not. The BitTorrent clients were NOT sharing the exact same movie, they WERE sharing the exact same file. These files have very specific hash files that are essentially a super specific identifier (high-tech term).
SHA1 is a cryptographic hash function that produces a 160-bit hash number (i.e. E9B2E49113086845E0F92FC5B06D2CFAE44731D4) for any file (block of data) you wish. When a file (movie) is made available on BitTorrent, the file is hashed – given a SHA1 number. The odds of finding another file with the same hash number are out-of-this-world (another techie term). You have a better chance of winning the power ball lottery a couple-of-times back-to-back than finding a file with the same hash number. That is why the hash number is often referred to as a ‘digital fingerprint.’ Just change a single bit of the file and the hash number changes – that is why there are different hash numbers in these cases.
Here is a picture of spread sheet of the “Thompsons” movies cases I was able to look at. ** If anyone has the complaint and IP address documents for the Florida cases, please send me a copy.
You can see that for the cases in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, we have single case files with different SHA1 hash files in them. Essentially the local Troll has improperly joined Does to save money on court filing feels. In addition, since the hash numbers are different, there is NO WAY the action of a Doe associated with hash # 4C55A9C583CDC447A14CF245BBD9C1F3AAA30C23 could have shared data with another Doe associated with hash # 88144855EEC090F98A93D85547BD540A8EF50716. IT ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN! Here are the other cases – Thompsons_02367(IL) Thompsons_02365(IL) Thompsons_00126(WA) Thompsons_00260(OH) Thompsons_00595(OH) Thompsons_02368(IL) Thompsons_00577(MO) Thompsons_00687(CO) Thompsons_00560(WA) Thompsons_02371(IL)
Also of interest is the fact that majority of these cases have BitTorrent activity during the December 2012 – March 2013 time period. My point here is ALL of the Does who are associated to hash # 4C55A9C583CDC447A14CF245BBD9C1F3AAA30C23, during this shared time period should be under ONE case. That or ALL the cases need to be associated to each other in the dockets. that way once a default judgement is entered in one of the related case, it kills all the others it is linked to. Yes it would be a logistical nightmare, but that fact shouldn’t be the determining factor. The determining factor should be if the hash number and the time periods are the same, they are related (my opinion). Please feel free to pass this information onto the various Doe defenders.
Previous “Thompsons” post