Troll Paul Lesko Complains Does Will Not Speak To Him, Purzel Video GMBH v. 10 Defendants – 1:13-cv-02501 (NDIL)

6 Aug 13 Update

Here is a copy of the settlement letter sent to a Doe in this case.   It looks like $4K is the settlement amount Troll Lesko is seeking.  If only half of the Does settle, Plaintiff and Troll Lesko is set to make $168,000.  Even if you claim $10K to run the case so far, $158K split two ways is still a great return on investment.  As I didn’t see many dismissals prior to the mass one, I don’t think their returns were as good as they hoped for.  I only noted Seven dismissals (ECF # 15 & 27); not counting the dismissal of Does # 34 & 48 (ECF # 14), due to the wrong hash file.   Lesko_SettleLTR_02501(IL)

5 Aug 13 Update

A kind benefactor recently provided me with copies of the following motions/documents in this case.  Thank you.  Please enjoy and make sure to tell us what you think of them.  I particularly liked Doe 18’s Reply to Plaintiff’s response to the motions from Does 18, 29, & 42.  The point concerning Plaintiff’s lack of use of the DMCA take-down notices was spot on.  Lots of great information here.       ReplyResp_Doc26_02501(IL) MTSQ_Doe48_Doc48_02501(IL) MTSQ_Doe48_Doc48-1_02501(IL) MTAS_JD29_42_Doc21_EXB_02501(IL) MTAS_JD29_42_Doc21_EXA_02501(IL) MTAS_JD29_42_Doc21_02501(IL) MTAQSSC_Doc17_EXA_02501(IL) MTAQSSC_Doc17_02501(IL) MotionHearing_Doc23_02501(IL) Dec_JD18_Doc19_02501(IL) Dec_JD18_Doc19-1_02501(IL) Dec_JD18_Doc17-2_02501(IL) Plaintiff_Resp_Doc24_02501(IL)


On 3 Apr 13, Copyright Troll Paul Lesko (Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC) filed a porn copyright infringement case against 84 Does for allegedly downloading sharing the movie, “Cream Pie Young Girls 1,” 1:13-cv-02501 (Northern District of IL).   Complaint_02501(IL)

twit1On 24 May 13, I tweeted the fact that two of the defendants (Does 34 & 48) in this case had different hashes from the majority of Does and thus were improperly joined.    On that same day, Lesko dismissed these two Does and said their inclusion in the complaint was a mistake.

The case progressed as usual with the ISPs releasing subscriber information and some of the Does hired attorneys to represent them.   COMCAST_NoticeREDAC_02501(IL)   The court even granted the request of a couple Does to proceed anonymously.  During this period, Plaintiff dismissed some of the Does apparently after reaching a settlement.  Some of the motions made to the court were to quash the subpoena, sever the Does, and have Plaintiff show why the case should not be dismissed.  If you have a copy of some of these motions, please send me a copy or a link.  Before the court was able to rule on the motions to sever or dismiss, Plaintiff decided to dismiss all but 10 defendants.   Mass_Dismiss_02501(IL)

PFG1bIt appears Troll Lesko did this to reduce the chance of severance and make the management of this case a bit easier.  Ten defendants are still a significant number to take to trial; but this isn’t about going to trial in my opinion.  I still think Plaintiff is going to have a hard time showing that joinder is appropriate, as I doubt they have anything to show the defendants are actually linked except for the SHA-1 hash number for the movie.  I have never seen any Troll case where the Plaintiff can show that two or more Does actually shared the movie (or a portion of it).  Most of the time, the date/time Plaintiff’s “expert’ recorded are not even the same date.  As this is the Northern District of IL (a Troll-friendly favorite location), I don’t have high hopes for severance.   1stAmendComplaint_02501(IL)   1stAC_EXA_IPs_02501(IL)   1stAC_EXB_Copyright_02501(IL)   1stAC_EXC_02501(IL)

The part of this amended complaint that got my attention starts at section 35 (page 8), where Troll Lesko tells the court that they have repeatedly tried to contact the defendants, but they refuse to talk to him.  First off, this is a false statement because the three anonymous defendants (Does # 18, 29, & 42) have attorneys and they are communicating with Plaintiff.

Troll Lesko them tells the court that in their communications, they sent the defendants a FAQ sheet.


You can see Troll Lesko is trying to say that since they didn’t respond to the allegation, the appearance is “troubling.”  Plaintiff is basically saying that an innocent person would at least deny the allegation.  This is one reason why I think the Richard Pryor Response is worthy of consideration.  The use of it prevents Plaintiff from making such an inference.

It is also extremely laughable that Plaintiff claims the “primary concern” is stopping the infringement.  If Plaintiff/Troll Lesko had the “primary concern” of stopping the infringement, how come NO DMCA take-down notices were sent to the ISPs of the defendants when their experts recorded the activity???  I know I have harped on this repeatedly, but Plaintiff has an easy legally established way to combat infringement – The DMCA.  By sending a take-down notice to the ISPs (of the subscribers), notice is served on the ISP to better manage the actions of its subscribers.  The ISPs are in the best position to ensure the action stops, as well as collect/record possible evidence that Plaintiff could use.  Failure of the ISPs to do this removes their safe harbor status and opens them up to liability for the infringing activity.  No ISP is going to risk statutory damages by doing nothing to stop the infringement.  Plaintiff/Troll Lesko does not want the activity to stop, as it threatens the business model of generating settlement on a repeat basis (my opinion).

Plaintiff also states that as of 23 Jul 13, some of the IP addresses associated with the defendants had uploaded “materials” via BitTorrent.  They do not say Plaintiff’s movie is being uploaded, only that the defendants could “resume” sharing Plaintiff’s movie at any time.  As the initial date of infringement occurred during 3-30 Jan 13, the public IP addresses for the defendants could have changed.  Note: It is possible Plaintiff was able to determine it was the same BitTorrent client by matching up the Global Unique ID (GUID).

Please take a read of the complaint and associated documents and see if I missed anything interesting.  Here are additional areas of possible interest –

  • Exhibit C to the Amended Complaint – What is the purpose? Is there any?
  • The copyright – The copyrighted movie appears to be derived from a good amount of preexisting content (script/screenplay, footage, music, & pictures).  What is in the current movie that makes it substantially different from the previous material???  It may not meet the requirements to actually have a copyright.

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

10 Responses to Troll Paul Lesko Complains Does Will Not Speak To Him, Purzel Video GMBH v. 10 Defendants – 1:13-cv-02501 (NDIL)

  1. DieTrollDie says:

    Just posted 13 documents in the body of the article. Motions from Does 18, 29, & 42, Plaintiff’s response, Doe 18’s reply to Plaintiff. Good stuff.

    DTD 🙂

  2. JustAnotherDoe says:

    DTD, I notice that some of the docs you have posted here are for 1:13-cv-00792. This case is similar in that it is for the same file/hash, approximately 100 Does, same troll and same MO. The time span of alleged infringements was different- one case had “hits” during the month of January 2013, the other had “hits” during December 2012. Each case was assigned to a different judge in the ILND, so it may be interesting to see how each is handled ultimately. Another expose into their methods to start a bunch of little fires and keep up their settlement numbers, and hoping to avoid shutting everything down with one single bad case

    As far as the “repeated attempts at contacting [Defendants]”, there was the initial package from Comcast(ISP subpoena), and then *one* letter from Simmons et al with a settlement offer,(not sent certified/registered/UPS,but used plain old USPS) received after the ISP information was turned over. This may be different for some of the Does, especially those who have representation

    As has been noticed by you and others, these cases and this troll’s work are plagued with sloppiness. “Oops these Does are sharing the WRONG FILE” “Oops the plaintiff is’nt really a California company” “Look at this chart showing when the alleged infringement occured, don’t worry that the dates and times don’t match up with any other Doe”. This seems like small matters compared to the other so far notable cases like #Prenda, Harris in AZ, and Malibu Media/Xart; but if another head of the copyright troll hydra can be beaten down, then we are one step closer to putting this ugly business behind us

  3. DieTrollDie says:

    Please see the 6 Aug 13 Update in the body of the post. Copy of settlement letter in this case. Troll Lesko seeks $4K settlement.

    DTD 🙂

  4. WDS says:

    One thing struck me in the Doe 18 response, which may be nothing. The attorney signature was followed by the line “One of John Doe 18’s attorneys”. That may in fact be a normal situation in a court filing, but I’ve not seen it before. To me it was a message saying “Hey you, lousy troll, you don’t have a patsy here, bring it on cause we have plenty of resources to make sure this isn’t quick money for you”

  5. JustAnotherDoe says:

    Been still thinking about the thought process behind severance/dismissal of 74 Does out of 1-84. Why keep those 10?
    The Does that had attorneys were either dismissed singly or kept in the amended complaint. This sort of makes sense that they either A) used the atty to settle and were dismissed, or B) since they have counsel, Lesko is in for a penny in for a pound and doesn’t wnat to risk having to pay atty fees and get smacked down if things go bad so they’ll at least TRY to win in court or work on a settlement
    That still leaves 6? i think that are just ‘random’ numbers out of the original 84. My first thought was that these were foreign/non-english names and might be attractive targets if they might not have a grasp on the legal system; more marks for easy intimidation. BUT there are some plain old Mike Smith type names so that doesnt seem like it’s that simple
    Are these does that reached out and contacted either Lesko or Simmons or one of the services that promote easy settlement; but then decided not to settle after contact? Again this would tip Lesko that these may be easy marks down the road
    Is there some form of credit check they could be doing to decide which Does are worth pursuing? If their credit is shit or there are other judgements against them, would that make a Doe a much less attractive target and they would be more likely to think “not worth the bother”? Combine this with some basic profiling of zip code and address and it could yield a few names in the case that might be worth following up

  6. Vomitor says:

    Purzel Video is a well known pedophile company and it is a shame that they are able to squeeze money out of people this way too.

  7. disgusted says:

    It is indeed interesting that many times hard kiddie porn hides behind Purzel Covers in torrents etc. not the official Purzel movie. Also Purzel Company was seen in the so called police trojan or BKA trojan scam. That is when you surf “illegal” sites about bestiality, pedo etc and suddenly the computer gets blocked by some trojan that claims to be the police. User have to pay some mone to unblock the computer again.

  8. stomppot says:

    Purzel GmbH is now involved with also notorious scam company Gamelink. I would avoid gamelink at all cost now.

  9. Geutenoiker says:

    Does anybody know if Purzel was involved in that Blackshades scam too:

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