25 Nov 13 Update – New Copyright Troll Plaintiff In CO (Lynn Peak Productions, Inc.) – 1:13-cv-02911

25 Nov 13 Update

Been doing a little work on these cases and a nice person provided these additional document “Thanks!”  More to come on these cases as the settlement letters have yet to go out – I expect some Does will get these prior to Christmas.  Note:  Bright Light Pictures is the email point of contact on the copyright registration.  They are involved with the movie “The Company You Keep” and a few others that have been the center of copyright troll law suits.  Surprise surprise……

Complaints

Cmplt03100 Cmplt02911 Cmplt02921 Cmplt02974 Cmplt02998 Cmplt03026 Cmplt03056 Cmplt03071 Cmplt03079

SHA-1 Hash SpreadsheetSHA1_Hash_LPP1

Motion To Quash & Order

OrderMTQ02921 MTQ0921

Discovery Motion & Order

DiscOrder02921 DiscMtn02921

————————————————-

BC1I decided to take a look at a new Plaintiff in the Copyright Troll game, Lynn Peak Productions, Inc. (a Canadian Corporation).  They recently filed two cases in the District of Colorado, on 24 and 25 Oct 2013.  They are mass Doe cases with 14 and 26 IP addresses respectively.  The Troll handling these cases is Scott Thomas Kannady, Brown and Kannady LLC, Denver, CO.

The case I looked at is 1:13-cv-02911, Lynn Peak Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 et al., 24 Oct 13.   Complaint_02911(CO)    Complaint_EXA_IPs_02911(CO)   The movie in this case is “Bailout: The Age of Greed,” released in the United States as “Assault on Wall Street” (Copyright registration PAu 3-668-151).   iMDB page for Assault on Wall Street.     The movie got mixed reviews, but on average it is rated as middle of the road – AKA: only spend a little over a dollar for a RedBox rental (My opinion).  I may actually do this.  🙂

The hash file in the complaint is SHA1: 0B781A5633AA66045EDB001F36333DF09057E258.  The complaint is the standard mass Doe copyright Troll case we have seen over the last few years.  These cases are such a simple boiler plate design it really is cost-effective for the Troll.

One thing that was different from many copyright infringement cases is the corporate disclosure filing.   CorpDisclosure_02911(CO)   This listed two parent corporations to Lynn Peak Productions, Inc. (Note: All three companies have the same addresses) –

  • 0939599 BC LTD., 2400 Boundary Road, Burnaby, V5M 3Z3, Canada
  • Studio West Productions (VCC) Inc., 2400 Boundary Road, Burnaby, V5M 3Z3, Canada

Also filed alongside the complaint was a motion for expedited discovery for ISP subscriber information.   DiscoveryMotion_02911(CO)   Decl_DGriffin_02911(CO)   Does_IPaddresses_02911(CO)   Nothing special to the motion, except for a little statement in which Plaintiff states that once they identify the offending IP address, an email is sent to the ISP informing them of the infringement from one of their IP addresses on a date/time and requests that they maintain logs on who the subscriber is.  I wonder if any of the ISPs forward this information to the ISP subscribers like it was a DCMA take-down notice.

Another thing did catch my eye – who conducted the technical data collection: Mr. Darrin Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC).  I have seen Mr, Griffin and CBC on a few cases and in my opinion stinks as bad a Prenda Laws’ 6881 Forensics LLC.  A person and company that is hidden from general view and you cannot verify their qualifications.  Here is some background information of Griffin/CBC.   SD Incorporation

As this is a Colorado case assigned to Judge Hegarty, I fully expect the subpoena to the ISPs to be issued shortly.  After that is when we will start to hear from the CO Does.  Based off other cases handled and supported by Troll Kannady and Darrin Griffin, I don’t expect these cases to go past the settlement demand stage.  A default judgement against a non-responsive Doe is a possibility, but unless someone admits to the Troll that they did it, these cases will eventually be dismissed (closed by the Troll or court following a long period of inaction).

For any affected Does, please post here and/or contact me at dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com.

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 - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in Non-Porn cases and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to 25 Nov 13 Update – New Copyright Troll Plaintiff In CO (Lynn Peak Productions, Inc.) – 1:13-cv-02911

  1. Jimbo Jones says:

    Do you think that this is the new method for the trolls? What I mean by that is that once they send notice to the ISP of infringement, do they request the ISP keep this record longer than what we previously thought? I had seen an article showing how long certain ISP’s retain their IP records etc.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      That will most likely depend on what the ISP’s legal department (COMCAST & CenturyLink) think of the request. The date ranges for the observed activity was 1 Aug – 7 Sep 2013 (all but one IP was observed during 1-14 Aug 13), with the case finally being filed on 24 Oct 2013. It doesn’t hurt them to send the email and even if the ISP forwards it along as a DMCA take-down notice, Plaintiff could say they were also trying to stop the infringement at its earliest moment with the notices. Once the ISP has the subpoena, they should be keeping the record til at least the case is fully adjudicated/closed. The time frame they “normally” keep records for is exclusive of any Law Enforcement/Legal requests.

      DTD 🙂

      • Jimbo Jones says:

        Geez, is it normal to observe something like that for that long and then finally file the case almost 2 months down the line? I think most people who receive a DMCA notice and don’t hear anything within a few weeks tend to breathe a sigh of relief. From what you describe above, waiting for 2 months and then all of a sudden moving on it is a scary thing.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Watching for two months is not too unusual. The email they send to the ISP just gives them an added possibility that the data will be there when they want it. They collect information on ALL the IP addresses that are sharing the movie and then have to filter out the non-US, Web-proxy, and sort by each State. As the Plaintiff is limited by which States he has local counsels in, they are trying to maximize the number of Does per case (within reason) in their States. Colorado is not as big as many States, so the number of IP addresses/infringers is less. I haven’t looked, but I expect the other Lynn Peak case is for a different hash file of the same movie. I don’t know what local counsels this Plaintiff has in other States, but other cases could soon be opened.

        DTD 🙂

  2. DieTrollDie says:

    As far as Judge Hagerty goes, at least he has a standard practice of making the Troll show what activity is taking place each month. I don’t expect him to allow cases to go on forever, but he doesn’t mind Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain settlements. https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hegarty1.jpg – This is from a Power of Few case in CO.

    DTD 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      10/31/2013 9 MINUTE ORDER:
      This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty pursuant to an Order Referring Case entered by Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel. It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall file a status report on the tenth day of each month informing the Court of the status of service in this case. For its monthly reports, the Plaintiff need not file a separate report in each case, but may include this case in one monthly report of associated cases; however, the Plaintiff shall separately notify the Court in which case the monthly status report is filed. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/31/2013. Text Only Entry (mehcd) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

  3. DieTrollDie says:

    OK. Started to watch the movie. Better than I thought. No academy award winner by any means, but not a bad “Pay Back” movie either. Still, this is a RedBox $1.50 rental or NetFlix ($8 a month) view. Not that the low rental price is any excuse for someone to infringe. BUT, the fact that they are going to threaten people with $150K + damages unless they pay a couple thousand is just as wrong. Lynn Peak Productions, you are on notice and I hope you are reading this. This will not turn out well for you in the long run. Turn back and keep making movies. Period.

    DTD 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      OK. For the new people here, here is how the math works for these cases. At this time we have 5 Lynn Peak Production cases in CO. Filing fee of $400 per case – $2K total. A total of 128 Does. If Troll/Plaintiff gets a 50% of the Does to settle for $3,500.00, the total recovery is $224,000.00. Of course the total will depend on the actual settlement amount set by Troll/Plaintiff and on how many people pay up. For 75% settlement rate – $336,000.00. $224K is a good amount for the limited amount of work they have to do for these cases. The complaint and motion for early discovery are adapted versions from previous Troll cases. Even if you even use the overly large amount of $20K to pay the monitoring firm, attorney fees, court costs, etc., over $200K split between Troll and Plaintiff is a great score.

      LynnCases
      DTD 🙂

  4. mr orange says:

    I received my letter from my ISP yesterday. and so the journey begins…

  5. DieTrollDie says:

    Another Lynn Peak Productions Inc., case in Colorado. 1:13-cv-03056, File on 8 Nov 13. 31 Does.

  6. MO says:

    so let me get this right, the trolls aren’t really interested in copyright protection, because if they were they would be going after the content providers. instead they go after the alleged downloaders and squeeze them with the might of the federal court behind them. I wonder how the federal courts like being used to extort money from alleged downloaders? kinda makes these guys a couple of steps below ambulance chasers.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      The ISPs have a “Safe Harbor” provision that will protect them from any liability, IF they play by the rules. As most of the Trolls/Plaintiffs do not send DMCA take-down notices to the ISPs for the activities of the subscribers (i.e. IP address 70.76.191.29 is downloading/sharing our content, etc.), they only have to abide by the subpoena for subscriber information. If the content owners did this (DMCA take down notices), the ISPs would be forced to take action against repeat offenders. As they do not do this, the activity continues and that is what the Trolls want (MY opinion). The notices also have the benefit of telling the subscriber that the activity is happening and to stop it. The subscriber may look into it and find out his system is being abused by a neighbor or that a teenage son is doing it. Also take note of where these cases are being filed…… Only in Troll friendly jurisdictions. If this was truly an operation to stop/reduce piracy, they would be filing in all of the jurisdictions, especially the big ones. You cannot tell me that ONLY Colorado Does are downloading/sharing “Assault on Wall Street.” This is a focused operation to get ISP subscribers to pay thousands of dollars under the threat of serious financial ruin. Even Malibu Media/Troll Lipscomb only now files in friendly jurisdictions. Hell, they don’t even file in California any more. IMO they are too scared to go up against some serious Doe Defenders in CA. Copyright infringement is wrong and I don’t condone it. If you have done it/are doing it, please stop. BUT, that does not give the Trolls/Plaintiffs the moral right to run this operation squeezing money from people. Assault on Wall Street is a RedBox/Netflix, rental/view at best. The content owner knows this and is just trying to fatten his wallet with these actions. To the content owner of Assault on Wall Street, I know you have seen my article and your silence is sooooo telling.

      DTD 🙂

  7. DieTrollDie says:

    Yet another Lynn Peak Productions case in CO. On 14 Nov 13, Troll Kannady filed case 1:13-cv-03100 against 35 Does. See https://dietrolldie.com/bt-case-openings-database/

    Almost 300 CO Does so far.
    DTD 🙂

  8. DieTrollDie says:

    Updating more information on the parent company – Studio West Productions Inc., Canada.

    http://copyrightclerk.com/2012/12/28/canadian-company-studio-west-productions-sues-in-the-us-via-attorney-john-raggio/

    http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/tag/412-cv-03690/

    Appears they filed at least two cases (442 Does) in Texas in 2012.
    CASES FILED BY JOHN RAGGIO (A.K.A. DUNLAP WEAVER, PLLC) IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
    Studio West Productions Inc. v. Does 1-237 (Case No. 4:12-cv-03690) – https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/complaint_03690tx.pdf
    Studio West Productions Inc. v. Does 1-205 (Case No. 4:12-cv-03691)

    DTD 🙂

  9. mixppp says:

    I’m one of the Does for 1:13-cv-02921… So, would it be better to NOT file the motion to quash or vacate and just wait it out and see what happens?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      That is a hard question right now as this is a newer Troll/Plaintiff and we don’t have much history to go by. It appears these guys (Studio West Productions, Canada), tried to run a couple cases in TX in Dec 2012-2013, but closed them down before a planned scheduling conference in April. I don’t think these guys will do much beyond threatening to name/serve, but I can’t be 100% sure. If you are up for the fight, then please file a motion. If you can’t, sit back and watch for a bit. Keep me posted and send any settlement communication (letters/emails) to me if possible. Based off what they say and do, I can give you a better analysis.

      DTD 🙂

  10. ericsmiles says:

    Yup. I received mine today. I don’t know what to do or how to respond.

  11. Block A says:

    I recieved mine yesterday as well. Contemplating contacting a lawyer, would many lawyers in Colorado even have experience with this? Looking for a course of action with spending the least amount of money.

    • JC says:

      I spoke with Peter Menges and he was aware of these cases and has worked many before. I have decided to take the “wait and see” route.

    • Boomhauer says:

      The other day I called John Arsenault in Colorado. He said he could either fight the case at an hourly rate or he can probably settle the case for less than half of what the Plaintiff is asking depending on what my facts are. He says he has had worked a lot of these against all the trolls and had dismissals against Kannady this year in certain circumstances.

  12. JC says:

    I received my invitation to play on Wed…I’ll keep you posted on what happens next. I am not filing a motion to quash. I didn’t do anything and not going to pay up for someone else’s wrongful acts!

  13. ericsmiles says:

    Thanks, DTD for the fantastic information. I’ll take the wait and see approach as well.

  14. Iliveforco says:

    I received my notice 11/21/2013 Civil Action No. 13-cv-2998 Lynn Peak Production, INC., V JOHN DOES 1-31. I am thinking of filing a motion to quash and vacate the subpoena but by looking at some of the information on your site it seems that when someone did and didn’t file correct paperwork to stay anonymous it was denied. If anyone has info on how to do this correctly please let me know or I can get my attorney involved asap. Thanks!

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Read the memo from the judge on how to do this. Also call the clerk of the court if you have questions.

      DTD 🙂

      • DieTrollDie says:

        You could cite this recent “sua sponte” order from a TN judge in which he also dismissed all but Doe #1. It is for the movie/client TCYK (The Company You Keep). https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/doessevered_tcyk_00251tn.pdf

        It is not the same Plaintiff, BUT the Lynn Peak copyright holder has the “Rights and Permission” POC as “legal@brightlightpictures.com,” which also handled the movie “The Company You Keep.” The Co courts still are entertaining the mass-Doe suits and this is the area to target – IMO. Be aware, that the Plaintiff could simply refile against you as a single Doe and it would be hard for you to prevent them from getting your contact information. They don’t really want to do this, as it costs them more money and added paperwork to keep track of.

        DTD 🙂

  15. Iliveforco says:

    Thank you for that information. Would it be better to leave well enough alone? We received the information via UPS ….AND…..USPS. We also received a phone call from Comcast with an email that went to the email on the account. I am sure they wanted to “make sure” we received the information but without serving the paperwork directly there is no way for them to know correct?

    Again, thanks!

  16. doeXX says:

    Just got my letter from Comcast about case Lynn Peak Production, INC., V JOHN DOES 1-31 yesterday. Thank you all for the info. Do you think I should I just submit a motion or just wait it out?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Much depends on your situation. If you have the stomach for a potential fight and can afford it, please do. Others cannot and most of us here understand that. I would see if you can get a free consult from an attorney experienced in working these cases. As the Plaintiff is a newer one, everyone is waiting to see what they do. From the looks of the cases and the groups/companies behind them. I don’t expect more than threaten to threaten the ISP subscribers, milk the cases for as many settlements as possible, and possibly go for a default judgement on some of the Does. Now as this Plaintiff is linked to TCYK, they may actually re-open cases (single Doe cases) on a select few. We don’t know their exact reason for the single Doe cases, but it could be because the Doe made some sort of admission, or they feel the Doe is a serial-infringer based on the large amount of media being shared via BT. Still, I don’t believe they actually want to take any case to trial. It costs lots of money to do so and these cases/business model is designed to make a profit – going to trial will not equal profit.

      DTD 🙂

  17. CC says:

    Just got done with a consultation with a lawyer and she said I had two options. 1.Wait and see. 2. Go to Lynn peak and attempt to settle. The first is dicey because it will come down to a “default judgement”. Once Comcast releases my information, Lynn peak will file/serve me and it will go to court. The lawyer said that this is very expensive for them as it means more time and paperwork. They would much rather have me settle, because they can just collect the money and move on. She said that how much they will settle on will be dependent on a few things, like if I actually was the one to do it, if I have the movie on my computer, or if I have seen it. If I sign a sworn statement saying I didnt do any of the aforementioned, that usually lowers the settlement a lot. I asked her why i should have to settle if i didnt do anything and she told me as the account holder for the internet service, I am liable for anything that may happen with that provided service. So, if my friends get on it and violate copyright laws, then I am still liable. She said that her firm get multiple calls a week for this type of thing and that it is a very lucrative business for them, as long as the settle out of court. Going to court can be up into the 50k+ range, so not so lucrative. So it sounds like by waiting, its a roll of the dice, as to whether or not they will actually take us to court, and then upon the judges decision. The reason I cannot quash or vacate, is because I would have to be able to prove that I didnt do what Im being accused of. So that would be next to impossible. The lawyer said that if the company is taking it this far, they already have proof of the alleged violation.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      No offense to who ever you talked to, but you are not responsible for actions on your Internet connection just because you pay the bill. WRONG. The Communications Decency Act will prevent this. I will reply in more detail later. Can’t do it right now. Bottom line, if you didn’t do it, there is no evidence. Don’t default

      DTD 🙂

      • Cecil says:

        Im familiar with CDA 230, and I dont think that applies. If I was a host of some sort than maybe, but as it stands, my account allegedly broke the law by violating lynn peaks copyright and so they are holding my account responsible. There is no third party, or “another information content provider” involved.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I will be reposting a “Negligence” article covering topics such as this. I begun to hear more “suggestions” (from various people) that an ISP subscriber is responsible for what happens on the account. The DCA is applicable and there is some case law to support this. What the lawyer is saying is due to your negligence (in managing the Internet connection), you are responsible and could be deemed liable. First off, the complaint in ALL of the recent cases (Malibu Media, Lynn Peak, TCYK, etc.) do not claim “Negligence” as a charge. It is “Copyright Infringment.” The Copyright law is VERY clear that it takes precedent for all matters of copyright infringement – it will kill any “Negligence” claim in a complaint. There are NO laws out there that state that an ISP subscriber is “Legally” responsible for what happens on his account – unless of course he/she is the offender, or took some action to assist in committing the offense. For negligence to even have the chance to work, you have to show that there was some legal obligation (contract, agreement, etc.) between the Plaintiff and the Doe to protect Plaintiff’s works from infringement. A user agreement or terms of service agreement between the ISP and the ISP subscriber will not work to show this – still doesn’t involve the Plaintiff. The CDA has been used to show that any offense committed by a “third party” (someone other that you) on YOUR Internet connections does not make you liable. As I said, I will be making a post on this topic. This is simply the Troll/Plaintiff trying to get people to settle for an outrageous amount for a “crap” movie (my opinion). Don’t get me wrong, I believe copyright infringement is wrong, but for these cases, the Troll/Plaintiff is just as wrong (morally & ethically) for trying to force these settlements from the Does.

        DTD 🙂 – More to follow

  18. Doe_Bro says:

    (DTD, you’re awesome. This website and the work you put into maintaining and updating it is GREATLY appreciated.)

    “Dude” received a letter from his ISP last night stating that they received a subpoena from the above mentioned parties commanding that they provide the following info: name, address, telephone number, email address, and Media Access Control address. It says they are required to respond to the subpoena by the end of Dec.

    “Dude” spent a few hours researching these situations (main take-aways coming from your website) last night to gain a better understanding of the severity, process and outcomes of these situations. BUT “Dude” still has a couple questions and would really appreciate your advice. Given the circumstances (and possibility that the “Trolls” monitor this website) “Dude” doesn’t think it’s in his best interest to share any specifics on your public website. “Dude” has no idea what information (if anything) the trolls can use against him. In other words, would you be willing to communicate with “dude” in a method that isn’t made public?

    Also…given that there are like 300 Does experiencing (what sounds like an identical) situation and all living in Colorado…maybe “Dude” could arrange a ‘meetup’ of some sort. That way the Does can all learn from each other and share their experiences. Call it….”Does Anonymous”. Just a thought…

    Thanks again for your help. This sh!t scares “Dude”.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      OK. I edited a bit of your post. No need to put in the ISP, as it can help the Troll narrow down who the posters are. I would not put any personal information, IP address, etc., into a comment. If you end up talking to them (directly or indirectly), things you say could come back to haunt you – better to be safe. Please don’t hesitate to post, just no specific details unless you are sure it is safe.

      If you don’t want to post somethings, please send me an email at dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com. I don’t travel, so a meeting is not going to happen. Also will not happen because of operational security risks – sorry 😦 Send me an email.

      DTD 🙂

    • KJ says:

      still dealing with the case? i just got mine.

  19. annon says:

    I recieved a letter from my isp for this case. Dont know what to do. Someone please help! I believe someone used my wifi and downloaded stuff from piratebay. Any advice on what to do would be apriciated. About to die from anxiety.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Start keeping a file with all your notes about what is happening. Document all the details of you notification and what you find out in examining your system/Internet connection. Examine your WiFi Firewall/Router and see if there is any logs showing unknown systems has connected/used it. Many time there will be no logs, but you need to check. Resecure the Internet connection (new password) and make sure to look for evidence of the activity on your systems. Maybe someone in the residence did it – devils advocate. Document all you do and what you find (or don’t find). Keep the file for the future.

      Try to get a free consult from a lawyer who has worked these cases in CO. Please don’t listen to anyone who states that because you are the ISP subscriber, you are responsible for all activity that happens on it – Pure BS.

      If you are thinking of filing a motion to quash/dismiss/sever, be aware that CO has been requiring people who want to remain anonymous (file as John Doe v. real name) to request permission from the court first. Otherwise the motion will be denied. These CO cases from Lynn Peak are a new Plaintiff, so we are watching to see what they do once people start ignoring the settlement letters. The cases are in the old porn-Troll format, so they may have no interest in actually naming/serving a defendant with a summons/complaint. For many of these cases, they threaten a lot and eventually go away when the cases gets stale in the court. If/When you get a settlement demand letter, please email me a copy. I expect they will have an amount in the $5K range.

      DTD 🙂

  20. DoeRayMe says:

    I just received my letter…since I did not do anything wrong, is there counsel anyone in CO is using so we can pool our resources?

    • KJ says:

      i got mine today. not happy as my internet is open and anybody in this area can use it. i didnt download some movie called assault on wallstreet(not sure of the name. not by the letter). i wish i knew what to do.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I would first start documenting all relevant information about your network and possibly who could have used it at the date/time in question. Check the Firewall/Router logs and record any unusual/unauthorized systems that have connected to it. As the time frame of when this happened is months ago, there may not be any logs left – Small Home/Office Firewall/Routers are very weak on logging and Troll/Plaintiff knows this. Keep everything in a file and see if you can get a free legal consult from an attorney who knows and has worked these cases. Keep reading here and at Fightcopyrighttrolls.com. If you are up to it, you could write the Troll and tell him your WiFi Internet connection was open at that time and you don’t know who could have done this. It is unlikely to make them go away, but it may make you less of a target for a default judgement. Send me an email at dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com with more details if you want.

        DTD 🙂

  21. annon says:

    So, first off I know that a notice to settle is nothing. You can just ignore that. So lets say you receive a summons, then do you have to go to court? If the people in the particular case decide to not settle, then are they going to take everyone to court at the same time, or will they then re file individually and take each person to court. Also, even if they do take you to court if you still dont show up is that against the law? Can they issue a warrant for your arrest? From what I understand is that the absolute worst case scenario is that the judge will issue a default judgement right? They if you cant afford to pay that and just continue doing nothing will it get handed over to collections? What can happen at that point? Can they garnish wages, take property away, freeze bank accounts? So basically, they are going to try and sue for an outrageous amount and then if they eventually get awarded the money after spending tons of money for legal fees and this and that then the person that the money is awarded against just goes out and files bankruptcy and they are out lots they they cant even legally recover anymore…?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Do not ignore a settlement letter, especially if it is associated with a real case – not CEG-TEK. Do your research and get everything ready.

      As far as a summons/complaint – You do not have to respond to it….. BUT then a Plaintiff can motion the court for a default judgement against the defendant – bad idea IMO. No arrest warrants are issued for civil courts for failing to respond. No police involvement – PERIOD.

      For the non-settling people, they can either try to take as many people as possible to trial or dismiss, refile single cases, or let the case die.

      As I have stated before, this is a money making business model and a default judgement against a person with little to no assets is a hollow victory. Yes they can try to garnish wages and seize assets, but the pay off is small and costs them more. The only thing it benefits them is in showing people they are serious and trying to use the award to convince others to “Pay Or Else!”

      DTD 🙂

  22. iliveforco says:

    We just received our “settlement” paperwork from the attorney’s office in the USPS. They are requesting $5000.00 and have added a nice place to put in a credit card number! I will read through it and post more information later. My question is: Doesn’t the burden of proof lie with them? Meaning, they are accusing us of doing something with no legitimate proof. Thanks.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      The burden of proof only comes to play if it comes to a trial. If they get someone to pay prior to that, then it doesn’t matter. Also, the burden of proof is much lower THAN in a criminal case. More along the lines of “it is likely that the person did it.” v. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, no trials have gone through except for the PA Bellwether. And that was very limited and more of a formality. Please email me a copy of the letter please. DTD: )

  23. JC says:

    I just got my giant packet of legal docs with the settlement letter and they want $5K. I too found it funny they included a CC payment sheet. I actually know who downloaded the movies, apparently over 100 while they were using my unsecured internet unbeknownst to me , thinking this isn’t my first rodeo. I don’t want to implicate them if I don’t have to…any advice on this one? It isn’t someone living in my household, but in my neighborhood.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Please if possible, email me (dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com) a copy of all the paperwork. The worst thing that could happen is a deposition in which they ask you who did it. Lying to them (If this happens – unlikely IMO) could get you into trouble. To get to a deposition, they would have to name you and then move for ward with discovery (deposition, forensics, etc.). If there is no evidence of the movie or BT activity on your systems, then they are hurting. Warning: If there is any evidence of BT clients or downloading/sharing activity (BT or otherwise) on your systems, they will just claim you deleted/wiped the evidence prior to any forensics. Remember, they don’t really care who actually did it, only that they can get a settlement from your or someone else from it. I would say wait it out for now.

      DTD 🙂

    • DoeJaney says:

      How do you know the person downloaded 100+ movies? Did the plaintiff provide you with that information?

  24. Dave says:

    I just received my letter asking for 5k by middle of Jan or it would go up like to 8k and continue….I had been out of town and didn’t open mail until Feb 1, 2014 past due date. I too, am freaking out, loosing sleep…called a lawyer today waiting to hear back.

  25. KJ says:

    wtf?!? I just got a letter saying i downloaded this movie when in Aug/Sep and i know i didn’t. wtf am i supposed to do? is this crap real?

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