Countryman Nevada Case Dismissed After One Settlement, 1:14-cv-01149(CO)

Just a short post to show you how some BitTrorrent Copyright Troll cases run.  Now I’m in NO way saying that all of them end up like this.  Each Troll/Plaintiff is different, as well as the local Troll who is running them.  Malibu Media LLC/Troll Lipscomb runs their operation differently than say a Voltage Pictures case.  BUT the following example points out that the Troll/Plaintiffs are doing this to generate settlements and the claims of cracking down on piracy is pure BS in my opinion.

Case At Hand

Color9SmellThis case is brought to us by Voltage Picture (Nicolas Chartier) and the local Troll attorney Scott Kannady, Brown & Kannady, LLC, Denver, CO.  Case is Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (12 Does), Colorado, 1:14-cv-01149.   Complaint_01149(CO)

The case was filed on 22 Apr 14, to include a motion for expedited discovery of ISP subscriber information.  The expedited discovery was rubber-stamped the next day and there after the Troll received the ISP subscriber information.  The case followed the usual path of working settlements and monthly status reports to the court.  Almost three months after filing, Troll/Plaintiff dismissed Doe (#6) after settling.  Approximately one month later (20 Aug 14), Troll Kannady voluntarily dismissed the entire case (11 remaining Does) without prejudice.   Doc_18_VolDismiss_01149(CO)

So one out of 12 Does apparently paid the settlement.  That is an 8.333% settlement rate – piss-poor settlement rate IMO.  But still, how much time, effort, or money did they really have to put out?  $400 and some electronic case filing based off pre-made templates is what I’m guessing – not much.  Assuming Troll/Plaintiff obtained $4,500 for this settlement; that leaves $4,100 to be split between the parties.  So even with one Doe settling, the business model is profitable.

Why Dismiss – Why Not Serve The Does?

This business model is purely designed to extract settlement from ISP subscribers.  The fact that these Troll/Plaintiffs could take these Does to trial does not figure into their plan.  The claims that they are only trying to reduce piracy and recoup lost revenue is another sad joke supported by the facts that –

  • The Troll/Plaintiffs do not send out DMCA take-down notices to the ISPs of the public IP addresses they observe.  Many of the Troll/Plaintiffs do send out DMCA take-down notices, BUT they are usually only sent to Internet Search engines or Tube sites.  As the Troll/Plaintiffs use these DMCA take-down notices in this fashion, I assume they are working – not perfect, but still working.  So why can’t work with the ISPs and their subscribers???
  • They only file cases in the jurisdictions they deem friendly enough for them and where they can find an attorney willing to tarnish their name by handling these cases.  The reason why some jurisdictions look down on these cases is because many of the past ones were questionable (at best) when you looked beyond the threadbare claims. As far as the tarnished reputation for handling these cases; the attorneys will have to fix that on their own – you reap what you sow.

The main reason you don’t see as many Does named/served with a summons/complaint is because this step significantly increases the risk that some ISP subscriber is going to fight back.  We saw this gross mistake made by the Troll Maureen Vandermay in Washington when her client decided to name/serve the Does who refused to settle in case 2:13-cv-00115 (WAED).  This of course led to Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson case, 2:13-cv-00395, with motions for approximately $200K in attorney fees/costs and sanctions against the Troll/Plaintiff.  Even Malibu Media LLC, is feeling pressure from its efforts to name/served non-settling ISP subscribers.  It is only a matter of time before they cannot cut and run and lose a case.

So based on what I have seen in the Troll Kannady CO cases, I wouldn’t rush off to pay a settlement demand from him.  I expect that if CO court didn’t require monthly status reports from the Troll, these cases would stay open much longer and possibly get more people to pay up.  Judge Hegarty may be making it harder for the Troll/Plaintiffs, but CO is still a BT Copyright Troll haven in need of some reform.  Now as this information makes it into the public view, Troll Kannady and his Plaintiffs may be forced to start naming/serving people in small numbers.  This of course increases their risks and possibly lowers their profit.

DieTrollDie 🙂   “That’s how you’re gonna beat ’em, Butch. They keep underestimating you.– Butch Coolidge, Pulp Fiction

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.

5 Responses to Countryman Nevada Case Dismissed After One Settlement, 1:14-cv-01149(CO)

  1. Raul says:

    It would not surprise me to learn that some settlements go unreported to the court and the client.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I would have to agree with you on that point Raul. The Trolls are well-known for late filings and not filing documents. As I can only go on what the docket shows, I invite the Troll/Plaintiff to prove I’m wrong for this case. I will edit it if needed.

      DTD 🙂

  2. that anonymous coward says:

    It is possible that they will pursue the alternative revenue stream, we’ve seen in other cases where they cut cut and run.
    They have the names, they have a real court document showing an amount.
    You send very scary letters, without any any court oversight or need to be truthful, in an attempt to scare them into a settlement payment. “They” (the royal they, referring to trolls in general IMHO) like to trot out the arguments that have been shot down by courts before – even if you didn’t do it, had no knowledge of it, you still have to pay because it was your connection.
    $4,500 sounds reasonable when there is the $150,000 sword hanging over them, not to mention how much it will cost to defend yourself, and the extra costs for them having to bring another lawsuit.
    Just pay us today and make it all go away.
    So add the cost of postage and letters on expensive paper (giggle) to the original $400, and any further settlements are bank. They can send these letters for a very long time, because they still have the “right” to pursue these paper-thin claims up until the statue of limitations runs out. Most won’t bother after the first 6months-year because if you can’t crack them by then you are wasting stamps.
    Trying to balance the law with the rights of the targets is hard, there might be a reason for them to keep the names even after they dismiss the case in other cases with Does. So one can not make a hard fast rule about barring them from using the information without a current case, and as we’ve seen even a court making that ruling is often ignored as they hop to another jurisdiction and white wash how they got the names.
    There really needs to be examination of all of the loopholes that have been exploited for years now, and common sense law passed to make them have to proved these cases before handing them piles of names to use as they wish.

  3. Hey, long time reader / first time caller as it were. Love the site and it’s posts. You can really see the time and effort placed into every one.
    As an ex-doe, who had had the benefit of hindsight, I’ve determined how I came under the troll radar and since minimized my exposure. If you were to categorize my reaction to “troll justice”, I’d say I was in the “throw money at the problem until it goes away” group. Except, I through mine at defense attorney fees. In the long run, I still can’t be sure of what I paid for; but, I knew after a few articles on your site, the troll would get nothing from me. Ever.
    I wanted to know if there was/anyone knew of some kind of form letter I could spam judge Hagartey and his ilk with too spur some much needed reform in CO?

  4. Jane Doe says:

    This is a very useful blog, keep it up. Very informative. I got a subpoena from my provider. This house has had many people live in it over the years, particularly this year; rooms are rented out. The payee doesn’t have this “charlie countryman” film on his harddrive. It’s out on Netflix for troll’s sake, AND we have it running on cable. But the subpoena is targeting the person who pays. Incredibly rude… and distasteful and parasitic, those trolls. From what I’ve researched I shouldn’t stress out too much, it seems that I can just keep on ignoring them?

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