Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, In Australia (iiNet v. DBC) – Bugger Off APMC/Macek

australia_stencil2In case you were not following events from the Dallas Buyers Club case in Australia (iiNet v. DBC), there were some interesting developments.  The central point of this case is if a group of Australian Internet Service Providers (ISP) will have to disclose the personal information of 4726 subscribers who are alleged to have downloaded/shared the movie Dallas Buyers Club via BitTorrent (BT).  The court is reviewing all the testimony/facts and should make a decision in a couple of weeks.  Here are some of the stories.

Of particular interest was the testimony of German Citizen Daniel Macek, Maverick Eye UG, employee.  Macek used the Maverick Eye software to record the public IP addresses that are alleged to downloaded/shared the movie.  iiNet’s attorneys attacked Mr. Macek’s credibility and experience.

Under cross examination by defence barrister Richard Lancaster, SC, representing iiNet, Mr Macek said he did not prepare his own affidavit.

“It was provided,” Mr Macek said, referring to the film’s rights holder Dallas Buyers Club LLC preparing it.

The statement was “pretty much complete[d]” for him and he could not remember if he made any changes.

“You provide affidavits and statements in lots of litigations all around the world,” Mr Lancaster said. “Is it your practice just to sign what is put in front of you?”

“No,” Mr Macek replied.

Mr Macek could not say whether he was authorised via email or letter to use the MaverickEye software to identify those who allegedly shared Dallas Buyers Club.  (Taken from The Sydney Morning Herald story)


The reason Macek was cross-examined so forcefully was because it was his declaration DBC used to justify the release of the AU ISP subscriber information.  Now many of you already know that Daniel Macek is a central figure in a multitude of US BT Copyright Troll cases.  In the US his declarations were also used to justify the release of ISP subscriber information to the Trolls.

One interesting thing to note about Daniel Macek is his lack of experience.  The issue of his experience came up in the AU case.  The “experience” was also an area of concern for the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), who is actually running these BT Copyright Troll cases around the world.  Here is what the APMC (via their Prezi presentation) thinks of Mr. Macek.


If you look at the full transcript (text) of the presentation (link is on the bottom of the presentation page), there is an entry concerning Mr. Macek and his “experience.”

This of course is not a shock to me and others who follow the BT Copyright Trolls.  What is also interesting is another name that was used by the APMC prior to Mr. Macek – Darren Griffin, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC).  Mr. Griffin and Mr. Macek’s declaration are essentially identical, with changes only to cases titles/case numbers.  As Mr. Griffin is almost certainly a made-up person, working for a SD “Shelf-Company” run out of a mail drop, the credibility and reliability of these people and Company are in question.  Here are some additional stories on Mr. Griffin, CBC, and what WA attorney Christopher Lynch was able to dig up.  His information was key to getting Elf-Man LLC, to dismiss his client (with prejudice), leading to a fees/costs award of approx. $100,000.00.  Article 1   Article 2   Article 3

One of the more frustration aspects of these cases is how the Troll/Plaintiffs are able to obtain early discovery of the ISP subscriber information with template based declarations from Mr. Macek and Mr. Griffin.  When these cases are initially filed, there is NO opposing view/argument to their claims.  The Troll simply presents the court a declaration from a person they claim (or infer) is an expert or technician.  Most courts follow a general rule that if an attorney presents some document/declaration, they take it at face value unless someone objects or presents evidence to the contrary.  This makes it extremely easy for a Troll to obtain the ISP subscriber information most of the time.  For a majority of the cases, the court simply rubber stamps the request and the Troll happily gets the ISP subscriber data in a month or so.  In the unlikely chance that a Doe tries to fight the early discovery request, most US courts simply take the word of the Trolls and not ask for additional information.

I can only hope the AU court sees what the APMC/DBC is doing and puts a stop to it.  I will not hold my breath, but I’m confident that even if the AU ISPs have to give up the ISP subscriber information, there is going to be a few Aussies who fight back.  I think APMC is going to find out “down under” isn’t going to be an easy score.

For us in the US, the AU developments will be used to target the “questionable” people APMC uses to justify early discovery.  Who knows, maybe Mr. Macek will just fade away.  If that happens, APMC will simply replace him with another stooge willing to put his name down on legal documents.  We will wait and see; adaption is the key.

DieTrollDie 🙂  I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”  [The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein]

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.

14 Responses to Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, In Australia (iiNet v. DBC) – Bugger Off APMC/Macek

  1. WDS says:

    I’m impressed that Australia was actually able to get Macek there to testify. Of course it sounds like he had his, I don’t really know how it works but it is 100% accurate spiel down pat.

  2. lfury says:

    DBC has sent out its second notice of intent to the Chicago area. It was sent via normal mail (not registered as a REAL lawyer’s injunction would certainly be) and the copy quality was low, almost unreadable. In that I had directly contacted the lawyer soon after the first threat arrived, I would have thought I would have received a more specific reply rather than this generic one. There is no way the lawyers office can tract whether or not I even received anything other than ISP notice of which they hand delivered. The threat of high financial penalties is still their primary scare tactic. But if you can’t even be bothered to send your notice via registered mail, you get thrown out with all the other junk mail.

    I’ve not heard how the Chicago/N. Illinois cases are proceeding.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, I have heard this. They work on the cheap, so would expect anything but what we have seen on the past. There could be a very small number of people who get served. I think the chance it will happen is extremely small and only if they have something on the ISP subscriber besides his/her name.

      DTD 🙂

  3. JRoberts says:

    So the judge is left with “believe it or not” about that magical black box, as no qualified expert could testify on it. Is anyone keeping track of how many shell companies Macek works for? He sure gets around.

  4. Pingback: Troll Keith Lipscomb And Crew File New BT Copyright Troll Law Suits (Manny Film LLC) | DieTrollDie

  5. Pingback: Dallas Buyers Club rivals adult film bittorrent lawsuits in quantity of lawsuits. | TorrentLawyer™ - Exposing Copyright Trolls and Their Lawsuits

  6. Pingback: Dallas Buyers Club v. Doe Lawsuits Now Global | The Houston Lawyer Blog

  7. Pingback: Dallas Buyers Club v. Doe in Canada, in Japan… and Counting. | Federal Computer Crimes (CyberLawy3r)

  8. Pingback: DieTrollDie Podcast (2016-1) – Troll David Lowe – “Voluntary Or ELSE!” | DieTrollDie

  9. dont put real name says:

    help my english is not very good i try to explain i got a letter from comcast i download some movies i have court on 3-16-16 please help me what i can do i dont know anything about iti sure hire a lawyer

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Please email more details on you situation (Troll name, movie title, case number, jurisdiction, etc.) So I can give you some sort of advice. From what little your said, no advice is really possible. Send to dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com.

      Also attach any documents sent to you from your ISP and/or the Troll.

      DTD 🙂

  10. Pingback: Queen of the Desert – Forgettable Movies & BT Copyright Trolls | DieTrollDie

  11. Pingback: Dallas Buyers Club v. Doe Lawsuits Now Global – The Houston Lawyer Blog

  12. Pingback: Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) Still Running Strong – “Pay No Attention To That Man Behind the Curtain!” | DieTrollDie

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