DieTrollDie Podcast (2016-03) – BT Copyright Troll Activity (and Marc Randazza), 12 Feb 2016

Randazza_DMCA_XbizFor this DieTrollDie podcast, I decided to go over briefly some of the recent BitTorrent Copyright Troll activity.  In addition, I discuss a recent Arstechnica article concerning a DMCA take down notice against Fightcopyrighttrolls. The DMCA notice was filed by Marc Randazza on behalf of Xbiz and was for a story about Mr. Randazza. I will have links and document following the podcast.

As always, feedback and comments are greatly appreciated.

Articles & Documents

Dallas Buyers Club in AustraliaDBC gives up on iiNet piracy case.

Michael Bradley, the managing partner of DBC LLC law firm Marque Lawyers, told iTnews the company would not make any further applications in the case after its bid to access the details of 4726 alleged pirates was blocked in the federal court.

In December, Justice Perram said DBC LLC had failed to prosecute its case to access the details.

I expect the Trolls to revisit the AU courts, but with something much smaller than trying to obtain ISP subscriber information on 4726 alleged pirates.

Malibu Media/X-Art Loses a Summary Judgment In IL, 1:13-cv-06312 (Archive Docket)

This is a devastating setback for Malibu Media/X-Art/Troll Lipscomb. The judge ruled in favor of the Defendant, stating Plaintiff did NOT show Defendant was the infringer. Hopefully the cost will award reasonable attorneys fee to the Defendant.  This case started in September 2013 and there has been over 180 document filings – the costs could be fairly large.

Malibu has presented no evidence that any part of its works was found on Doe’s computers or other electronic devices that Malibu subjected to forensic examination. In addition, Doe’s statement of undisputed facts includes the statement, “There are no copies of any of Malibu Media works on any of Doe’s devices.” [Dkt 153 ¶ 5.] Malibu responds simply, “Disputed,” without citing anything in the record to support that statement. [Id.] That fact is, therefore, deemed admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B); Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009) (“When a responding party’s statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party’s statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.”).

Fightcopyrighttrolls Article

Malibu Media v John Doe (ILND 13-cv-06312) is one of the most advanced and eventful cases. I wrote about it on more than one occasion. It even made headlines in the tech media because of an apoplectic, full of misinterpretations Malibu’s motion for protective order that labeled our community “Fanatical Internet Hate Group.”

Today Judge Geraldine Soat Brown ruled on two motions for summary judgment: one by Malibu, the other by the defendant, denying the former and granting the latter.

Previous DTD Article on Patrick Paige – NEVER CONVICTED

Doe Defender John Whitaker files Amicus Brief in WA BitTorrent Copyright Troll CaseArchive Docket 2:14-cv-01819  (Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Does 1-10, 2:14-cv-01819 (WAWD)

The Amicus Brief and Supplement was filed in a Dallas Buyers Club case in which the Troll had motioned the court for a default judgment against a non-responsive Defendant.

Areas covered in the Amicus Brief

  • US Department of Commerce’s Report (concerning Statutory Damages)
  • The “Actual” harm from a non-commercial instance of BT copyright infringement
  • Material facts of the case
  • Plaintiff’s attorney fees
  • Proposal for a standard “Default Judgment” award

Undersigned counsel recommends that an injunction combined with a $1,250 monetary award would be sufficient at the pleading stage. That award represents the statutory minimum of $750 combined with an attorneys fees award of $500, which should be adequate given the boilerplate nature of Plaintiff’s complaint and other initiating documents. Obviously, such an award is likely inappropriate for any case that proceeds past the pleading stage. However, when faced with the daunting spectre of financial ruin that can result from protracted Federal litigation, an early resolution on known terms can adequately address the compensatory and deterrent requirements of a judgment while maintaining a semblance of fairness.

WA Court Tell Copyright Troll to “Put Up Or Shut Up.”  Dallas Buyers Club: Court Orders Case to Move Forward   DBC_Order_ Doc38_01336(WA)

The judge in this case (actually 10 cases) is clearly not impressed with the Troll and his lack of real action to move these case forward. He revoked the previous authorization to conduct Rule 45 subpoenas/depositions. He then gave the Troll  30 days to amend the complaints with named Defendants (the remaining Does) and then another 60 days to serve the Defendants with a complaint/summons. So now the Troll has to decide if it is worth moving forward or simply running away.

Plaintiff may strongly prefer prosecuting its action in the manner it has done thus far, but the Court is not inclined to permit the status quo to proceed. Although there may be advantages to proceeding via Rule 45 subpoenas, so too are there advantages to proceeding by actually naming and serving defendants. In fact, the Court believes that many of the advantages of Rule 45 subpoenas advanced by Plaintiff are shared with naming subscribers as defendants.

Paul Hansmeier (Prenda Law) Bankrupcy Order – “Liar Liar Pants On Fire”

FreshStart_HansThis one is just plain FUNNY to read.  The court in no uncertain terms call Paul Hansmeier a liar and that he cannot be trusted. Paul Hansmeier was trying to delay the conversion of his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 7, pending an appeal. The judge said, “NO.”  Suck it Paul!    mnd-15-42460-doc-110(1)

On December 3, 2015, the court converted the debtor’s chapter 13 case to a case under chapter 7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1307 and 1325(a)(7). The court found cause to convert due to the debtor’s continuing pattern of misrepresent action to courts prepetition and postpetition. Postpetition, the misrepresentations include his failure to disclose significant transfers of assets, failure to disclose assets, failure to disclose living expenses, failure to file a § 363 motion to sell his residence for $1.2 million in cash until caught by the Chapter 13 Trustee, and failure to disclose significant general unsecured claims. The debtor appealed the conversion order and filed this motion for a stay pending appeal.

How NOT To Use a DMCA Notice – Marc Randazza

Arstechnica Article – Embattled copyright lawyer uses DMCA to remove article about himself (Marc Randazza tells WordPress that the unflattering story “is not fair use.”)

Well-known copyright lawyer Marc Randazza used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to delete an online article about a dispute between his former employer and himself.

Randazza says he sent the notice on behalf of, a porn-industry news site that he represents. Last July, Xbiz published an article about Randazza’s legal dispute with a former employer, gay porn publisher Liberty Media. The brouhaha with Liberty Media was also featured here at Ars in a story titled “Bribery, gay porn, and copyright trolls: the rise and fall of lawyer Marc Randazza.” It describes how an arbitrator found that Randazza—the Nevada lawyer once championed for helping bring down copyright troll Righthaven—solicited a bribe in a bid to settle a copyright case for Liberty. Randazza soon found himself under investigation by the State Bar of Nevada.

blog called Fight Copyright Trolls (FCT) mentioned the arbitration award as well. The blog’s owner, who goes by “SJD,” also noticed that the Xbiz article had been changed—but he had kept an original copy, saved and published as a PDF file on his site. On Feb. 1 nearly seven months after the FCT blog published the Xbiz article and related commentary, SJD was on the receiving end of Randazza’s copyright takedown request. The FCT blog had re-published the entire Xbiz story, and Randazza claimed that made it a piratical, infringing copy.

Here is a copy of the DMCA Notice and the email chain between WordPress and Randazza. You tell me what you think. Was Randazza abusing his position at Xbiz to get the Unedited/Original story off the Internet???  DMCA_2518583_Jan2016_Randazza

I did a quick search of Chilling Effects/Lumens database and did not see any notices filed on behalf of Xbiz (Adnet Media d/b/a) for people reposting their articles.  I do see multiple DMCA take down notices filed on behalf of Marc Randazza for pictures and stories –  Tell me what you can find.

DieTrollDie 🙂

“[P]art of his settlement offer was to pay us $20,000 per bar license he is able to keep from having suspended/disbarred,” [Liberty Media COO Brian] Dunlap said. “In other words, he offered us a bounty on his bar licenses — we’d get more of the award if we did not cooperate with bar investigators or send follow–up complaints.”

“In his attorneys’ own words, they said they expect suspension/disbarment in [Florida], so we could expect $80,000 if none of the other four bars took action. We refused this offer because it was insulting, it was unethical — an attorney cannot offer such a bounty on their license — and because we know most all bars use reciprocal discipline — if one suspends/disbars, the others usually do as well.”   {Two deleted Paragraphs from the original Xbiz article, Corbin Fisher Awarded 600k Randazza to Challenge Interim Arbitration Decision, 14 Jul 15}


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 Podcasts and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to DieTrollDie Podcast (2016-03) – BT Copyright Troll Activity (and Marc Randazza), 12 Feb 2016

  1. SJD says:

    Exploring your Lumen lead, I found the following (my comment to the Ars’s story):

    I searched Lumen (formerly Chilling Effects — a database of DMCA and other takedown notices) for “Randazza,” and, somewhat unsurprisingly, found out that Mr. Randazza is not new to abusing copyright law in order to censor unflattering information about him. A couple of examples:

    Apparently a parody account used an avatar created from a video frame. Marc didn’t like it. I really doubt that Mr. Randazza rather than Fox is a copyright holder.

    This takedown was unsuccessful: the image is still there. Unflattering as it is, it is a clear-cut fair use:

    It may very well be that the content is defamatory, but DMCA is not a proper avenue to take that content down. A textbook example of a DMCA abuse.
    This one is also a fair (transformative) use. The image description “Photograph of Marc John Randazza wearing the United States flag, holding legal books in his right hand, and pointing towards the viewer with his left hand” suggests that someone edited the said picture by removing a laurel wreath. Obviously.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank you SJD. Yes, I did note some “suspicious” actions by him. Really very sad. Still not as sad as the people who think Randazza is being unfairly targeted by people with an “ax” to grind. If some other person had taken these actions, I’m sure we would have seen multiple articles calling out this asshatery for what it is. Instead we have silence from some and then attacks on the authors – I guess you just need to attack the messenger and NOT address the issue.

      As far as the Lumens database, Xbiz was noticeably missing from my search result. I certainly could have missed it. This tell me that Xbiz does not normally send out DMCA take down notices. Then all of sudden they do via Marc Randazza concerning a negative story about him. AND it wasn’t just the story, BUT the original story WITH the two paragraphs THAT ARE NOW MISSING FROM THE ARTICLE ON THE XBIZ SITE.

      DTD 🙂

  2. easydoesit says:

    Hey John, I sent you an email a few datsago. Just wondering if ya got a chance to read it…

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