“London Has Fallen” BT Copyright Troll Case, 2:16-cv-02028 (NV) – 23 Does

lhf_chazr1Hello everyone!  I decided to throw out a post on a London Has Fallen (LHF) BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Infringement law suit in Nevada, 2:16-cv-02028, filed on 28 Aug 2016, by Copyright Troll Charles C. Rainey (AKA: CHAZ).  Previous article concerning CHAZ.  Nothing too exciting about this Troll case. In fact it is pretty standard format for the multi-Doe Copyright Troll cases filed in jurisdictions like the Northern District of IL (NDIL). The case is against 23 ISP subscribers (John Does) in the Clark County region of NV. The John Does are ISP subscribers of Cox and CenturyLink, with BT activity between 1-22 June 2016.   docket_11oct16_02028nv   complaint_02028nv   complaint_02028_ex1_nv   complaint_02028_ex2_nv   discrequest_doc3_02028nv   decl_d_arheidt_doc3_ex1_02028nv

The only things linking these Does is the alleged downloading/sharing of Troll/Plaintiff’s movie (SHA1 Hash: 632613270A1D1F66429CA070C9ED5CB980357471). There is ZERO evidence (vs. simplistic & wrong claims) in Troll/Plaintiff’s complaint to show that ALL of these NV public IP addresses shared Plaintiff’s movie BETWEEN themselves and thus are properly joined under one case.

the infringement complained of herein by each of the Defendants was part of a series of transactions over the course of a relatively short period of time, involving the exact same piece of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted Work, and was accomplished by the Defendants acting in concert with each other; and {Page 3, section 10 (b) of complaint}

Short time – 22 days???  Exact same piece of evidence??? – That is BS in my opinion. They likely only have a few Bytes of data  from each public IP address and the data in it is NOT the “same.” They likely only are tied back to the torrent file via the SHA1 Hash number – nothing to really link all the IP addresses together. It is more likely that a BT client would have connected with another BT client in another State or somewhere else on the globe. To infer that they all shared same data because they were in the same NV county is just plain stupid.

The sheer chance of such a proper joinder is extremely unlikely. Please see these two previous DTD Articles concerning declarations from Delvan Neville, Amaragh Associates, LLC.   1 in 10 Duodecillion   1 in 300 Million (Also read about “Never Convicted” Troll Forensic Stooge, Patrick Paige)

As the range of “Hit Dates” in this case range similarly to those from the second soak (weeks, not a single day), the connectivity is almost certainly closer to the 0.05% average seen in the second soak, and thus the likelihood that there is any series of transactions that could link these 20 peers together in some fashion is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% or a 1 in 10 duodecillion chance.

Hopefully a defense attorney/doe in one of these NV multi-Doe cases will use something like this to challenge joinder. Remember that these cases are built on the premise of doing everything “on the cheap” to maximize profits. The ability to file multi-doe cases is a key aspect of that model. A multi-doe case only costs $400 to file (same as if against one John Doe) and the costs of running it is split between all the Does. For this case, the Troll is seeking an initial settlement amount of $4,900 per Doe.   lhf_settlement-ltr_02028nv   So if the Troll is only able to get 50% of the Does (11 Does) to pay $4,900, they have made $53,900!!!   This is why the Trolls prefer the multi-Doe cases and single-Doe cases have not replaced them. Single-Doe cases can (and likely will) be filed, but they are more costly to run – thus reducing profits.

Troll/Plaintiff makes the following claims against the ISP subscribers

  • Direct Copyright Infringement – The ISP subscriber was the offender.
  • Contributory Copyright Infringement – The ISP subscriber took part in a BT swarm and therefore contributed to each other Doe’s (in this case) infringing activities.
  • Vicarious Copyright Infringement – Each ISP subscriber is liable because the infringement took place over the ISP connection the Defendant pays for.  The ISP subscriber failed to supervise the use of their Internet connection, allowing it to be used to unlawfully download/share Plaintiff’s Work.

What a load of crap. Not surprising, as we have seen the Contributory and Vicarious claims tried in various jurisdiction in the past. I believe all such claims have been previously shot down in various courts. The problem is for most cases, a defense attorney is never hired and thus these stupid claims are never challenged.

The Troll even goes on to ask for the court to grant the maximum damages award of $150,000 per Doe for this garbage movie (my opinion).

In support of the early discovery request, the Troll uses a declaration from DANIEL ARHEIDT, a consultant retained by the forensic investigation service, MAVERICKEYE UG (German company). Arheidt’s name is not new and was part of a declaration by Doe Defender Morgan Pietz, concerning “IPP, GUARDALEY, AND THE “ORAL CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT” MALIBU MEDIA, LLC HAD WITH ITS KEY WITNESS.”  doc9_decl_pietz_00223md    Adheidt is simply another one of the German stooges used to make claims they are not willing to back up or even be questioned on. He is part of the same operation as Daniel Macek, Darren Griffin (Fictitious person IMO), and the likes of the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) or whatever they are calling themselves now.   Transcript of APMC Slides

APMC_Snapshot

 

apmc_d_macek1So we have the same tried and true BT Copyright Troll template format that has been making money since at least 2010. We will have to wait and see if NV is as Troll friendly as the NDIL, or if it decides to make the Trolls answer some uncomfortable questions.

If you are part of this case or another multi-Doe NV case, please keep me informed of your situation. There is no way the Troll can actually bring each of you to trial if you fail to respond. The costs in time and money to run multiple individual case (broken out from a multi-Doe case) OR one case with multiple NAMED Defendants is prohibitive to them. Now that doesn’t mean this Troll/Plaintiff will not name and serve a few unresponsive Does. It is a game they play to appear to be serious of taking people to trial. My suggestion (non-attorney) is IF you can handle the stress and uncertainty, to take a wait and see approach. Monitor PACER (Register for your PACER account) and pay particular attention to any requests to either depose the ISP subscribers OR to amend the complaint to NAME the ISP subscriber as the Defendant. If you see this happening, consulting with an attorney knowledgeable on BT Copyright Trolls is advisable. Otherwise I don’t generally suggest talking to the Trolls – ANYTHING you say (even if innocent) will be used against you.

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls

DieTrollDie 🙂  Dana Barrett (as The Gatekeeper): “I want you inside me.”  Dr. Peter Venkman: “Go ahead! No, I can’t. It sounds like you’ve got at least two or three people in there already.” {Ghostbusters, 1984}

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 london has fallen and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “London Has Fallen” BT Copyright Troll Case, 2:16-cv-02028 (NV) – 23 Does

  1. DieTrollDie says:

    Here is a basic How-To document for looking at your case in PACER. https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/pacer_howto1.pdf

    DTD 🙂

  2. DieTrollDie says:

    ALSO, I finally noticed that on the docket (as of 1 Nov), there is NO document #5 listed – there is Documents #4 & #6. Does anyone have an idea of why document #5 is not even listed on the docket? On purpose OR PACER/Court mess-up? Is it possible this is the early discovery authorization from the court? It was authorized and the Troll has ISP subscriber names.

    DTD 🙂

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