Richard Pryor Response For 2017 – Have A Coke & A Smile And…

For those of you that haven’t followed the antics of BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Trolls since 2010, I will recount one of my early posts and something I coined as the “Richard Pryor Response” (RPR). I will preface this article by saying I’m NOT practicing law and I’m certainly NOT trying get people to lie (AKA: using alternative facts). Bottom line is do not lie and if you need an attorney, hire one (Note: you often get what you pay for).   RPR Article From 2013

rpr_cokesmile1The RPR was designed to show people how to respond when called by Mark Lutz, who was a Steele|Hansmeier/Prenda Law stooge. Right now Mark Lutz is likely assisting the FBI with its investigation into Prenda Law.  Prenda/Lutz Voicemail   Also don’t forget the pizza order message Lutz and crew emailed me.

Based on what I have recently seen, I think a 2017 update to the RPR is warranted. I haven’t heard of the Trolls actually calling people anymore – so the 2017 RPR is going to be a written one (letter or email).

So Why Even Bother To Respond To The Troll?

My previous advice was not to respond to the Trolls unless you were actually named and served or received a deposition summons. I still believe it is good advice, but “some” of the Troll attorneys have adapted to the sound of silence by naming and serving ISP subscribers in hopes of driving some people to settle.

For some of these local Troll attorneys, there is ZERO reservation on amending the complaint to the name of the ISP subscriber as a Defendant and then serving a summons/complaint to effect a settlement. Notice I say the ISP subscriber and NOT the infringer. That is because their evidence (16 kb snippet) ONLY comes from a public IP address. The IP address is tied back to the account holder and has NOTHING to do with who the actual infringer is. Now the ISP subscriber could be the infringer, but as far as real “evidence” goes, an IP subscriber does not make an infringer. A public IP address does NOT indicate guilt OR liability based on what may have been done without your approval/authorization. This was recently reiterated by a judge in the otherwise Troll friendly jurisdiction of the Northern District of IL, when he issue an order stating this – and thus dismissed 3 Defendants; 2 of which had already defaulted.   3does-dismissed_order_01621il

Where I have seen a reluctance to serve an ISP subscriber is when the ISP subscriber makes a denial and tells the Troll they will fight back. In general, the Trolls do not want to actually fight these cases in court. The costs they incur when they have respond to motions or fight back reduces their profit margin. Their business model is to generate as many settlements with as little work as possible. As I said, some local Trolls will not go the name and serve route. So the best thing a Doe/ISP subscriber can do is research the local Troll attorney to see what their past actions have been.

For the more aggressive Trolls, here is the general play book for multiple-Doe cases:

  • Obtain ISP subscriber information
  • Send settlement demand letter
  • Obtain settlements from some ISP subscribers
  • Send out a second settlement letter
  • Obtain settlements
  • Amend the complaint with names of ISP subscribers who will not settle
  • Serve a summons on the non-settling Defendants
  • Motion for default judgements against the Defendants who do not file an answer
  • Dismiss the case (and refile a new one)

So for this type of aggressive Troll, my personal view is to respond to them with the written RPR.

  • I didn’t infringe your client’s copyright for the movie in question
  • I don’t know who allegedly infringed upon Plaintiff’s movie
  • I didn’t authorize anyone to use my Internet connection to infringe upon Plaintiff’s movie
  • I will not pay a settlement (under threat of a law suit) to make this threat go away.
  • There is NO reasonable evidence to suggest I’m the offender; only that the ISP subscription is in my name
  • I’m prepared to fight back (with or without an attorney) if necessary

Now I certainly don’t think this will get the Troll to simply drop you from the case. What it will do is make them think twice about actually serving you will a summons/complaint. The Trolls do not want a Defendant to answer the complaint. Once an answer is filed (Denial), it is generally harder for the Troll to dismiss the case (cut & run). Following an answer, most courts are going to require the Troll to “ask” the Defendant to agree to a dismissal (Stipulated Dismissal). This is where the Defendant has the advantage and tells the Troll that only a WITH PREJUDICE dismissal will be agreed upon. Most Trolls (my opinion) will easily agree to this to drop a case.

Here is a simple template you can use to tell the Troll to leave you alone. I would not recommend putting in much detail. It is a straightforward denial and a warning to the Troll. Don’t waste your time trying to convince the Troll that you are innocent. He really doesn’t care. If you decide to use this template, also make sure you change it to fit your situation. If you ran an Open WiFi (no password), tell them. If your WiFi was used by multiple people (guests, friends, neighbor, etc.) over the past months or years, tell them. Just keep it limited.


{Month} XX, 2017

{Troll Attorney Name}

{Troll Firm Name} (i.e. Fiore & Barber LLC)

{Street Address}

{City, State, Zip}

Dear {Troll Name}, I received your letter of Month XX, 2017, alleging my public IP address was detected infringing upon a copyright protected movie belonging to your client, {Client Name – Malibu Media LLC}. I hope by bringing a few facts to your attention we can resolve this matter quickly.

I did not illegally download or share any of your client’s movie. – The public IP address your agents allegedly detected in no way indicates I’m the offending party. The fact I’m the ISP subscriber in no way means I’m guilty or responsible for this alleged infringement. – I don’t use BitTorrent or have it installed on my computer.  I don’t know who allegedly used my Internet connection without my consent to do this.  I will not pay thousands of dollars to make the threat of a law suit go away and I’m prepared to fight this in court. Thank you


Printed Name


Email/Telephone (optional)


Make sure you keep a copy of what you mail or email the Troll. Now I will say that this in NO way guarantees the Troll will drop you. But I believe for these types of aggressive Troll attorneys, there is a greater chance of getting named and served as a result of simply ignoring them. They are not looking to fight you in court. This is just their business – To take you for as much “settlement” money as they can. Default judgements do not get them money, so most are very willing work out a deal (to at least get something out of you). The best thing a default judgement does for the Troll is scare future Defendants into settling. I even saw one Troll attorney change his settlement demand letter to a starting amount of $7.5K based on a default entry.


Even if giving the Troll the RPR does not work and you are named and served, you still can file an answer and possibly get the Troll to dismiss you. Here is an article on filing an answer. Bottom line is the Troll’s evidence is very weak and fighting this out in court goes against their business modelThis gives you an advantage.

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker   Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

DieTrollDie 🙂   “A lie is profanity. A lie is the worst thing in the world. Art is the ability to tell the truth, especially about oneself.”  {Richard Pryor}

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 Richard Pryor Respoinse and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Richard Pryor Response For 2017 – Have A Coke & A Smile And…

  1. Pingback: Doe Defender “Letter” Is “8 for 8” Troll Dismissals & Update to CO Copyright Troll Case – Mechanic: Resurrection (1:16-cv-02580) | DieTrollDie

  2. Pingback: BT Copyright Troll David Lowe Gets the “Slap of Love” – Pro Se Motion To Dismiss Granted (2:16-cv-01273) | DieTrollDie

  3. Pingback: Another Three Troll Post – More Idiots (8 Mar 2017) | DieTrollDie

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

  5. Pingback: Greed And The BT Copyright Troll Settlement Factories (AKA: “Don’t Be A Dick”) | DieTrollDie

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