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

One thing common to ALL BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll operations is the need for secrecy on who in really in charge and who benefits ($$$) from these law suits. The simplistic claim of the Trolls is the “Plaintiff” is in charge and they are the primary beneficiary in terms of settlements, default judgment awards, and reduction of piracy. If this was truly the case, then why is there so much secrecy from the Trolls? These cases are so basic, there is NO need to hide. The fact they need to hide has been central in one Troll (David Lowe) dismissing Does when confronted by attorney Christopher Lynch (11 dismissals so far) – see Fightcopyrighttrolls.

What & Who Is The Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)?

In 2014, we were able to obtain a copy of the “infamous” Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) presentation on the Prezi Web site.  Funny thing was that the people who made/used this presentation placed it on a public Web site with no access restrictions – AKA: Consent for ANYONE to use it – And I did. In it (and the transcript notes of it) you can clearly see the hidden nature and otherwise unethical (my opinion) relationship/operation it is running here in the US and abroad. The copyright owners are the “Plaintiff,” but APMC is a very financially interested party. By its own admission, APMC is the controlling force behind the various campaigns of BT Copyright Troll law suits. As such, they should be formally associated to ALL these cases and subject to defense questioning and discovery. I have yet to see any Corporate Disclosure filings in ANY cases that show APMC is involved. IF this was an “above board” operation, why is there a need to hide this association???  Fraud… Unethical tactics and methods… Lies… I think we have a Prenda Pandora’s box here.

These were taken from the APMC Prezi presentation.


The Trolls made no complaints about this presentation or that APMC was running the show. Silence was all the answer the Trolls would give us. As the content of the presentation was true, claiming otherwise could only possibly get them in trouble.

The Prezi presentation is long, but there are some interesting bits in it. One bit is of course the text portion of one of the slides in which APMC states that one of its personnel (Daniel Macek) will be proving declarations to justify expedited discovery of the ISP subscriber information. Too bad they had so little faith in his abilities. “…we’re hoping the judge won’t question his qualifications too much.


In fact many Daniel Macek declarations have been filed in various cases. Mr. Macek even gave testimony in a landmark Australian Dallas Buyers Club case.  DTD Article

So If That Part Of The Presentation Is Accurate, What Else Is True???

The claim that APMC is the controlling force in these cases was further justified recently when more documents in a Malibu Media/ case (3:15-cv-04441, Northern District of CA) came to light. In these documents, “Ben P” @APMCLLC.COM corresponds with Troll computer forensic consultant, Dave Kleiman. Ben P is clearly in control of the packet capture files allegedly collected/used by APMCLLC/Excipio/IPP. Previous article dealing with this case is in my 8 March article – 3rd part.   Defense Expert Edmonson-Declaration

The Old Saying Is True – “Follow The Money.”

Now someone may claim that APMC is simply a contracted service associated to Excipio/IPP software used to track and record the alleged infringing BT activity. If that is the case, then why would a Troll attorney bill APMC for aspects of a case that has nothing to do with the BT Excipio/IPP monitoring software??? Maybe because the Prezi presentation is accurate – “APMC stays in the background where they are invisible, but we are the center (i.e. ‘we make things happen’).”

In a 21 Mar 17, declaration in support of a default judgment (Dallas Buyers Club/Glacier Films case 3:16-cv-00112), Louisiana Troll attorney, Pierre Miller, Patrick Miller LLC, submited a bill for attorney fees of $7,848.50 and $729.47 in costs.   Bill-for-services-to-APMC_00112(LA)   Who does Troll Miller bill???  Why the “Anti-Piracy Management Company,” of course. You would assume he would bill Dallas Buyers Club & Glacier Films. This bill is for the entire case and NOT exclusively for the BT monitoring/recording services of Excipio/IPP.

Troll Miller sent the bill to the APMC at the same P.O. Box (#923) in Salem, OR 97908, used by Troll Crowell as a “Rightsenforcement” member. Troll Crowell is well-known to us (various articles on DTD & Also see the “Rightenforcement” article by Attorney Cashman.

So as the ENTIRE case bill was sent to the APMC and NOT the Plaintiff (Dallas Buyers Club & Glacier Films), how come the Corporate Disclosure statement does not reflect this?   Corp_Disclosure_00112(LA)   Now as I understand it, FRCP 7.1 (Disclosure Statement) is designed to bring forward information so a judge can make the determination on IF he has a financial interest in the Plaintiff or another party with 10%+ financial interest/control in Plaintiff. Seeing that the entire case bill was sent to the APMC, there appears to be a financial interest (more than 10%), that the judge should be made aware of. It is also hard to get away from the APMC statement that “They” are the controlling factor behind these cases.

The hidden nature of how these cases are run and the “evidence” used to target ISP subscribers stinks of impropriety and fraud. If this is such an above-board operation, why is there any need to hide the true facts and evidence? It is just sad that all this information is available to the courts/judges and only a few do ANYTHING but rubber-stamp these cases – “NEXT!”

So if you are willing and have the ability to fight back (with or without an attorney), using this information in combination with the Richard Pryor Response  or an answer may be of benefit.  Be safe!

DieTrollDie 🙂  “The hard part about playing chicken is knowin’ when to flinch.”  {Capt. Bart Mancuso – The Hunt For Red October}

– Suggested reading – Troll PokerTalking To The TrollsRichard Pryor Response (2017), &  Basic PACER Case Look-Up

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 Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC) Still Running Strong – “Pay No Attention To That Man Behind the Curtain!”

  1. Pingback: Copyright troll David Lowe dropped eleventh defendant after defense attorney threatened to expose fraud | Fight © Trolls

  2. John Doe says:


  3. Pingback: Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling - The paper, its effects.

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