Open Forum

This page is for all the questions and/or comments that don’t easily fit in any other category or post on the site.  If you don’t know where to start – here you go.

DTD🙂

471 Responses to Open Forum

  1. jiypan says:

    anybody knows about Siemens copyright infringement? thx

  2. doraemon says:

    to any who have been desposed (interviewed by plaintiffs), what was the questioning like? was it a long, drawn out process with repeat questions to catch you in a lie? was it rapid fire game show-like questioning?

    i am also curious about how in-depth the plantiff’s “profiling” methods. if they scoured your online profiles and accounts, was their accuracy of their profiling “in the park”? were they able to upset you with what they found?

  3. doe says:

    DTD, you had a pos on Dec. 6th that I had a couple questions to follow up with.

    Is the PA case that went to trial still ongoing? If not, what was the verdict?

    For the ones that are dismissed before a trial, does that imply they settled or the troll backed out or don’t know?

    What is the default judgment again the Doe typically?

    I was in a Cobbler bulk lawsuit where they got our names. I had an initial settlement offer of approx. $4K which I said no to. There was a long period of silence and now there is a threat to take me to court. I kind of want to know some stats of what I’m facing. I am sort of curious how unlikely it really is that I go to court. I do have a lawyer on board that’s my first line of defense… but I sort of want a second opinion with people who’ve gone through this.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If you are talking about the PA Bellwether Trial, it is over. The three Defendants made a deal to plead guilty and the Troll likely lets them off easier. Here are some details on the case – https://dietrolldie.com/2013/06/13/pa-bellwether-case-bench-trial-comments-13-june-2013/

      As I have said before, this is the only BT Copyright Troll case that went to trial – AND only because the court made the Trolls do it. In all the cases since, the Trolls have eventually backed down before a trial took place. Note: Malibu Media will back down, BUT only after a long time and after running up the legal bills of the Doe Defendant. This sends a message to the other Does, that EVEN if you are innocent, it is simply cheaper to pay a settlement then fight back. For the non-Malibu Media Trolls (Voltage Pictures, etc. = Cobbler NV), the Trolls generally do NOT like to name and serve people with a summons/complaint. It can happen, but I feel it is on a case-by-case basis. That is if they feel the person will default or the name/serving will bring them to the settlement table. For the multitude of mass-Doe cases these Bozos run, it is impossible for them to go after everybody that doesn’t settle. They have to be careful and pick and chose the ones most likely to give into pressure and pay them something.

      A default judgment is when a Defendant does not answer a summons/complaint – usually given 21 days to do so – from the date they are served. The answer is simply an admission or denial to each of the Troll allegations. If no answer is received by the court after 21 days, the Troll can motion the court for a default judgment. If the court agrees, then it is granted and the Troll will ask for Statutory damages, as well as legal costs/attorney fees. Statutory damages start off at $750 per movie/title and can go up to $150K. Attorney costs/fees will usually run approx. $3K. The exact amount of Statutory damages awarded depends on the judge, so it can range. Over the last year we have seen a good many of the courts award 3X the minimum – So $2,250, plus fees/costs. NOTE: No promises on this – courts vary.

      I would suggest you look up your case in PACER (https://www.pacer.gov/reg_pacer.html) and see what activity the docket shows. Also, you can email me the case number and jurisdiction (dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com) and I will see what I can find. For some of these Cobbler NV cases, the courts are getting a bit tired of their antics. I would not rush off to pay them without doing some sound research.

      DTD🙂

      In general, the dismissals from the mass Doe cases can be read as follows: Dismissed with prejudice = paid the settlement and the Troll released them. Dismissed without prejudice = No settlement was paid, but the Troll decided to release the Doe; BUT still has the option to go after him/her at a later date.

  4. doe says:

    How likely or unlikely is it for Lipscomb cases to arise in (or even to be transferred to) states where there are no Porn-related cases, (no history of Lipscomb cases even) but only mass doe movie cases? (DBC, etc)

    • DieTrollDie says:

      It all really depends if Troll Lipscomb can find and hire an attorney willing to debase themselves who is authorized to practice law in specific jurisdictions. This is not so easy, as Copyright Troll attorneys are akin to “ambulance chasers.” Even if other non Malibu Trolls practice in the jurisdiction. I feel it is unlikely that they would also work for Lipscomb. They of course could change Plaintiff’s, but I still haven’t seen it.

      DTD🙂

  5. anonymous says:

    I noticed with the recent Malibu cases in CA, they are usually filed within 50-60 days of the last recorded infringement. Is that the norm these days?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I haven’t checked the time frames in a while, but it sounds correct. The Trolls will also adjust the time according to the specific ISP, depending on how long they keep IP address logs. As most ISPs keep them for at least 6 months, this gives them plenty of time.

      DTD🙂

      • anonymous says:

        Cool. Just trying to give myself some added peace of mind as I go the ignore route with some CEG notices.

  6. Doe says:

    I have just received $4K settlement proposal from Cobbler. It will expire in a few weeks. If I contact them, will they negotiate the settlement amount? I don’t have much money to pay to lawyers in case if they decide to take me to court. I maybe ok to pay them up to $1k to leave me alone but not $4k.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Please email me the case number and jurisdiction it is in –
      dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com.  For the Cobbler cases (and most others –
      varying), the Troll will negotiate the amount down. It really depends a bit
      on the local Troll running the case and if they believe you truly cannot
      afford the full amount.  I would guess you might go down as low as $1800,
      but that is not going to be as simple as a call to them.  I caution you
      about calling them!!!  These jerks will be nice and seem like they are work
      with you, but in fact they are gather information to help pressure you into
      paying the amount they decide is appropriate.  Anything you say to them will
      be used against you. It is very unlikely that you will be named and severed
      with a summons/complaint. Cobbler NV (Troll is Voltage Pictures) is not in the business of taking people to trial. It costs too much and if they get someone like you, they are not going to get anything from winning, except
      maybe having to sell the debt to a collection agency for pennies on the dollar.  This is a business to extort settlement under fear and not take people to court or stop copyright infringement.  Send me your information and I will see what the docket shows.  My advice will likely be to do nothing but make sure the BT activity that caused this stops and doesn’t
      start up again. I probably will end up telling you to do nothing likel hire an attorney unless you are ACTUALLY served with a complaint/summons.

      DTD🙂

  7. doe says:

    Any further details on case does 1-30 15-cv-6708 , and how do info donut what doe number I am.

  8. Madcityspecv says:

    I was included in a case filed last year for the Cobbler Nevada stuff. i received a settlement letter in January, but opted to ignore it. i just checked pacer, and the last 3 (1/21, and the last two 1/29) entries were motions for extensions, one entry for “Terminate Parties pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) – public docket entry”, and one for “Notice of voluntary dismissal”. does that indicate the case is dismissed and is no longer a concern? i’m just starting using Pacer, and i’m not familiar with it yet.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If you look at the top of the docket you will see a date the case was opened and IF closed, another date. Most likely it was just Does being dismissed after settling with the Troll.

      DTD🙂

      • Madcityspecv says:

        makes sense. the case in question had an extension of time order where: “Plaintiff shall have until February 26, 2016 to effectuate service of a summons and Complaint on a Defendant.” i haven’t seen anything yet, can they still serve me?

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Well they could still pay to have you served and then ask the court to forgive their tardiness. The Troll could still claim that the delay was a simply mistake from one of their paralegals and see if the judge will still allow it. Hopefully the court will soon dismiss the cases if none of the Does have been served. BUT, what is really the norm is many courts simply leave the cases open and the Troll continues to work it for settlement.

        DTD🙂

      • Madcityspecv says:

        new docket information for my case. 2 entries:

        04/01/2016 ** TEXT ONLY ORDER **
        Last Fall, John Doe 22 and John Doe 25 filed motions opposing plaintiff’s subpoenas seeking to identify the name and address associated with their respective IP addresses. See dkts. 10 & 11 . As plaintiff points out in its responses (dkts. 12 & 13 ), and as this court has noted many times in previous similar lawsuits, privacy concerns and denials of responsibility are not grounds to quash subpoenas of this nature. The objections of John Doe 22 and John Doe 25 are OVERRULED and their motions to quash the subpoena are DENIED. It is further ordered that all information produced by the ISP in response to the subpoena seeking identifying information for John Doe 22 and John Doe 25 shall be kept confidential between the parties, and if any of this information is filed with the court, it shall be filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 3/31/16. (jat) (Entered: 04/01/2016)

        04/01/2016 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), this case is closed without further order of the court. (jat) (Entered: 04/01/2016)

        does the last entry indicate that the case is permanently closed and i’m in the clear?

      • DieTrollDie says:

        It does appear that it is closed. Email me the case number and jurisdiction and I will verify. Dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com

        DTD🙂

  9. doe says:

    Do you know if there are any updates on case 1:15-cv-6708 does 1-30 clear skies Nevada , or has it been dismissed?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If I have a moment, I will see. BUT it is better if you sign up for PACER account and monitor your case at least weekly.

      DTD🙂

      • doe says:

        DTD, the lawyers are sending letters and calling for settlement. regarding the clear skies, good kill. Any suggestions

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Please email the details. Dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com

        I will get back to you pricately.

        DTD🙂

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Sorry for the delay. Very little information go on (your post). Multiple
        Does case? OR only v. your single IP address?  My general (non-attorney)
        recommendation is to not contact the Trolls and not employ an attorney
        unless you are actually named/served with a complaint OR given a summons.
        With multi-Doe cases this often works well. For single-Doe cases, not as
        much. I think this is because the Troll (for some reason) feels stronger in
        filing a single-Doe case against the specific IP address.  Most likely
        because of the long-term BT activity that was recorded and the “Other” files
        (non-Plaintiff) that were being shared via the BT client.  I personally
        would hold out until served, as if it never happens, then you are not out
        anything  – except for the annoyance the Trolls brought. Not everyone can
        deal with the stress of doing this, so I understand if people decide to
        settle.

        DTD🙂

  10. doe says:

    Hi DTD!

    I received two notices from CEG-TEK representing a Porn company. They offered a settlement that I haven’t decided whether or not I will pay. I did not download the alleged videos. My money is on the two teenagers who live nextdoor. My network was unsecure, but in light of this DMCA I have implemented an alphanumerical passcode for the WiFi.

    I have been doing some research and it seems like AMA Multimedia has become more litigious over the last year. They currently have some cases open, though most seem to be against other companies, but not Does:

    AMA Multimedia LLC v. Spankbang.com et al
    AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Borjan Solutions, S.L., et al
    AMA MULTIMEDIA, LLC v. ERA TECHNOLOGIES, LTD et al

    However, there are two cases I am curious about and would like to know if you have any information/insight on them:

    AMA Multimedia LLC v. Aleksandr Heit
    AMA Multimedia LLC v. Unknown Parties (AZ District Court – 2:15-cv-01674)

    Does it seem like they are going to start targeting Does? I would like to just pay and have this shit go away even though I am not guilty of this particular crime. I am just worried that they are sitting on other violations (I have no idea what has been going on over my WiFi now) and are waiting for my information to strike!

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I don’t think this Plaintiff is interested in going after the Does.  They
      appear to be interested in companies/Web sites – i.e. people/companies who
      have money. The single non-commercial Doe isn’t likely to have the money
      they are wanting.  I will have to look up the cases, but I don’t think they
      have changed their strategy.

      If they were interested in going after the non-commercial Does, they would
      be filing REAL federal copyright infringement cases (either multi-Doe or
      single-Doe) and at least getting Early Discovery authorization to obtain the
      ISP subscriber information. Right now they only send out their sad DMCA
      notices and hope that people respond to them out of FUD. Otherwise they will
      not get the ISP subscriber information.   
             
      DTD🙂

  11. doe says:

    Good evening!

    I recieved my intial ‘IP letter’ from my ISP today. I have a couple questions:

    I noticed a bunch of these cases are against mulitple ‘does’. However, mine is a single Doe (John Doe subsriber IP address). I was just going to ignore the letters and move on with my life. But does the fact that it’s going against a single person mean they are more likely to take action?

    I have not use torrents for some time and the old computer is long gone. I find it hard to believe that they can prove anything with absolutely no evidence. Am I wrong?

    The internet service is not in my name. This is the main reason that is telling me to just pay them if they ask. I’m worried that they will go after that person instead of me, even though they have done nothing wrong (proof that this is ALL ridiculous).

    I’m also concerned about the information that my provide will give these trolls when my time expires. Is it just my contact info or will they dig deeper and find more ‘evidence’ against me?

    I had the same idea as the story on your site. Sending them a letter stating: I did nothing wrong, they won’t find anything on any device, I will fight as long as possible and if they win I will declare bankruptcy. Will a regular letter do or will they ignore it if it is not from an attorney?

    Your website is great and informative, thank you. Any input you have would be greatly appreciated.

  12. ehud gavron says:

    Howdy🙂

    “even if say” ->> “even if you say”
    (Also you should reference Rule 408 when doing so to preserve your rights)

    The section on “Motion to Quash” probably qualifies as practice of law… (delete or amend to make it clear it’s your opinion).

    Otherwise great summary🙂

    E

  13. magic says:

    it appears that troll Michael heirl has begun naming defendants in his case Clear Skies Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30 1:15-cv-06708

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Naming and serving a Defendant does happen in Voltage Pictures case, but I believe it is nor a guarantee. Each Troll is different and usually they assess how likely they think it will bring a person to the settlement table. I have also seen various Voltage Pictures Cases be dismissed with only one or no one being served.

      DTD🙂

  14. DieTrollDie says:

    OK – Here is a reply I sent to a John Doe after he asked about the ISP subpoena he received in the mail. I’m not an attorney and this is NOT practicing law – just my thought and opinions. If you need an attorney, I suggest you pay for one. Still, I don’t think my views are bad.

    DTD🙂
    —————
    What you have there is the standard subpoena notification from your ISP. You have NOT been named in the law suit. The law suit is against XX number of “John Does” (IP addresses) in XXXXXXX jurisdiction (where you reside).

    The only possible options you have right now is to 1) call the Troll to settle (I
    don’t recommend) or 2) File a motion to quash (MTQ) the subpoena to the ISP.
    Filing a MTQ the subpoena will most likely not work, so I generally advise
    against it – it will cost you (if you have an attorney do it) and it has the
    possibility of pissing off the Troll and drawing attention to yourself. In
    these mass-Doe cases, I usually suggest not drawing attention to yourself.

    Here are my views – see my most recent post for lots of information. Make sure the BT activity stops and doesn’t start back up again. Check your WiFi Internet Firewall/Router for any logs of unknown/unauthorized systems
    using your network. If you find any, write ALL the information down and
    make sure you take screenshots of what you see. Then – Resecure your WiFi Internet connection (new password) and don’t freely give it out.

    Once the Troll have the ISP subscriber information from the ISP, he will
    send out a settlement demand letter. I estimate the amount they will want
    will vary – say $4K – $8K. Sometimes it will have a date by which they say
    they will increase the settlement amount to if you don’t settle fast. With multi-Doe cases, the Troll is often more open to drop the settlement amount – sometimes to $1K. Greed is a great motivator of Trolls.

    As this is a multi-Doe case, I don’t suggest you contact the Troll. Even if
    you (or family members) didn’t do it, you could say something that will indicate to the Troll that under enough pressure, you will settle. There are bound to be other Does who will want to settle and this will keep the Troll busy. Remember this is NOT his only case and he has many other Does he is working settlement from. Let him stay busy with them and not draw attention to yourself.

    What it will eventually come down to is the Troll is going to have to decide
    to either name some of the non-responsive Does (and move the case forward) OR dismiss the case. I think the chance of actually getting named/served with a amended complaint (By name)/subpoena is very low. There are too many Does he would have to name and it is NOT a manageable option for him to do that. These cases are NOT designed to go to a REAL full trial. They are designed to generate settlements of a couple thousand dollars per Doe and
    then to be shut down – repeat the process over and over and collect the
    cash.

    There are some really good IP attorney who work these cases in your jurisdiction. Reach out to them and see what they think.

    DTD🙂

  15. doe says:

    I’m confused and worried. My mother got an email from the ISP saying that someone notified them about a copyright infringement(someone download a movie they shouldn’t). Problem is, it doesn’t seem like an actual subpoena, more like just a warning and a copy of the complaining email they got. Now I know NOT to click on any link in the email, have deleted the files that got there, and Bittorrent as well. Currently we’re putting this away and pretending this didn’t happen while making sure it doesn’t happen again and maybe finding an hour or two to talk with a lawyer as a heads up.

    But a few questions. What’s a good way of finding out if the company that the finder represents(It seems to be CEG-TEK) actually does pursue and sue? And is this an actual subpoena or just a warning from THE ISP to knock it off and the other companies involved can still do something?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If the email notice forwarded vis your ISP is from CEG-TEK, then it is a bottom feeding BT Copyright Troll. I say bottom feeding, as they (CEG-TEK) does not file law suits, only tries to get ISP subscribers to pay $300 per infringement under the veiled threat that the Copyright Owner “Could” sue you. Read my page on CEG-TEK/Rightscorp for how I suggest to handle this situation. https://dietrolldie.com/ceg-tek-rightscorp-etc/ Note: The ONLY copyright owner who employs CEG-TEK who has filed real Copyright Infringement law suits is “London Has Fallen (LHF). Even if it is LHF, they do NOT file in all US jurisdictions. Regardless of who the copyright owner is, your mother has another issue – someone is using her Internet connection to run a BT client and download/share copyright protected content. CEG-TEK is a joke IMO, BUT there are real Trolls out there would do file real copyright infringement law suits. Best for her to make sure the BT activity stops and doesn’t start back up later.

      DTD🙂

  16. doe says:

    For starters, I’ve already evaluated how stupid I am for allowing this to happen. Here’s the story: I subletted an apartment for the summer in xxxxxxxxxxx. I downloaded some copyrighted material without thinking. My sublettors received copyright infringement notices for the one item I downloaded and rightfully freaked out. They went to the copyrightsettlements . com and found that they were being charged 300 for each fine. I immediately had my hard drive wiped so no traces of the file were on it. I called the ISP to let them know this, and they said that as long as the file was gone, the ISP would take no action to shut down the sublettors internet. I don’t want the sublettors to have to deal with this anymore. I know generally CEG-TEK will not pursue the case or issue a subpoena. However, I am considering paying the settlement to calm down the sublettors, who don’t seem to know anything about these cases and are very angry angry at me. I don’t want any written subpoenas to be mailed to them, or for the situation to escalate. Is it in my best interest to pay the charge of $900? I would be willing to do so if that meant this could all be over. Is there any way that all legal responsibility could be shifted to me, rather than having to go through them? Also, is it possible that CEG-TEK would be willing to settle for only one payment of $300, because I only downloaded 1 file?
    I guess my question is, what is my next move? The deadline is 8/7 and I am frantically trying to fix this. I don’t want a 5 figure court case to ruin my life or theirs. Thanks for the help

    • DieTrollDie says:

      CEG-TEK will freely take your money, BUT they may figure out you are a bit stressed and will pay them. It may have been only one download, but they recorded it three times. I would try to tell the owners to read my page and ignore CEG-TEK. CEG-TEK does NOT sue. Period. The only CEG-TEK client that has sued people in some jurisdictions is London Has Fallen. The chance that anything will come from this is very very very slight in my opinion. Ignore and move on is my advice.

      DTD🙂

  17. Sadness says:

    I got this email the other day, is this anything I should be worried about?
    We are contacting you on behalf of Paramount Pictures Corporation (Paramount). Under penalty of perjury, I assert that IP-Echelon Pty. Ltd., (IP-Echelon) is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive copyrights that are alleged to be infringed herein.

    IP-Echelon has become aware that the below IP addresses have been using your service for distributing video files, which contain infringing video content that is exclusively owned by Paramount.

    IP-Echelon has a good faith belief that the Paramount video content that is described in the below report has not been authorized for sharing or distribution by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I also assert that the information contained in this notice is accurate to the best of our knowledge.

    We are requesting your immediate assistance in removing and disabling access to the infringing material from your network. We also ask that you ensure the user and/or IP address owner refrains from future use and sharing of Paramount materials and property.

    In complying with this notice, Bright House Networks should not destroy any evidence, which may be relevant in a lawsuit, relating to the infringement alleged, including all associated electronic documents and data relating to the presence of infringing items on your network, which shall be preserved while disabling public access, irrespective of any document retention or corporate policy to the contrary.

    Please note that this letter is not intended as a full statement of the facts; and does not constitute a waiver of any rights to recover damages, incurred by virtue of any unauthorized or infringing activities, occurring on your network. All such rights, as well as claims for other relief, are expressly reserved.

    Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at the following address:

    Adrian Leatherland
    On behalf of IP-Echelon as an agent for Paramount
    Address: 6715 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, 90028, United States
    Email: p2p@copyright.ip-echelon.com

    I have no idea what to do, thank you so much

    • DieTrollDie says:

      The chance of anything coming from this is about nil. I would suggest you stop the BT activity on your network. These guys will not doing anything, but there are real BT copyright trolls who will file real law suits. Be careful.

      DTD🙂

  18. Doe says:

    Clear Skies Nevada LLC v. Does 1-30 1:15-cv-06708, Chicago

    My mother is apart of this case, the Troll lawyer tried to have her ruled in default but she showed up to court and the judge pushed the court date back to allow her time to find a lawyer. From what I gathered talking with the troll, most of the Does are settling, unfortunately for them, my mother is not. We contacted a few lawyers to get help in fighting against this. The one that stood out was the Antonelli law firm. The lady we talked with was pushing for us to settle. When we explained we wanted to fight the charge, the lady said it would start at $5,000 just to get them started, she then followed that up with all the stuff/prices of things we would have to pay for on top of the $5,000. Later she says she understands the price is high, but that’s why most people settle and if we changed our minds about fighting the case, she would be more than happy to help us.

    Long story short, we talked with a lady in the assistance program the court building has. The lady we spoke with has a hatred for troll lawyers on the same level as the rest of us on this site. She explained that she has represented several people in cases like ours and only one person paid money to the trolls and that was because he panicked. The rest of her clients have paid nothing. On the spot she offers her help, for free.

    If you are in the Chicago land area and looking to get actual help with your case and not a “settlement lawyer” contact:

    Lisa Clay 312-753-5302
    LCLAYAAL@GMAIL.COM

    As of right now, she has informed the troll that they have 10 days to dismiss the case against my mother, or she will be filling charges against them. I’ll make sure to keep the forum updated on what happens.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, the BT Copyright Trolls know how to abuse the legal system to line their pockets with cash. The Trolls know that in a friendly jurisdiction (Northern District of IL), they have a very small chance of having to pay ANY of a Defendant’s legal fee/costs. Here is cut/paste from a recent filing in the Malibu Media v. Raleigh case (1:13-cv-00360) “DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER 17 USC § 505” – https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/miwd-13-cv-00360-doc-173.pdf

      This puts one in mind of how Judge Wright of the United States District Court for the Central District of California described a similar copyright enforcement campaign, where he stated:

      Plaintiffs have outmaneuvered the legal system. They’ve discovered the nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable defense costs. And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals, resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with illegally downloading porn. So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry. {Ingenuity 13 LLC v Doe, Order Issuing Sanctions, USDC CDCA, 13-cv-8333, May 6, 2013, pp 1-2 (Exhibit 2).}

      The cold hard facts are that it costs a good amount of money to run a defense. The common amount I’m seeing is $350 an hour – some charge more. The Trolls know this and will often make a non-settling party expend cash on case research, analysis, filing motions & responses, etc. They will do this for as long as they think they can get away with it and “then” try to dismiss the case WITHOUT prejudice. It then becomes very hard to get the court to awards attorney fees/costs against the Troll. The case has not be adjudicated on its merits and the Troll “Could” refile the case against the Defendant – but they will not.

      I’m glad your mom was able to find someone to represent her. I look forward to hearing what transpires with this case. I wish more people like your mom were able to fight back, but I do understand why many do not.

      I’m looking at the docket and it still shocks me that the IL courts like to keep these cases open for so long with little to no real action besides the Troll working on settlements. The cases was originally filed on 31 Jul 2015! The Troll was granted early discovery against the ISP on 21 Aug 2015. On 16 Oct 2015, the Troll filed its first dismissal after a settlement (Doe #26) – so that means the Troll had the ISP subscriber information. In accordance with FRCP 4(m) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4) the Plaintiff/Troll has 90 days to serve a Defendant with a complaint/summons, unless they show good cause. The only thing the Trolls say as to the reason for “good cause” is that settlement negotiation are ongoing and that the ISPs are slow in providing discovery – ALL BS IMO. So, 90 days from 16 Oct 2015 is 16 Jan 2016. Hell, lets give them another 90 days for their BS claims of “good cause.” That takes us out to 16 Apr 2016. The Troll didn’t even amend the complaint to name your mom and two others UNTIL 26 Apr 2016. The summons was finally served on 1 May 2016. This case should have been dismissed 90 days after the ISP released the information – PERIOD.

      What I expect the Troll will do is try to get your Mom to settle – they will wait to see what your mom does. BUT, they also know that as soon as your mom files an answer to the complaint, a voluntary dismissal by the Troll is not a guarantee. That or if she make a counter-claim against the Troll. The Troll would have to motion the court and ask permission to dismiss and give some good reason to support dismissal. As the NDIL is so Troll friendly, it is a possibility. I expect the Troll will dismiss the case – if he is smart. 😉 They have already gotten a good percentage of settlements? What was the amount they were seeking from your mom? I assume $4-6K. Even if they only got half of the people to settle at for $4K, they would still make $60,000.

      DTD🙂

      • Doe says:

        They started off asking for $2500, she ignored for several months, then the price went up to $4800. She ignored that too. That’s when they tried to have the court rule in default. But the lawyer Lisa said they don’t like going to court, so if it looks like we are going to be trouble, they will dismiss us and move on to the next person. She said, what they are doing is extortion, lawyers aren’t supposed to be screwing people over. So she is doing this for free and she plans on counter suing the troll as well as calling out all the so called anti-troll lawyers that are just in it to “help you settle” and take your money.

      • Doe says:

        As of the first court date, 12 of the 30 does had settled, but they only named 3 of the original 30, so I thinking they must have settled with all, or at least got a response so they held off on naming them.

        My mom ignored everything they mailed us, even when they had this little girl stop by the house to “serve” her (she never handed the letter to my mom). They finally sent a certified letter 3 days before the actual court date. The judge said it was good thing she showed up to court or she(the judge) would have had to rule in their(troll) favor.

  19. doe says:

    Hello, I have received 2 subpoenas, 1 letter to settle, 5 copyright alert warning notices, and 4 email warning copyright notices. We are 100% sure no one in the house did this (as we shut down the internet before receiving some of the notices) and the deadline for the settlement is Thursday, Sept 1st. I was going to call the suing attorney myself but after reading your thread, I’m not so sure. Can you please contact me privately?

  20. Doe (Don't Put Real Names Here) says:

    Hello,

    I receive d a letter along with summons(although summons not in my name) below. I did not download from their website but possibly another one. It appears they are threatening but no summons in my name. Any suggestions?

    XXXXXX PLLC is litigation counsel for Getty Images (US), Inc. in connection to cases involving copyright infringement. Details of __________ unauthorized use of Getty Images Rights-Managed imagery and additional explanation and information were spelled out in a series of prior letters from my client. Unable to resolve the matter, Getty Images escalated the file to this firm. Attached please find a letter from me regarding the matter. I am also attaching a copyright lawsuit we recently filed on behalf of Getty Images. You may wish to review the filing so that you have no misunderstanding of Getty Images’ resolve in protecting its rights and the rights of its contributing photographers. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,

    XXXXXXX XXXXXXX
    P.S. I also encourage you to learn more about Getty Images and related copyright issues:

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