US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
from the let's-wait-and-see dept
We've been waiting for US Copyright Group to refile some of its lawsuits in the proper jurisdictions, fully expecting that the operation (really DC law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) would file a few lawsuits here and there to prove that it really was suing some people, though we doubt it'll match the scale of the original, "shock and awe," 5,000 people at a time filings. Apparently US CG has now filed two lawsuits in Minnesota, outside of its home base in DC. I would expect more like this, though let's see how far the lawsuits really get. It's no secret that the only purpose of the lawsuits is to convince people to pay up to avoid a lawsuit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, minnesota
Companies: us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nice spin, but you fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
get a ******* life. trolling blogs to spread your message your pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The settlement letters are low cost high return items but since they have until now actually sued people it's supported the whole idea of what their business model is.
This is also demonstrated through recent history in Europe with other companies doing this exact same thing in the exact same manner.
Do try and keep up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co Kg v. Larson, 0:11-cv-00138-JRT, John R. Tunheim, presiding, filed 1/19/11
Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Tensley, 0:11-cv-00139-RHK, Richard H. Kyle, presiding, filed 1/19/11
Both cases are in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This is the same courthouse as the recent Thomas-Rasset case, but it's not the same judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There is a one in a million chance some nut lawyer might file a bogus and poorly researched lawsuit against me. Also, he will back-off once I show that I am smarter than the average guy and I decide to challenge him in court. Finally, we learn that they are just in this to try to make some quick cash out of ignorant people who would rather settle (and avoid the trouble altogether) rather than protect anyone's rights.
Class dismissed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ya know...
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The law was designed to stop others from actually stealing your work and then packaging it and selling it themselves denying you profit. This is why the award number is so high. This was never meant to try to extract $150K per song from a 16 yr old who made a mix tape for the cute girl he likes.
And now this law is being used to extort money from people sharing files. We can get up to $150K so pay us $3000 its faster. Don't pay any attention to how how "evidence" was collected, and that a 10 yr old can point out huge flaws in it pointing to you. Don't take any time to think about it because you owe us an additional $1000 if you don't pay us in a week.
Let us keep the $150k awards against those who actually produce copies and sell them for profit. Lets knock down the awards for individuals to the "actual" damages that they might have lost. The cost of the DVD in the Walmart discount rack. Do you think these lawyers would be stomping on people to get their cut of $19.97?
Instead of cranking the dial to 11, why not spend a small part of the money your wasting on these tactics and find out why people are sharing your work?
Why not try to find a way where both sides win, rather than seeing the customer as a piece of meat to be hung up and cut chunks out of over and over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So yes, applying these statutory damage values to individuals making a single copy of the work for non-commercial purposes is about as far from the intent of the law as it's theoretically possible to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ya know...
*I'm assuming by "changed" you mean penalties weakened. If not, this post probably looks pretty stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why haven't these folks been disbarred yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why haven't these folks been disbarred yet?
I don't think anyone is going to be disbarred over this anytime soon for the simple reason that they're not doing anything legally wrong. It's not extortion in the legal sense.
There is the exception in the "Far Cry" case where USCG is being sued for extortion and some other things, but that's a unique situation. Even if USCG loses that case, I can't imagine they'll be disbarred. They'll just pay some money.
You don't have to have a class action in order to lump people together. You can have joinder under Rule 20 (what we have here), a class action under Rule 23, or a consolidation under Rule 42.
Under Rule 20:
USCG has argued that (A) is met because each member of a torrent swarm is participating in the same series of transactions or occurrences that can be traced back to the same peer.
They argued that (B) is met because whether the defendants used bittorrent to download the movie is a common question of fact, and whether the defendants infringed the copyright is a common question of law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course I still wonder how they get all those addresses just joining an existing swarm, think how many you can get if your the origin point and change the settings to make it take a long time for multiple copies to go out. Then you might have thousands of IP addresses to bring into court. Things that make you go WTF. But of course as not a single case will make it to court, no one gets to raise these issues where it counts. Because 1 ruling of IP != 1 user ends this entire shakedown scheme. Having to have actual proof rather than smoke and mirrors really would put a crimp in these "extortion mills".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evan Stone or his agents can participate in the swarm and not face the same charges for the simple reason that they are authorized to do so by the copyright holder. Stone and Co. downloaded the file being offered up by the defendants to make sure it was in fact their client's IP. That isn't facilitating the crime as you suggest. The defendants were already offering up the file, so it's not entrapment or anything like that. As far as Stone and Co. offering up the file for the defendants to download goes, I don't think that's an issue. The claims, as far as I know, are for the defendants offering up the file for others to download. The claim isn't that the defendants downloaded the file offered up by Stone and Co. For all we know, Stone and Co. didn't offer the file up for others to download at all. The complaints are sealed, I believe, so we can't really know either way. Not that it matters, though.
Of course I still wonder how they get all those addresses just joining an existing swarm, think how many you can get if your the origin point and change the settings to make it take a long time for multiple copies to go out. Then you might have thousands of IP addresses to bring into court. Things that make you go WTF. But of course as not a single case will make it to court, no one gets to raise these issues where it counts. Because 1 ruling of IP != 1 user ends this entire shakedown scheme. Having to have actual proof rather than smoke and mirrors really would put a crimp in these "extortion mills".
I should think it would be a simple matter to join an existing swarm for a period of several months while collecting the IP addresses of those who join the swarm. If USCG is really going to be suing defendants in 15 different jurisdictions (these two cases in Minnesota just being the beginning), then I bet we will see a few cases decided on the merits. Considering that USCG can cherry-pick the "best" defendants to sue individually out of the thousands they have to choose from, I don't predict that this will go well for the defendants. As far as the idea that one ruling that an IP doesn't equal one user will somehow end any of this, I think that's nonsense. Courts already know that. The idea is that the IP address forms part of prima facie evidence of infringement by the subscriber of that IP address. It's similar to if your car gets used in a bank robbery and the security cameras catch your license plate. The cops are going to get a warrant and come to your house to investigate. Maybe you robbed the bank, or maybe somebody stole your car and robbed the bank. That doesn't matter. The cops will be following the lead. That's all the IP addresses are in these cases--they're leads. And despite your claim to the contrary, such leads are very much actual evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I tell Ford "I will buy my next car from Toyota unless you improve the quality of your product", is that extortion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe so, but if millions of people weren't intentionally breaking the law with illegal file-sharing, these lawsuits wouldn't be possible to begin with. The blame for these lawsuits lies on the pirates, not the rights holders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the appropriate analogy would be: "I will steal my next car from you if you don't give me what I want."
Your example has the threatened response as being something legal. That's not what's happening here, as pointed out by Anonymous. The threat here is of illegal action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I prefer to lay the blame on the people who intentionally break the law and violate others' rights. I don't blame those who are defending their rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First (and you know this is coming), copying is not stealing. Second, how is this stealing from them specifically? I'm planning on getting the content from a completely different source if they don't provide me with a reason to purchase it from them. I won't even use their bandwidth.
Your example has the threatened response as being something legal. That's not what's happening here, as pointed out by Anonymous. The threat here is of illegal action.
So if the government decided tomorrow that citizens were only allowed to buy GM cars from now on (the cynical side of me says that we're not far out from there anyway, but I digress), then a threat from me to buy a Toyota instead of a GM becomes extortion due to its illegality?
Not buying it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
How are they supposed to know which defendants are pirates and which are innocent? The only way to do more due diligence would be to sue the defendant and commence further discovery. This alone would cost the defendant more than the price of settling. How is that better?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By staying in the swarm and supplying chunks of data they helped others complete the horrible crime. Even ACS tried to use a client that shared nothing, rather than a standard client that uploaded and downloaded. As they shared an authorized copy of the movie does that mean the copies are authorized as well? They are after all identical.
And the IP = license plate analogy is flawed as well. Very few people have static addresses, and a time difference as little as a few minutes can lead to a different person. This case is dealing with screenshots and notes on a spreadsheet taken by 1 person. Former middle manager at a cell company does not qualify you as an expert on bittorrent nor make you perfect. If the IP was so concrete why would Stone also request MAC Addresses? Not like those can't be altered either.
Given it has been over 4 months and the John Doe case is still open in violation of the rules of the court, one has to wonder what is going on in Texas.
Having lost Larry Flynt as a client, and is now revisiting those cases he filed to get himself noticed in the extortion mill game.
Stone has made statements that IP = User. In fact his entire extortion mill is based on people believing his misinformation. Given the amount of time since his first filing it is obvious he really does have no intention of taking a case to court, rather relying on letters using the same scammy tactics bill collectors use.
That you have a screen shot claiming to show an IP address doing something, someone made an awesome website that generated fake screen shots during the Pirate Bay trial, seems lacking as solid evidence.
The difference between the police and the bottom feeders is there is actually investigation on the part of the police.
The bottom feeders are claiming the IP address is enough to get them up to $150k so you should pay the $3000 they want. The only contact is a form letter demanding the money and an extra $1000 if you make them wait a week. And here is our secure credit card payment portal online. They are unwilling to hear the idea the person they targeted is innocent. The bar to try to prove your innocent is the around the same cost, this is abuse of process. Forcing legal decisions to be based on economics or kept private to avoid embarrassment. Everyone remembers someone was accused of touching children, so few notice the story of him being cleared.
Wifi can be hacked, houses can have visitors, IP addresses can be spoofed, ISPs can install Wifi routers and leave them open for people unaware of the existence of WiFi in their home. These are all possibilities that are not considered as the lawyers chase the dollars. If someone steals your car and uses it to commit a crime you should not be liable for anothers actions.
USCG is cherry picking those who the databrokers tell them have the funds available to pay them a large settlement. The downside of going after people with money is they hate to part with it, and are more than willing to make an example out of the people pursuing them wrongfully. Making decisions based on economics seems to be more important that protecting the valuable intellectual property.
I am willing to bet the poor 80 yr old man they tried to shake down who has no children or visitors to his home will make a compelling witness as someone completely innocent caught up in a flawed dragnet. He had open wifi that his ISP installed without informing him of it. It surely was an up-chargeable item on the install. He and his wife barely use email but they are meant to have been bittorrent wizards who stole a film and now owe $3000.
We need to stop pretending these cases are about stopping filesharing.
These cases are some lawyers trying to import the ACS:Law template and get paid. They play fast and loose with the facts all in an attempt to create pressure on people who may or may not have infringed. It does not matter to the firms, they just want their chance to get you to write them a check. It seems rather transparent this is why some of them still seek out porn studios, so that their extortion attempts have extra impact of ruining someone guilty or not. "Your name is not public yet, but if we have to file suit people will know. Pay us and we do not file suit."
Isn't one of the famous quotes about the law - It is better to let an guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent? Now it seems to be pay or we try to ruin your life guilty or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fraudulent Reviews
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co Kg v. Peele, 3:11-cv-00055-HEH, Henry E. Hudson, presiding, date filed: 01/21/2011
How many have to get filed before it's agreed they weren't bluffing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co Kg v. Lucini, 8:11-cv-00213-RWT, Roger W. Titus, presiding, date filed: 01/25/2011
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fraudulent Reviews
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Ball, 3:11-cv-00004-nkm, Norman K. Moon, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. McPeak, 3:11-cv-00054-REP, Robert E. Payne, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Worldwide Film Entertainment, LLC v. McDowell, 3:11-cv-00056-HEH, Henry E. Hudson, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
Three filed for "The Steam Experiment."
One in Virgina:
West Bay One, Inc. v. Libic, 3:11-cv-00057-REP, Robert E. Payne, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
And two in Minnesota.
West Bay One, Inc. v. Hansen, 0:11-cv-00116-DSD, David S. Doty, presiding, Date filed: 01/18/2011
West Bay One, Inc. v. Fandrich, 0:11-cv-00117-ADM, Ann D. Montgomery, presiding, Date filed: 01/18/2011
That's all I could find. By my count, that's nine total lawsuits filed in the past week, plus the two from the D.C. cases, for a total of ELEVEN named defendants in USCG cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I do not agree with downloading for free, but the extortion tactics are no better. 2 wrongs don't make a right. $150,000 for 1 move or song, ha ha. Funny how they say that they are intitled to that much. It's also funny how they call it theft, it's infringement, not theft. No property was stolen. It is and always will be copyright infringement. Download a move and you're not a scumbag thief, you're a scumbag copyright infringer.
There was a time I favored the movie/music industry, but they've proven to be just as bad if not worse than the downloaders. Lies, deception, extortion, I'm on the other side now. This is not about getting actors, singers and all the workers involved paid. This is about tuning crimes into cash flow on a massive scale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If they were filing around the country I would say that they were not bluffing. This is just the best they can do from where they are plus one other office in MN somewhere that they added on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HelpingHand
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would be nice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]