Copyright Trolls So Sloppy They Sue The Same Guy Multiple Times
from the i'm-sure-tat's-effective dept
In yet another copyright trolling case, it appears that the trolls are so sloppy that they're suing over the same IP address for sharing the same file (the animated movie, Zambezia) in multiple cases. The story focuses on one guy, who has filed a motion to quash in response, noting that the sloppiness of filing three times raises significant questions about the trolling operation. Either they're incredibly sloppy and not very careful, or they're hoping that by repeating the same IP address in multiple lawsuits, at least one judge will let the subpoena go through, leading to the inevitable demand letter. Either way, it should raise some eyebrows from the court about why anyone would file against the same IP address for the same movie in three different cases.
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, copyright trolls, errors, lawsuits, sloppy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Eating popcorn in the cinema is a "public performance of popcorn"...fee required
Crunching noises are a musical performance....fee required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
- It was an accident, sir.
- Three times?
- Uh... yes sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
That's what it's all about!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Sorry couldn't resist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Blue, fucking provide quotes, show us where this rabid anti-copyright rhetoric you're seeing is, or shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Basically, we're seen as some kind of Commie/Socialist sympathisers so we're a threat that must be crushed.
By trolling on a tech website, though? Good luck with that. Mind you, the fact that she keeps getting owned helps to fuel that sense of victimization she seems to have.
Maybe there's something on the DSM that can explain what's going on with her. Damned if I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
If all of these "copyright holders" have such a cut and dry case against the "infringers" then why do they go to such great lengths to side step the law and bulk all these cases together?
Shouldn't the possibility of actually extracting Jammie-Thomas-level-settlements make it profitable EVEN IF they go to court on each and every one?
It's either one of two possibilities:
- they really DON'T have such an airtight case, and as a result, they have to pull this kind of horse shit at each and every turn
- it's just an extortion racket
Please clue us in as to why these "clerical errors" seem to be the modus operandi of what seems to be the lion's share of those entrusted with enforcing your precious copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://dietrolldie.com/tag/zembezia-film/
The clerical errors started before using the same IP's in each filing, they were unable to name their 'client's' work correctly.
Some were 'named' more than once in the SAME filing.
I won't even get into the methodology used to gather the IP's and how it could be flawed. They have managed to destroy ANY credibility they had by screwing up this badly.
The odds of this not being another "Me Too!" trolling case, in my opinion, are low. This isn't about protecting creators, this is about cashing in. Many films are made, not all do well at the box office. This legal gamesmanship is about turning a loser into a winner. The laws are still stuck in the time when the only people who would make copies would do so to profit and actually steal money, because it was costly to do so.
The finer points of the debate can be talked about for a very long time but the fastest fix would be to add a noncommercial infringement penalty to the law. If it was capped at 2x the retail cost there would be less lawsuits and more effort made to actually get things into the marketplace.
The RIAA hated (still does) digital sales, but after the failure of their legal campagin it has been embraced more. It is easier for consumers to get the music they want, and as time has gone on the dreams of DRM and locking the content to certain players at certain times is fading away. They still hope to regain some control or new laws to make it like the old days but they are moving forward into the future because they are forced to and the offerings improve almost reaching the desires of consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this warrants expedited discovery. We need to quickly identify which three individuals are stealing through this one IP address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I detect sarcasm in your comment, but of course the correct answer to that specifically phrased question is "nobody".
As for the possibility of it being 3 individuals, the MPAA had better get its story straight. Are they attacking the individuals who are actually infringing, or are they going after the account holders who provide access?
We've seen many cases where an innocent account holder has been held responsible for all activity on their router despite not having committed any wrongdoing themselves. They can't turn around and suddenly claim that doesn't matter just because they have a chance to get more individuals this time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2 - Six Strikes holds account holders responsible for actions taken without their knowledge, why can't everyone?
3 - This is sloppy filing at its finest, it is a cash grab by someone with no interest in actually trying a case, IMHO.
Sadly for these trolls all 3 cases were assigned to the same Judge, who is likely to take a dim view of IPs being included in all 3 filings, and lets not mention repeated numbers in the same filings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Chalk that down to the vagaries of "Hollywood accounting" and the confusing level of information I'm seeing surrounding this title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again they saw Zambezia which is punishment enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zambezia (2012)
Release dates:
South Africa 3 July 2012
...
USA 28 March 2013
It looks like the film bypassed UK cinemas completely and is currently on DVD there. Amazon doesn't currently list a home release date for the US market, although there are some typically overpriced imports (around $30) that may be regionally restricted.
Translation: while the piracy isn't necessarily justified by this, we have yet another instance where format and regional windowing is encouraging piracy, and rather than address those problems the studio are suing anyone who dares bypass their dated marketing and distribution strategies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
9 May 13 - Show Cause Order
DTD :)
http://ia801701.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.wawd.190660/gov.uscourts.wawd.190660.31.0 .pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]