Copyright Trolls So Sloppy They Sue The Same Guy Multiple Times

from the i'm-sure-tat's-effective dept

Mon, May 6th 2013 12:27pm — Mike Masnick

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.

139063698 Zem (PDF)139063698 Zem (Text)

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

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 11:08am

It seems all 3 lawsuits landed on the desk of the same judge. *grabs the popcorn* This will be entertaining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Akari Mizunashi (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 11:30am

Re:
What popcorn? If we leave it to the MPAA, popcorn makers are out of work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rw (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 11:40am

Re:
My popcorn popper burned out from overuse :
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 11:50am

Re: Re:
Yeah, Prenda overloaded microwave ovens of pretty much every td reader =(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re:
The MPAA doesn't want to put popcorn industry out of business. They just want all of the profits from when people eat popcorn while watching movies. And since you really can't tell which popcorn is being while watching movies the only logical solution is to give the MPAA all of the profits from the popcorn industry. Besides, some of those people eating popcorn while not watching movies are probably drug users with the munchies; taking the money associated with illegal drugs is a service that the MPAA is willing to provide. But if the popcorn industry isn't profitable, don't blame the MPAA. It's the pirates' fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 12:33pm

these copyright trolls dont care where they get the money from as long as they get it, 1x10 or 10x1, no different to them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 12:34pm

I take it the 'you cannot be tried for the same crime twice' concept doesn't apply to civil matters? Perhaps this case is reason enough that it should?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 6 May 2013 @ 1:04pm

OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
^The shorter version of Masnick seizing on anomaly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 6 May 2013 @ 1:05pm

Re:
I don't think there is any popcorn left. "blame Prenda"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 1:21pm

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
- You slept with my wife!
- It was an accident, sir.
- Three times?
- Uh... yes sir.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 1:22pm

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
"Anomaly." Yeah.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 1:25pm

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
If you see one cockroach, there are thousands in the wall. Anomaly?...Get real!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 1:29pm

Does this mean we're all thieves now for not buying the same movie three times on the same format?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
They did the Hokey Cokey and they turned around
That's what it's all about!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 1:35pm

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Where did he say that? All I can see is him writing about a sloppy case where a guy got sued multiple times over the same file.
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 thread ]
what_are_you_afraid_of, 6 May 2013 @ 1:42pm

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
I have a question blue....

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 thread ]
MrWilson, 6 May 2013 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Those two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible that both are true. The second possibility seems true regardless of whether the first one is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 2:00pm

Re:
Short answer yes. Long answer yes you fucking pirate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 2:16pm

OOTB wanted to talk about how this was just a clerical error, except this is court.

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 thread ]
John Henry (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 2:18pm

It could be three defendants using the same router.

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 thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 5:23pm

Re:
*stares at you*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 6:26pm

Re: Re:
MPAA rules:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 6:28pm

Re: Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Did they stick their left arm in?

Sorry couldn't resist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 6:29pm

I think we need to find out whoever downloaded such a shitty piece of crap movie and punish them.

Then again they saw Zambezia which is punishment enough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 8:12pm

Re: Re: Re:
Prenda should be fined for polluting, all the extra CO2 emitted by power plants to feed those microwaves adds up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 12:40am

Re:
"which three individuals are stealing"

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 12:46am

From IMDB:

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 thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 3:36am

Re: Re:
1 - Not the MPAA doing it.
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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 4:01am

Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm... with point #1 you're right. Wikipedia had listed the film as being distributed by Sony (obviously an MPAA member), but the suits are being filed by "Zambezia Film Ltd.". No idea who they are on a rough search, but I suspect from the name it's another production (shell) company for the film, so that could be an MPAA member or the original South African production company.

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 thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 4:13am

Re:
You want to watch that movie more than once? Pay us a fee for every viewing, damn dirty pirate!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Blue is a loon, it ain't gonna happen. Just out of interest, I'd like to know what got this started. I've read some of her rantings and she seems obsessed with Reds under the bed, etc., which is why she hassles us.

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 thread ]
Dave, 7 May 2013 @ 11:22am

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!
Poor old OOTB - getting rather paranoid in his old age, methinks. Probably got a version of writers' cramp as well - if you know what I mean.......Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Have I spelt that correctly? Oh - should it really be an "a" instead of an "i"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DieTrollDie (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 1:08pm

9 May 13 - Show Cause Order
Here is a 9 May 13, Show cause order that kills the subpoena and calls into question the joinder of these cases and BT users.

DTD :)

http://ia801701.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.wawd.190660/gov.uscourts.wawd.190660.31.0 .pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]