Judge Shuts Down Copyright Troll's Cut-And-Run Effort; Hits It With $40K In Legal Fees

from the striking-three-to-a-match dept

The art of copyright trolling is completely artless. There's no subtlety to it. Flood federal courts with filings against Does, expedite discovery requests in hopes of subpoenaing a sue-able name from a service provider, shower said person with threats about statutory damages and/or public exposure of their sexual proclivities, secure a quick settlement, and move on.

It doesn't always work. At the first sign of resistance, trolls often cut and run, dismissing lawsuits as quickly as possible to avoid having to pay the defendant's legal fees. This isn't anything new. And there are very few courts left that treat the rinse/repeat cycle as novel. Judges are calling trolls trolls with increasing frequency and more than a few trolls and their legal representation have turned to theft and fraud to make ends meet.

Via Fight Copyright Trolls comes another decision where a porn-based copyright troll is getting its financial ass handed to it by a federal judge. Strike 3 tried to dismiss a lawsuit when it became obvious it couldn't prove infringement, opting for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice in hopes of dodging a bill for legal fees. It didn't work.

After some discussion of the technical aspects of Strike 3's aborted discovery attempt -- which involved Strike 3's experts failing to find evidence of infringement on the defendant's hard drive -- the court gets down to the business of cutting the troll off at the knees to prevent it from escaping the costs of its bogus litigation.

The court [PDF] says Strike 3 can't have everything it wants -- the cake, the celebratory disposable plate, the opportunity to consume the cake at its leisure, etc. Arguing that this is cool because some other troll tried it doesn't impress Judge Thomas Zilly.

Unlike in LHF Productions, in which an alleged BitTorrent user’s counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement was dismissed as moot in light of the plaintiff’s dismissal with prejudice of the underlying copyright infringement claim, in this matter, Strike 3’s voluntary dismissal was without prejudice, see Notice (docket no. 53), and in contrast to the plaintiff in Crossbow, Strike 3 has not provided any covenant not to sue. Indeed, not only has Strike 3 preserved its ability to pursue further litigation against John Doe, it has indicated that it will not consent to a declaration of non-infringement unless John Doe is precluded from receiving attorney’s fees and costs and Strike 3 is explicitly permitted to bring copyright infringement claims against John Doe’s son.

Then the court quotes another case involving yet another copyright troll (Malibu Media) to shut down Strike 3's "heads we win, tails you lose" exit strategy.

In essence, Strike 3 is attempting to thwart John Doe’s efforts to obtain attorney’s fees and costs by, on the one hand, refusing to dismiss its Copyright Act claim with prejudice and thereby denying John Doe “prevailing party” status, while on the other hand, deploying its dismissal without prejudice as a jurisdictional shield against John Doe’s declaratory judgment claim. The Court will not permit Strike 3 to use such “gimmick designed to allow it an easy exit... [now that] discovery [has] reveal[ed] its claims are meritless.”

The court is going to hand the defendant the victory, as well it should. The burden of proof for infringement rests on the accuser and Strike 3 failed to show any infringement occurred. Since Strike 3 can't prove this -- and its attempt to dismiss the case makes it clear it has no intention of proving infringement occurred -- the defendant's declaration of non-infringement is the default winner.

Consistent with Strike 3’s lack of proof of copying, John Doe’s expert has indicated that John Doe’s computer does not contain any of the motion pictures described in Exhibit A to the Complaint. No genuine dispute of material fact exists, and John Doe is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. John Doe’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and a declaratory judgment of non-infringement will be entered.

Since Strike 3 lost -- and engaged in a bad faith dismissal to dodge paying Doe's legal fees -- the defendant and his representation are getting almost everything they've asked for. That's $40,000 in legal fees and $7,000 costs Strike 3 will have to pay for two years' of failed litigation. But mostly Strike 3 paying because it tried to forfeit rather than take the L.

As the court notes, the tide of trollish litigation may be slowing, thanks to the Ninth Circuit's Cobbler Nevada decision. It's not over yet. This isn't the last time we'll see a troll light itself on fire in its haste to escape a losing lawsuit. But it's enjoyable all the same.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, copyright trolling, sanctions
Companies: strike 3

Yup, Strike 3 Is Going The Prenda Route By Filing 'Pure Discovery' Suits In FL State Court

from the you're-out dept

We were just discussing the deafening silence coming from two of the most prolific copyright trolls in federal courts, Malibu Media and Strike 3 Holdings. While both trolls had set a record-breaking pace for the better part of this year, both also suddenly went mostly silent over the last couple of months. As we indicated in that post, Strike 3 specifically appears to have simply moved its operations to Florida state courts. While we were not totally sure why that would be at the time of the last post, we had a theory.

This may have to do with an attempt to avoid precedence in rulings as to the evidence it uses, chiefly the practice of pretending that IP addresses identify people. If that isn't it, it could also be some version of the trick Prenda Law attempted to pull in moving copyright-cases-in-disguise to Florida courts. Essentially, they sue instead with a nod toward the CFAA as a way to enter into discovery, while also naming a bunch of co-conspirators -- rather than defendants -- to the case. All of this as a way to get at IP address and account information for a whole bunch of people in state court, only to turn around and sue those same co-conspirators in federal court. If that is what Strike 3 is doing, it's really dumb because it got Prenda in a bunch of trouble.

It turns out that's exactly what is happening. Strike 3 is suing ISPs with complaints of "a pure bill discovery". The entire purpose of those types of suits are to discover defendants. In this case, Strike 3 is asking the court to order ISPs to identify account holders of IP addresses it claims are infringing copyright. It's not actually a copyright lawsuit, however, as that would have to be filed in federal court. Instead, this looks to be an end run around copyright law and the costs associated with filing in federal court.

In this case, this means a subpoena directed at ISPs to identify the account holder that’s linked to the allegedly infringing IP-addresses. This tactic provides the same result as going through a federal court and allows Strike 3 to demand settlements as well. While the number of cases in state court is relatively modest, these cases target a substantially higher number of defendants per case. That’s also one of the main advantages. By filing a single case with dozens or hundreds of defendants, the filing fee per defendant is very low.

In federal court, the company generally targets one defendant per complaint, which is far more expensive. And while Strike 3 mentions that it is requesting the information for a subsequent copyright lawsuit, it will likely try to get a settlement first.

These state courts also don't have the muscle memory built up to push back on Strike 3's trollish lawsuits, using scant evidence such as IP addresses to unmask private citizens. Reporting suggests Florida courts have already granted subpoenas in many of these cases. In others, however, there is thankfully some pushback.

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli and his firm Antonelli Law‘s local counsel Steven Robert Kozlowski objected to these subpoenas on behalf of several defendants. In his motion to quash he highlights a variety of problems, including the earlier observation that copyright cases don’t belong in a state court.

“This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright claims at issue in the lawsuit which the subpoena to Comcast is premised upon. Federal courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal copyright law,” the motion reads.

Another problem is that the purpose of the “pure bill of discovery” is to obtain facts or information a defendant has. However, the targeted ISPs are not defendants in these cases. Finally, the motions highlight that the IP-addresses may not even be linked to Florida, where the court is based. Strike 3 should have known this, as they always disclose the location in federal court. However, they may have omitted it on purpose, the defense argues.

It's some form of justice to see a copyright troll sue ISPs in state court over federal copyright laws, looking for defendants that aren't subjects of the suit, and all while that same troll withholds facts from the court that would illuminate yet another reason the lawsuit shouldn't have been filed in that state court to begin with. Whatever the trifecta is for getting a court to sanction a lawfirm, this certainly seems to fit the bill.

And, yet, with state court judges not being as well versed in copyright law as their federal cousins, these subpoenas often get approved. That's a problem, one which will see copyright trolling get exponentially worse if it's allowed to continue. Here's hoping there is enough pushback from defendants so as that doesn't occur.

Filed Under: abuse, copyright, copyright trolling, florida, pure bill of discovery, state courts
Companies: strike 3, strike 3 holdings

Copyright Trolls Go Mostly Silent In US Federal Courts

from the anyone-out-there? dept

Readers here will be familiar with the practice of copyright trolling and the toll this extortion by threatened litigation has had on the public and the court system. You will also be aware that a huge chunk of copyright trolling efforts in America have been undertaken by two companies: Malibu Media and Strike 3 Holdings. Both companies have had setbacks as of late, between ownership and investor issues, and a series of both losses in court and judges who are finally starting to catch on to the shady way these trolls attempt to extort money from people with scant evidence.

It is perhaps in part due to those struggles that both companies have essentially gone dark in federal courts as of late.

In recent years, the vast majority of the U.S. lawsuits were filed by two adult entertainment companies; Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media. Together, they filed over 3,300 new cases last year, which was an all-time record. Initially, it appeared that they would continue on the same course this year. During the summer we reported that Strike 3 alone had already filed over a thousand new complaints. However, in recent months that changed drastically.

Looking through the federal court records we noticed that there was a notable absence of new cases from both Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media. Instead of filing hundreds of new cases, both companies haven’t been active for weeks. Strike 3 filed its latest complaint in early August, more than four months ago. Malibu Media had its latest filing spree in August as well and only submitted seven new complaints after that, most recently in October.

This appears to be the full story with Malibu Media. Strike 3 is a different matter, however, as it looks as though the company has made a strategic decision to file its cases in Florida State court rather than federal court. This may have to do with an attempt to avoid precedence in rulings as to the evidence it uses, chiefly the practice of pretending that IP addresses identify people. If that isn't it, it could also be some version of the trick Prenda Law attempted to pull in moving copyright-cases-in-disguise to Florida courts. Essentially, they sue instead with a nod toward the CFAA as a way to enter into discovery, while also naming a bunch of co-conspirators -- rather than defendants -- to the case. All of this as a way to get at IP address and account information for a whole bunch of people in state court, only to turn around and sue those same co-conspirators in federal court. If that is what Strike 3 is doing, it's really dumb because it got Prenda in a bunch of trouble.

Either way, the total number of cases filed by these two companies combined, and thereby the number of copyright trolling cases in federal court writ large, have tumbled significantly. This should highlight that speaking out and pushing back on the tactics of these companies can indeed work. Or, at the very least, have an effect.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, florida
Companies: malibu media, strike 3

US Magistrate Judge Provides The Template To End Copyright Trolling With Ruling Against Strike 3

from the you're-out dept

While we've been busily pointing out that the practice of copyright trolling is a plague across the globe, it seems there is something of a backlash beginning to build. For far too long, copyright trolls have bent the court system to their business model, with discovery requests and subpoenas allowing them to unmask internet service account holders on the basis of IP addresses, and then using that information to send settlement/threat letters to avoid trials altogether. Put simply, that is the business model of the copyright troll. The backlash against it has been multi-pronged. Canada has begun restricting what types of threat letters trolls can force ISPs to send to their customers, for instance. Elsewhere, Swedish ISPs have have led something of a legislative crusade against copyright trolls. In the US, some courts are finally realizing how bad IP addresses are as evidence, pushing trolls to get something better.

But the key to ending the plague of copyright trolling has probably been best outlined in a recent decision by a US Magistrate Judge against Strike 3 Holdings, in which the judge argues using Strike 3's own statistical analysis that it is abusing the court system to the detriment of innocent people.

Judge Orenstein denied motions for expedited discovery in thirteen cases. This means that the adult video company can’t get a subpoena to identify the alleged pirates. While we have incidentally seen similar decisions, the motivation, in this case, is worth highlighting.  

In his order, the Judge writes that allowing Strike 3 to obtain the identities of the account holders creates a risk.

Specifically, it will put Strike 3 “in a position to effectively coerce the identified subscribers into paying thousands of dollars to settle claims that may or may not have merit, so as to avoid either the cost of litigation or the embarrassment of being sued for using unlawful means to view adult material.”

In other words, the Judge is noting that Strike 3's copyright troll business model is, by nature, one that should disallow it from the kind of unmasking of account holders it so desperately needs to do to make any of this work. Essentially, granting these motions in favor of Strike 3 would have the court endorsing, if not actively participating in, the systematic extraction of money from people based on fear and embarrassment. Whatever that is, it sure ain't justice.

The court doesn't stop there, however. The order continues by noting that granting the discovery of account information would almost certainly not result in Strike 3 actually bringing any cases to trial. Trial proceedings are supposed to be the point of such subpoenas, but Strike 3's own statistics prove it's not after trials at all.

Since 2017, Strike 3 has filed 276 cases in the district, but zero have gone to trial.

Of the 143 cases that were resolved in the district, 49 resulted in a settlement and 94 were voluntarily dismissed. The latter number includes 50 cases where Strike 3 wasn’t confident that the defendant is the infringer. In other words, people who are likely wrongfully accused. This means that in one-third of the resolved cases, Strike 3 has likely targeted the wrong person. This number is “alarmingly high,” according to the Magistrate Judge.

“Strike 3 acknowledges that in many cases, the ‘Doe’ it has sued – that is, the subscriber – will prove to be someone other than the person who engaged in the allegedly unlawful conduct the Complaint describes,” the order reads. “And as it has now revealed in response to my inquiry, the proportion of such unprovable cases is alarmingly high,” Judge Orenstein adds.

None of this is surprising to readers here, of course. This is how Strike 3 operates. The entire business model relies on a scattershot approach to threat letters, in which some percentage will comply and pay out of pure fear. The problem is and has always been that too many courts don't actually consider this fact when granting subpoenas to unmask account holders. Here, the court manages to put that thought into its decision.

And, as a result of these "alarming" statistics, the judge has denied the motion to unmask the account holders in these cases. It's not exaggerating to say that if all, or even most, courts took the same route as this one, copyright trolling as a business model would completely fall apart.

And that would be a very good thing.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, magistrate judge, trolling
Companies: strike 3

Strike 3's Lawyer Sanctioned By Court, Excuses His Actions By Claiming He Can't Make Technology Work

from the strike-1 dept

When it comes to the art of copyright trolling, part of that art necessarily pretends that all potential victims of the trolling effort are assumed to be masters of both technology and copyright law, such that they are both responsible for what goes on with their internet connections and that no action they take could possibly be a forgivable accident. These assumptions operate across the victim spectrum without regard to the the victim being of advanced age or incredibly young, or even whether the victim is sick or lacks the mental capacity to carry out the supposed infringement. The assumption in just about every case is that the accused is fully responsible.

Which is the standard that then should be applied to Strike 3 Holding's lawyer, Lincoln Bandlow, who had to go to court to explain why he and his firm failed to provide a status update on 25 cases, despite the court ordering he do so, and was forced to explain why he thinks the court shouldn't just sanction him. Barlow attempts to explain this all away as a simple matter of he and his firm not being able to make their technology work.

The most recent sanctions hearing in Sacramento came as a result of Bandlow and Strike 3 failing to provide a status report related to at least 15 cases within a 45-day period. On Jan. 2, Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney ordered Strike 3 to explain why it shouldn’t be sanctioned $250 for missing those deadlines. At least 25 Strike 3 cases are at issue on Wednesday, according to a search of Strike 3’s court dockets.

Bandlow said in court filings that Strike 3 failed to file the status reports because it had “encountered issues with its calendaring procedure” for cases in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. He also said the filing mistakes were in part due to a lack of staff during the holidays and an inability to receive emails from the court.

In a separate interview, Bandlow complained that this whole issue is ridiculous, since he claims that in his copyright trolling cases there would be very little about which to update the court after a mere 45 days. He also blamed the failure to provide these status updates on his firm's spam filter. The claim is, apparently, that the firm's spam filter blocked several emails from this specific court. In addition, he and his firm also had issues using this specific court's docketing software.

None of which, mind you, would have been valid excuses were this one of Bandlow's copyright cases. You can practically hear one of Strike 3's victims proclaiming that they weren't sure how to set up proper security on their wireless access point to make sure others couldn't come along and use it to infringe. It's obvious how that argument would play to Bandlow's ears were it to be made.

It's also worth noting that this particular lawyer aand this particular law firm are not the typical copyright trolling outfits. Fox Rothschild is an enormous firm, employing more than 900 attorneys. Barlow is a higher-up at the firm. With the resources afforded to this lawyer at this firm, blaming technology for not meeting court-mandated deadlines is laughable. And, yet, here he is blaming his inability to whitelist the court's email server as the reason he should not be sanctioned for not following the court's orders.

Well, that and the ridiculous claim by Bandlow that he's already sanctioned himself.

Bandlow voluntarily dismissed the cases in which he missed a deadline and told the court he would not file new cases in the Eastern District of California until he was able to fix the technical problems he was experiencing with the court.

“In essence, we’ve sort of sanctioned ourselves in a weird way because that is $400 per filing, and all of that is down the drain,” Bandlow said.

It takes a lot to make me cry and this doesn't quite reach that bar. And it didn't meet the court's bar either, apparently as the decision came down to sanction Barlow despite his excuses and despite the voluntary dismissal of the cases in question.

In light of Mr. Bandlow’s representations at the hearing, the court recognizes that his bad faith is not the most egregious kind. The court believes that Mr. Bandlow’s apologies are sincere. At the same time, the fact remains that Mr. Bandlow delayed and disrupted the litigation here by willfully ignoring, and thereby disobeying, explicit orders and warnings from the court—conduct that is unacceptable from any attorney, let alone one with over twenty-five years of experience. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the court determines that it is appropriate to impose monetary sanctions on plaintiff’s counsel, Lincoln D. Bandlow, but in a lesser amount than originally contemplated.

The sanctions only amount to $750. Still, this is the first time Barlow has ever been sanctioned by a court and it only happened once he decided to get into the trolling bed with a porn company infamous for copyright trolling. Perhaps that will serve as some kind of a warning for other attorneys out there.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, lincoln bandlow, porn trolling, sanctions
Companies: fox rothschild, strike 3, strike 3 holdings

Federal Courts Aren't ATMs, Angry Judge Reminds Copyright Troll

from the fully-justified-verbal-abuse dept

I will never tire of judges handing down benchslaps to IP trolls. Perhaps I'll never tire of it because it just doesn't happen often enough. Or perhaps it cannot happen often enough, given the sheer amount of troll litigation judges preside over. Not every dismissed case can be given the court's full attention. But this opinion, from Judge Royce Lamberth, should certainly get Strike 3 Holding's attention.

The brutal nine-page opinion [PDF] opens with this caustic appraisal of the porn company's business model. (h/t Eric Goldman)

Strike 3 is [...] a copyright troll. Its swarms of lawyers hound people who allegedly watch their content through Bittorrent, an online service enabling anonymous users to share videos despite their copyright protection. Since Bittorrent masks users' identities, Strike 3 can only identify an infringing Internet protocol (IP) address, using geolocation technology to trace that address to a jurisdiction. This method is famously flawed: virtual private networks and onion routing spoof IP addresses (for good and ill); routers and other devices are unsecured; malware cracks passwords and opens backdoors; multiple people (family, roommates, guests, neighbors, etc.) share the same IP address; a geolocation service might randomly assign addresses to some general location if it cannot more specifically identify another. [...]

Simply put, inferring the person who pays the cable bill illegally downloaded a specific file is even less trustworthy than inferring they watched a specific TV Show. But in many cases, the method is enough to force the Internet service provider (ISP) to unmask the IP address's subscriber. And once the ISP outs the subscriber, permitting them to be served as the defendant, any future Google search of their name will turn up associations with the websites Vixen, Blacked, Tushy, and Blacked Raw. The first two are awkward enough, but the latter two cater to even more singular tastes.

The court goes on to point out it isn't copyright law that vindicates the plaintiff but rather "the law of large numbers." Strike 3 has filed 1,849 copyright infringement lawsuits across the nation (according to Judge Lamberth's count), resulting in an untold number of settlements. And that's all this really is: another attempt to force someone, anyone, to cough up some money rather than face off in court. As Judge Lamberth notes, copyright trolls "consume 58%" of the federal court system's copyright lawsuit docket. They're a burden on the courts and a burden on the public. Judge Lamberth calls Strike 3 on its copious bullshit:

These serial litigants drop cases at the first sign of resistance, preying on low-hanging fruit and staying one step ahead of any coordinated defense. They don't seem to care about whether defendant actually did the infringing, or about developing the law. If a Billy Goat Gruff moves to confront a copyright troll in court, the troll cuts and runs back under its bridge. Perhaps the trolls fear a court disrupting their rinse-wash-and-repeat approach: fie a deluge of complaints; ask the court to compel disclosure of the account holders; settle as many claims as possible; abandon the rest.

Rather than be an accomplice in Strike 3's shady game, Judge Lamberth denies its request for discovery. Without further discovery, Strike 3 can't serve anyone with a lawsuit, which will prevent Strike 3 from refiling in this court at least, even with a dismissal without prejudice that leaves that door open.

No copyright troll is going to try to keep a case alive in Lamberth's court, not after this damning summation of their collective efforts:

Armed with hundreds of cut-and-pasted complaints and boilerplate discovery motions, Strike 3 floods this courthouse (and others around the country) with lawsuits smacking of extortion. It treats this Court not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM.

This will limit Strike 3's litigation in this particular jurisdiction. But that's what venue shopping is for. At least defendants have another opinion to quote when fighting back against trolls like Strike 3.

Filed Under: atm, copyright, copyright trolls, extortion, royce lamberth, shakedown
Companies: fox rothschild, strike 3

Minnesota Judges Refuse To Unmask Defendants For Copyright Troll Strike 3

from the about-time dept

With copyright trolling a business model in full force across the world, we've noted that there has finally started to be some pushback against these tactics. In Europe, both courts and ISPs have begun wising up to the notion that IP addresses are an incomplete and faulty piece of "evidence" at best, with both government and industry also finally beginning to question just where user privacy should fit into all of this. In America, unfortunately, copyright trolls have all too often been able to unmask customers through ISPs based on court orders pretty much at will. Strike 3 Holdings is one such troll, with the company being partially responsible for a number of piracy lawsuits shooting out of the gate in 2018 at record speed.

And, yet, it appears that there might finally be some pushback coming to the US too, as two judges in Minnesota have now refused to order ISPs to give up customer information to Strike 3.

Late last month, Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel denied such a discovery motion. As a result, Strike 3 is not allowed to ask the ISP, Comcast in this case, for the personal details of the account holder associated with the IP-address.

According to Judge Noel, these cases present a conflict between the copyright protections of the DMCA on the one hand and the privacy rights of the public as set out in the Communications Act. Here, the scale tips in the favour of the latter.

Frankly, this reasoning should be plainly obvious. A copyright holder marching to an ISP with an IP address that does not pertain to an individual ought not be able to unmask that individual using such faulty evidence. It's long past time that the courts wise up to this and begin taking seriously the rights and interests of the public to not have private third party companies be able to associate them with their online activity.

But this wasn't a one-off. Another court looked at Noel's ruling and decided it was sound.

Last week Magistrate Judge David Schultz cited the ruling in two similar cases, also filed by Strike 3. Again, the subpoena requests were denied to secure the privacy of the alleged BitTorrent pirates.

“From this Court’s perspective there are obvious tensions between DMCA, the Communications Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45,” Schultz’s orders read.

“The Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s need to discover the actual identity of the infringer of its copyright; however, the discovery sought by Plaintiff through a Rule 45 subpoena directly collides with federal privacy protections.”

If this becomes a trend, what will be most interesting about it is that nothing in the laws in question has changed. Such a trend would represent instead an evolution of legal thought by judges on the practices of copyright trolls. It may also represent better informed defendants and ISPs that are aware of how shitty all of this is and also more aware of their respective rights in the law.

To be sure, a couple of rulings is no cause to rest easy. The vast majority of copyright trolling efforts succeed in at least getting this sort of customer information. Still, hopefully other courts will take notice of these rulings and agree that they should not be rubberstamp stops on the way to violating consumer privacy.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, david schultz, dmca, franklin noel, magistrate judges, privacy, sca
Companies: strike 3

US Piracy Lawsuits Shoot Out Of The 2018 Gates As The Malibu Media 'Coaching Tree' Spreads Its Seeds

from the more-to-write-about? dept

For those of you not interested in professional sports, allow me to educate you on the concept of the "coaching tree." This concept comes from the common decisions by losing teams to hire junior coaches out from under the head coaches of successful teams, hoping to siphon off some of the genius of more successful organizations. In football, for instance, you will often hear about the "Andy Reid coaching tree" as his assistants get head coaching jobs across the league after serving underneath him.

Sadly, a much more sinister version of this appears to be occurring in the copyright trolling space, with Malibu Media serving as a launching point for legal minds joining other organizations and replicating what they've learned from their former employer. The result has been an explosion in copyright lawsuits for the early part of 2018, with most of them coming from the porn-trolling industry.

According to Lex Machina, there were 1,019 file-sharing cases filed in the United States last year, which is an average of 85 per month. More than half of these came from adult entertainment outfit Malibu Media (X-Art), which alone was good for 550 lawsuits.

While those are decent numbers, they could easily be shattered this year. Data collected by TorrentFreak shows that during the first month of 2018, three copyright holders filed a total of 286 lawsuits against alleged pirates. That’s three times more than the monthly average for 2017.

As the TorrentFreak post goes on to note, while Malibu Media is still leading the way in these lawsuits, a company called Strike 3 Holdings is keeping pace with them, 138 lawsuits for the former and 133 for the latter. The rest of the companies that have filed suits against BitTorrent infringers are other porn-related organizations, save for Bodyguard Productions, which sues over the pirating of the Hitman: Bodyguard film. Interestingly, it seems that this significant uptick in the lawsuit rate has been driven by former Malibu Media employees finding new professional landing spots.

While Strike 3 Holdings is a relative newcomer, their cases follow a similar pattern. There are also clear links to Malibu Media, as one of the company’s former lawyers, Emilie Kennedy, now works as in-house counsel at Strike 3.

This comes at the same time that some courts are pushing back on these trolling efforts. Between some courts describing their tactics as harassing to questioning seriously the evidence that the trolls present to the court, this is the exact wrong time for the court system to suddenly be clogged with Malibu Media-trained legal minds hell bent on trolling for settlement dollars.

The only good that might come out of this, should this lawsuit pace continue, is a public recognition that these trolling operations need to be stopped.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, emilie kennedy, lawyers
Companies: bodyguard protections, malibu media, strike 3, x-art