Malibu Media Ordered To Pay Wrongfully Accused 'Pirate' Even More Money After Failing To Abide By Court's Decision

from the keep-digging dept

Regular readers here need only hear the name Malibu Media to get their eyes rolling. This copyright troll that emerged from pornography producer X-Art has made quite a name for itself by attempting to shake down hundreds of accused copyright infringers, often using all kinds of shady tactics. Expert witnesses that nobody is quite sure even exist, failing to serve defendants, attempts to quickly dismiss cases against those who are willing to fight back: it all paints the picture of a shady operation looking to use shady tactics in order to collect shady infringement settlements. All, mind you, in the name of law and order in the realm of copyright law.

Except, as with most shady operations predicated on the law like this, the hypocrisy from Malibu Media is quite stunning. For example, Malibu Media accused defendant "W.M." of infringement in court, only to have the defendant file a counterclaim demanding any actual evidence the company had of their infringement. No evidence was produced, leading the court to decide in favor of "W.M." and to issue an order for Malibu Media to pay him/her nearly $50,000. In the least surprising news ever, Malibu Media didn't pay that amount as ordered.

In most cases an order like this would end things but, in this instance, things went from bad to worse. Malibu Media failed to pay up and on top of that, the company actively diverted funds that should have been used to pay these fees.

To recoup the money, Mr. W.M. hired Joseph Stewart, an experienced collection attorney. They went as far as obtaining a order that required Malibu Media and its payment processor Epoch.com to restrain the subscription revenue from “X-Art.com” members.

You would think that would have been the end of it. But, no, Malibu Media continued its bad actions, this time trying to play a shell game with where its revenue was coming into and going out. Colette Pelissier, top executive at Malibu, failed to show up for court hearings without an excuse. As a result, Judge Thomas Durkin signed an order that would see Pelissier arrested if she failed to show up to the next hearing. While that forced her to show up, it was fairly clear she wasn't prepared for that hearing.

We haven’t witnessed the hearing ourselves but copyright attorney and YouTuber Leonard J. French, who is not involved in this case, told us that the proceeding was quite messy.

Pelissier reportedly had a complete breakdown. She spoke quickly and panicky, while repeatedly interrupting the Judge, referencing issues that appeared to bear no relation to the case at hand.

The court was decidedly displeased with this performance.

“I deal with prisoners who are more appropriate, I have people who are mentally ill who can conduct themselves with more decency,” Judge Durkin said, before cutting off the call.

The result? Well, Judge Durkin basically doubled the amount of money Malibu Media owes "W.M.", increasing it to just over $100,000. Now, such a six-figure sum is certainly warranted for a wrongfully accused defendant such as "W.M.", but it remains to be seen if anyone can manage to actually collect this money. The payment processor has reportedly collected about half that much as restrained revenue from Malibu Media, leaving roughly half to go.

As with all of these stories, you would think this really should be the bottom of the hole that Malibu has dug for itself, but the shady copyright troll always seems to want to keep digging.

Filed Under: attorney's fees, colette pelissier, copyright, copyright trolls, default
Companies: malibu media, x-art

Malibu Media's Former Law Firm Says The Copyright Troll Has Been Screwing It Out Of Settlement Payments

from the trollololololol dept

Few things are more satisfying than watching copyright trolling efforts disintegrate. Prolific abuser of the court system, Malibu Media, has been slowly self-destructing over the past few years.

In 2016, Malibu Media sued its legal reps because they were at least as corrupt as Malibu Media is. From the filings, it appeared attorney Keith Lipscomb wasn't sharing the settlements he extracted from alleged pirates. Malibu's new reps, Pillar Law Group, filed the suit for Malibu. In the court documents, Lipscomb said he felt the copyright trolling business model had outlived its usefulness and was no longer profitable. While this was likely true, it also did double duty as an excuse for Lipscomb's failure to send Malibu its cut of the settlements.

The relationship with Pillar Law only lasted until last summer. As Fight Copyright Trolls notes, X-Art'/Malibu's owner is now engaged in a legal dispute with the law group in the Los Angeles County Court.

Roughly about the same time this suit was filed, Malibu was sued by two investors who were promised half of all settlements and half of all profits from Malibu's media. Apparently, they haven't been paid either.

This leads us to the current litigation, brought by Malibu's most recent legal reps. Once again, the non-sharing of settlement funds is the issue.

Lomnitzer Law has followed suit and sued Malibu for breach of contract demanding $280,058.32 plus interest (The Lomnitzer Law Firm, P.A. v. Malibu Media, LLC, FLSD 20-cv-80027-RKA):

Beginning at a date presently unknown, Malibu instructed attorneys in various jurisdictions that were representing Malibu in the nationwide litigation that was being coordinated by the Firm to by-pass the Firm and to remit settlement monies from such litigation other than to the Firm while still expecting the Firm to pay court filing fees, process server fees, etc., all incurred for and on behalf of and for the benefit of Malibu.

Good old Malibu: against the notion of sharing right up until the bitter end. God, I hope it's the end. Soon. And a super-bitter ending at that.

Let's not line up to applaud the numerous entities that have sued Malibu Media for being fraudulent. They all got in bed with Malibu at one point. It was only when they personally got screwed that they decided to distance themselves from this syphilitic troll. If this mesh network of litigation can somehow find a way to bankrupt everyone involved, we'll all be better off.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, legal fees, scams
Companies: lomnitzer law, malibu media, pillar law group, x-art

Giant Copyright Troll, Malibu Media, Sued By Investors

from the sketchy-companies-gonna-sketch dept

We've written a bunch of stories about Malibu Media, a copyright trolling operation. The company's founders, Colette Pelissier and Brigham Feld, like to claim that they're purveyors of "classy" pornography under the X-Art brand, but their business seems almost entirely focused on trolling practices. And its embrace of copyright trolling has resulted in some significant problems for the company over the years, as judges have very much caught on to the company's long history of sketchy practices.

Apparently those sketchy practices may go beyond its copyright trolling, as two of Malibu Media's investors are now suing the company, claiming that they lent the company money when it was short on cash, in exchange for 50% of its "net recovery" from the trolling operations, and a "50% interest" in the copyright of the porn X-Art created. So, how'd that work out?

In 2018 alone, continues the complaint, Malibu Media's litigation stampede generated over $2.8 million.

But the plaintiffs say they haven't seen any of the money and can't get an accounting. They further allege, "On information and belief, Defendants are shuttling assets and interests out of Malibu Media and into more obscure entities, including the shell entity holding companies: Click Here, Colette Holdings, Colette Properties, Colette Production, Inc., Colette Productions LLC, and/or Zo Digital."

Ah, shell companies and moving cash around. It appears that Malibu Media took all the wrong lessons from Prenda Law. Perhaps they'll find themselves in the same place in the end.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, investment, scams
Companies: malibu media, x-art

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

Judge Alsup Threatens To Block Malibu Media From Any More Copyright Trolling In Northern California

from the run-away...-run-away dept

Yes, we keep seeing Judge William Alsup appear on these pages, as he keeps getting high profile tech related cases. And, while we don't always agree with his decisions, I don't think that anyone can argue that he isn't careful and thorough in making sure he understands the technology involved in these cases. The most well-known example of this, of course, was the time he taught himself to program Java to understand the deeper issues in the copyright dispute over Java's API's (which helped him make the right call in saying API's were not eligible for copyright protection -- a ruling that was unfortunately overturned by the Federal Circuit). More recently, Judge Alsup also got some attention for demanding lessons and reading materials in how to build LiDAR systems, to understand the trade secrets fight between Uber and Waymo over their LiDAR technology. And, just as a reminder, he's not talking about basic level stuff here:

Please keep in mind that the judge is already familiar with basic light and optics principles involving lens, such as focal lengths, the non-linear nature of focal points as a function of distance of an object from the lens, where objects get focused to on a screen behind the lens, and the use of a lens to project as well as to focus. So, most useful would be literature on adapting LiDAR to self-driving vehicles, including various strategies for positioning light-emitting diodes behind the lens for best overall effect, as well as use of a single lens to project outgoing light as well as to focus incoming reflections (other than, of course, the patents in suit). The judge wishes to learn the prior art and public domain art bearing on the patents in suit and trade secrets in suit.

Yeah. So. It was probably a good thing that, a year and a half ago, the Chief Judge in the Northern District of California, said that any new Malibu Media copyright trolling cases had to go in front of Judge Alsup. Malibu Media, of course, is the US's biggest copyright troll, responsible for a fairly insane percentage of all the copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the US. We've had a ton of stories about the company and some of its fairly shady practices in copyright trolling. Malibu Media, of course, is also a sleight of hand, as it's actually the porn company better known as X-Art. It's also been connected to the famous "international men of mystery", often referred to as Guardaley -- a German company, that's gone through various name changes, and seems to be behind numerous copyright trolling operations.

Either way, last year, we noted that Judge Alsup had been quick to understand what was going on with Malibu Media, and, in particular, called out the company for attempting to cut and run on any case when challenged. This is pretty typical of many copyright trolls. If the defendant in the case actually challenges anything, Malibu will often dismiss the case and run away, so as not to have to bother with defending its own legal tactics.

It appears that Alsup is getting increasingly tired of Malibu Media trying to abuse the judicial system as part of its shakedown business model. As first noted by the Fight Copyright Trolls blog, Alsup has issued an order to show cause why it should be barred from filing any more lawsuits in the district.

Specifically, Alsup is doing this in response to Malibu Media's claims that the geolocation technology it uses, from Maxmind, is close to 100% accurate in locating where a given IP address is located. If Maxmind sounds familiar, that's because it's the company which was the subject of numerous stories last year about how laughably bad its geolocation tools were, including the truly horrifying story of how Maxmind would tell lots of people that various IP addresses were at a random house in Kansas, leading lots of strangers to show up there, often angry about scams or spam.

So, yeah, to then go into court and declare that Maxmind is perfect... didn't go over too well:

In this particular case, as in each case filed in this district in October 2016, counsel for Malibu Media averred in a sworn declaration that Malibu Media used a database called “Maxmind” to map our defendant’s IP address to a particular district in order to determine the proper venue for this action (Dkt. No. 7-6). The declaration parroted several hearsay statements about the accuracy of Maxmind from its website, but counsel also averred that in their experience in California “Maxmind has always been 100% accurate to the state level, 100% accurate at identifying the ISP and has predicted the correct district 146 out of 147 times”

He then points to that article linked above, about the house in Kansas, and says that Malibu Media better come up with better evidence of accuracy, or that's it for lawsuits in Northern California:

Malibu Media is hereby ordered to SHOW CAUSE at that hearing, why the Court should not bar further Malibu Media cases in this district until the accuracy of the geolocation technology is fully vetted. Malibu Media shall file a written statement, with all factual assertions supported by declarations sworn under the penalty of perjury by MAY 16 AT NOON.

Oh, and since Malibu Media has a history of cutting and running, he added this kicker:

To be clear, this order applies even if Malibu Media voluntarily dismisses this action.

In other words: don't run and hide. It won't work.

The order also highlights that Alsup is well aware of how the copyright trolling scam works, quoting another judicial hero in the fight against copyright trolls, Judge Otis Wright, who famously was the first to call out Prenda, and kicked off a series of events that resulted in Prenda's two principles getting indicted.

Here, Judge Alsup quotes Judge Wright, calling out Malibu Media as well:

The Court is familiar with lawsuits like this one. These lawsuits run a common theme: plaintiff owns a copyright to a pornographic movie; plaintiff sues numerous John Does in a single action for using BitTorrent to pirate the movie; plaintiff subpoenas the ISPs to obtain the identities of these Does; if successful, plaintiff will send out demand letters to the Does; because of embarrassment, many Does will send back a nuisance-value check to the plaintiff. The cost to the plaintiff: a single filing fee, a bit of discovery, and stamps. The rewards: potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rarely do these cases reach the merits.

The federal courts are not cogs in a plaintiff’s copyright-enforcement business model. The Court will not idly watch what is essentially an extortion scheme, for a case that plaintiff has no intention of bringing to trial.

It's really quite astounding that operations like Malibu Media have been able to keep this up this long. It eventually crashed and burned for Prenda, and it looks like Malibu Media may be facing some more significant challenges in the near future as well.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, geolocation, william alsup
Companies: malibu media, maxmind, x-art

Prenda May Be Dead, But Copyright Trolling Still Going Strong

from the no-signs-of-slowing-down dept

With one of Prenda Law's key players, John Steele, pleading guilty and likely spending many, many years in prison, you might think that it would mean an end to egregious copyright trolling. However, Matthew Sag, who's spent years tracking the number of copyright trolling lawsuits, lets us know that trolling is still going strong, and it's only slightly modified since the days of Prenda:

...in the post-Prenda era, lawsuits filed against John Doe defendant made up more than 52% of all copyright cases in in the United States in 2014 and 58% in 2015. The number of suits dropped slightly after Malibu Media lost a case on summary judgment in January 2016, but the rate of filing is increasing again. Even so, between 2014 and 2016 copyright trolling accounted for 49.8% of the federal copyright docket.

Our analysis of the federal court filing records indicates that in 2016, the average number of defendants in each of the John Doe cases was 4.7 on a conservative estimate . In other words, although there were 1,362 John Doe copyright cases filed last year, 6,483 individual defendants were targeted. Without doubt, some of those people were illegally downloading movies, but a great many were not.

As Sag notes, copyright trolls don't seem to care much about being legally correct. They just need to be convincing enough to get people to pay up to avoid the lawsuit:

The new breed of plaintiffs who filled Prenda’s shoes are different to Prenda, but not different enough. The plaintiffs’ claims of infringement still rely on poorly substantiated form pleading and are targeted indiscriminately at non-infringers as well as infringers. Plaintiffs have realized that there is no need to invest in a case that could actually be proven in court, or in forensic systems that reliably identify infringement without a large ratio of false positives. Their lawsuits are filed primarily to generate a list of targets for collection; and are unlikely-in our view-to withstand the scrutiny of contested litigation.

The human cost of copyright trolling is significant. It is true that sometimes the plaintiffs get lucky and target an actual infringer who is motivated to settle. But even when the infringement has not occurred or where the infringer has been misidentified, some combination of the threat of statutory damages of up to $150,000 for a single download, tough talk, and technological doublespeak are usually enough to intimidate even innocent defendants into settling.

Copyright -- with the help of insane $150,000 statutory damages -- is still being used as a shakedown weapon, scaring people into paying up, not because of actual infringement, but because copyright trolls have learned how to use the law and the court system as a business model very similar to the one used by organized crime in certain neighbors: pay up or someone's going to get hurt. The unfortunate "new" part of this is that the "weapon" here isn't a baseball bat, but federal copyright law and the judicial system.

Sag now has a longer paper, along with Jake Haskell, looking at "the dark arts of copyright trolling" and how to defend against them. The paper has much more details than Sag's blog post linked above, along with pretty charts like the following one:

Of course, it also notes that this is a niche industry, with 62% of the trolling cases coming from just five companies. Malibu Media, unsurprisingly leads the way (by a lot), as it has done for several years. While Malibu Media has run into some problems in the courts, I'm still at least somewhat surprised that it hasn't received Prenda-level treatment by more judges. Perhaps that will change soon.

Either way, it's fairly clear that copyright remains seriously flawed if it's open to being abused so frequently, even if by a very small number of players.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, matthew sag
Companies: malibu media, prenda, prenda law, x-art

Malibu Media Sues Its Former Lawyer Over Missing Funds, Breach Of Bar Rules

from the filing-shows-MM-is-as-stupid-as-its-lawyer-is-crooked dept

All aboard the schadenfreude express! It appears that when you base your business model on dubious litigation, you also to attract dubious litigators. (See also: Righthaven, Prenda Law.) So, this latest development in the Malibu Media saga -- brought to our attention by Sophisticated Jane Doe of Fight Copyright Trolls -- is perhaps less surprising than inevitable.

Today Malibu Media (a litigation shell of a hardcore “barely legal” pornography producer X-Art), represented by its new counsel, Pillar Law Group, filed a lawsuit in Central District of California against its former counsel, Michael Keith Lipscomb and his firm, Lipscomb, Eisenberg and Baker (CACD 16-cv-04715).

The problem -- or at least one of them -- appears to be that Lipscomb, like his former client, isn't a fan of sharing.

I’m still reading the complaint, but it seems that Lipscomb at some point (last fall) stopped paying Malibu/XArt percentage of ransom settlement proceeds and kept weaseling when he was asked a direct question “where is the money?”

Malibu Media employs a bit of kettle name-calling in the opening paragraphs of the complaint [PDF]:

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Lipscomb used LEB as a mere shell, instrumentality, and/or conduit of each other, and commingled assets by and between himself and LEB to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of LEB ceased.

Yes, perhaps a little hypocritical of Malibu, considering it does the same thing on behalf of its porn production arm X-Art.

Much of what's alleged appears to be the result of Malibu setting itself up to be burned. This complaint is its attempt to ice down the affected areas. What responsible company engages in this sort of behavior when suing people by the hundreds?

Upon information and belief, at the inception of their representation, LEB never provided MM with a written and signed retainer agreement setting forth the standards upon which LEB would provide legal services to MM and bill for those services, including whether LEB’s fee would be on a contingency, flat fee, or hourly basis, and which contained provisions for charges and apportionment of settlement amounts and costs.

Notwithstanding the lack of a written and signed retainer agreement, upon information and belief, MM would receive a fixed percentage of the total settlement amounts flowing from settlements. Upon information and belief, at some point the fixed percentage number changed and LEB also began to charge MM for the filing costs for new cases.

"Information and belief" isn't nearly the same thing as a signed contract that contains both parties' signature and a clearly-denoted agreement as to how all of these aspects of litigation are to be handled. Malibu Media's pre-trolling preparations appear to be every bit as slapdash as the litigation that ensued under Lipscomb's control.

What's also interesting is that Lipscomb -- and perhaps Malibu Media itself -- appears to believe the trolling business model was no longer viable. After a few months of supposedly stashing away funds for future litigation, Lipscomb reversed course, declaring this particular form of litigation to be a dead end. As Malibu demanded detailed documentation of the supposed war chest (engaging the services of Pillar Law, which is also representing it in this suit), Lipscomb informed the legal reps that Malibu's trolling days were over.

In one email dated April 5, 2016, Lipscomb indicated that “Malibu is winding its copyright campaign down because it is no longer profitable.” On April 12, 2016, Lipscomb indicated in order for LEB to “wind down” the campaign, an “engagement agreement” would need to be signed.

[...]

In another email dated April 12, 2016, Lipscomb indicated that the type of litigation involved in the campaign was “incredibly sophisticated and nuanced” and also warned that “if the cases (or the steps in a wind down process) are mismanaged… Malibu will lose cases or be sanctioned by courts or both.” He warned in another email dated April 12, 2016 that “[t]here is enormous potential liability to [MM] if this is not managed correctly.”

Lipscomb is only half right. Trolling is neither "sophisticated" nor "nuanced." It's half-junk mail, half-Ponzi scheme. However, much sophistication and nuance is needed to extricate trolls from lawsuits that go sideways. Without these, judges are angered and a quick, dirty moneymaker becomes nothing more than a surefire way to rack up sanctions and orders to pay defendants' legal fees.

These emails weren't just Lipscomb being pragmatic about the situation. They were apparently also useful in buying him time as he dodged requests for detailed info on where Malibu's money was. He also sent over an agreement that would allow him to exit the trolling enterprise mostly intact, with his only liability being "malpractice going forward" from the date of agreement.

In a final indignity (at least according to Malibu Media), he withdrew from an ongoing case, forcing it to scramble to find replacement representation "within 21 days." Three weeks might seem like plenty of time, but Malibu's increasingly-poisonous reputation likely preceded it. It failed to obtain a new lawyer in time and the judge awarded a default judgment to the plaintiff -- including nearly $160,000 in legal fees.

Malibu Media claims Lipscomb violated Florida bar rules by not providing it with a contingency agreement or itemization of costs claimed. That may be true, but Malibu is equally to blame (although not under rules governing the state bar) for moving forward with Lipscomb/LEB without demanding something resembling an actual contract first. Lipscomb may be hit with fees and sanctions for violating this code of conduct, but Malibu should really have to live with the consequences of its own actions. It can't even sue for breach of contract because there was apparently no contract in place during this whole debacle -- something that allowed Lipscomb to "rewrite" the terms at whim.

It remains to be seen if Malibu is actually winding down its trolling side business. No new lawsuits have been filed since April 20, which appears to indicate Lipscomb's assertions about the end of the trolling era are true. Of course, Malibu Media has been running without a legal rep in these cases since that point, so it still may be interested in pursuing more copyright infringement litigation once it has "retained" (and that's in quotes because Malibu Media doesn't appear to know how to correctly retain a lawyer) new representation.

However, it could be the $160,000 default judgment is a hurdle it can't overcome, especially since it's likely still months or years away from extricating any funds from its former representation -- and that's assuming there's anything left to take once this whole thing plays out.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, ethics, florida, keith lipscomb, speculative invoicing
Companies: malibu media, x-art

Copyright Troll Malibu Media's 'Expert' Witness Appears To Be Totally And Completely Clueless

from the wtf? dept

We've written many times about Malibu Media, a massive copyright trolling operation that creates porn under the name X-Art and then shakes down people it claims are downloading it. There are tremendous similarities between Prenda Law and Malibu Media, but while Prenda Law has been buried under a series of rulings that it needs to pay up for abusing the judicial system to shake down people, Malibu Media has mostly been able to avoid such situations -- mostly by rapidly trying to get out of any case at the first sign of potential trouble. But, before that, it's been known to pull some pretty sketchy moves -- and sometimes gets weirdly aggressive in going after people who have a tremendous amount of evidence that they're innocent. While we've covered a few cases here and there, FightCopyrighttrolls.com has basically turned into a site reporting all things Malibu Media.

It's from those guys that I first caught wind of Malibu Media v. Jesse Raleigh based initially on a bizarre lashing out by Malibu Media's lawyer Jessica Fernandez (who works for Keith Lipscomb, the lawyer who appears to be the "John Steele" of the Malibu Media trolling operation) in the form of a Motion for Sanctions against Raleigh. The motion was oddly aggressive in arguing that Raleigh had misled Malibu Media in discovery and failed to produce certain items. The thing that caught my eye was specifically Malibu Media claiming that Raleigh had lied to them about not owning an "all-in-one computer." While searching through his Dropbox account photos they found some photos that they insisted proved that Raleigh did own an "all in one computer" that he had failed to produce during discovery: That specifically caught my attention, because I'm personally quite familiar with what the picture is showing and it's not an all-in-one computer. It's a portable USB computer monitor that you can plug into a laptop to have a second screen. I know this because I'm somewhat obsessed with portable external monitors, and for quite some time the AOC monitor was one of the few reasonably priced options in the market. But it's just a screen. It's not a computer at all. In fact, if anyone at Malibu Media had done even the slightest research (i.e., opening up AOC's website) they would have realized that AOC doesn't make computers. It only makes monitors.

That got me somewhat interested in other parts of the angry demand for sanctions, as the whole thing seemed to be filled with half-assed claims that made no sense at all. For example, it used another image in his Dropbox folder, combined with a tweet from over a year later, to argue that Raleigh had a server that he never turned over.
Yes, showing a backup server in 2013 and then a tweet in late 2014 (13 months later) is somehow proof that "the" server is his? Huh?

Anyway, it turns out that the "source" of many of these claims is a so-called "expert" who shows up in plenty of Malibu Media cases named Patrick Paige. Not surprisingly, both FightCopyrighttrolls.com and DieTrollDie.com have pages detailing some of his past shenanigans.

Now, as Raul alerts us, Raleigh is seeking to limit Paige's ability to testify as an expert in his case, on account of the fact that he doesn't appear to know what the fuck he's talking about in his "report" about Raleigh's activity. There are a bunch of examples in the 15 page document, including the simple fact that Raleigh was working in another city far away, to which he was in the process of moving, on most of the days he was accused of downloading works back at his previous home. There's also the fact that while Paige's report goes on and on about Raleigh having the uTorrent client on his computer, the original claims from Malibu Media insisted that the downloads were all done with a totally different client, qTorrent.

It also highlights the ridiculousness of the whole "he admitted he has a server he didn't send us" bit above:

Paige tries to associate a random photo taken by Defendant on November 8, 2013 with an unrelated tweet sent on December 27, 2014, then he applies some absolutely false information to reach a wholly fabricated conclusion. That is, the metadata associated with the photo in Paige Report... clearly establishes that it was taken at the Modustri offices located at 38 Commerce Avenue in Grand Rapids on November 8, 2013. The 1-terrabyte server backup associated with the icon in the photo belonged to Modustri. The tweet issued on December 27, 2014 (over a year later) had nothing to do with the picture, and was referencing files that were turned over to Paige.... Moreover, Paige's assertions in... his Report is simply false-- the testimony and evidence is very clear... that Defendant stopped working at Silversmith, Inc. in early January 2013. Hence, Paige's erroneous presumption that the November 8, 2013 picture was taken while Defendant worked at Silversmith is just that -- erroneous. Again, all of the "red flags" apply here.

There's also a bit about the AOC monitor:

At the right side of the photo is an AOC monitor that Defendant still owns and Malibu is free to examine.... Paige, however, apparently envisioned that the monitor could have been an AOC all-in-one computer. From the notion that this was a possibility, he then concluded that it was an all-in-one computer. From that erroneous conclusion, he further concluded that Defendant was hiding computer devices. Clearly, this is the kind of speculation that the Supreme Court decided should not be erroneously clothed with the imprimatur of reliable by coming from an "expert."

Raleigh's lawyers leave out the fact that AOC doesn't even make computers. But if Paige is such an "expert" you'd think he'd be able to suss out that bit of info. Raleigh's lawyers point out that this is part of a pattern in which Paige is no expert at all, but rather just trying to manufacture anything that says Raleigh is guilty, often through accusations and guesswork:

It is clear from the nature of most of the opinions in the Paige Report that his conclusions are not actually deducible from his premises (and not even accounting for the falsity of many of his premises). This is somewhat understandable when one considers that his Report is the product of inductive logic rather than deductive logic. That is, if one starts with the assumption that Defendant is the infringer (as Paige has obviously done here), and then works backward to extrapolate the premises, one reproduces Paige's results. For example: (1) Paige assumes Defendant is the infringer; (2) Paige finds no evidence supporting that assumption on Defendant's computers and file storage devices; so (3) Paige concludes that Defendant withheld computer devices, hid evidence or lied. The problem with that type of reasoning is that the initial premise (which is actually the conclusion) is not supported by the syllogism.

The filing also notes a rather startling omission from Paige's so-called "expert" report: the fact that he was unable to find any evidence whatsoever of the claimed infringing files on Raleigh's hard drives. That seems like an important point... but as Raleigh's lawyers point out, it appears to be par for the course for the supposed "expert" Paige. In a similar case nearby a few months back, a court had to actually order Paige to supplement his "expert report" with the answer to the question of whether or not the copyright material Malibu Media was suing over was found on the examined hard drives. In response, Paige never made the necessary additions. Instead, as Raul points out, Malibu Media turned tail and ran, filing to dismiss the case.

When the whole Prenda thing went down, we were somewhat surprised at how long it took for courts to actually put an end to it. And while multiple courts have called out Malibu Media's bad copyright trolling behavior, it still hasn't faced a real reckoning, a la Prenda. Instead, it seems able to slip out of basically any of the cases where it runs into serious challenges. Given that, don't be surprised to see Malibu Media suddenly have a change of heart in the Raleigh case as well.

Still, it would be nice to see Malibu Media and its lawyer Keith Lipscomb finally face some sort of consequences for what appears to be a clear abuse of copyright law and the judicial system to squeeze cash out of gullible individuals.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, copyright trolling, expert, harassment, jesse raleigh, patrick paige
Companies: malibu media, x-art