Malibu Media Seeks Order Forbidding Defendants From Discussing 'Copyleft' Blog Content

from the cf.-circular-reasoning dept

Copyright troll Malibu Media would prefer the many courtrooms it uses as speculative invoicing middlemen to be free of disparaging statements. To that end, it has filed a motion that specifically asks that certain blogs not be brought up nor discussed nor quoted extensively from by the defendant or his counsel. (h/t to Raul)

The Court should preclude Defendant from referring to copyleft blogs for any purpose, including specifically references to fightcopyrightrolls.com and dietrolldie.com. Plaintiff expects Defendant may attempt to reference these blogs at trial in an effort to introduce unsubstantiated allegations against Plaintiff. The blogs target Plaintiff and its counsel with vitriolic hate speech and contain comments that are biased, slanderous, and prejudicial, and should not be referred to at trial for any purpose. “Many internet blogs commenting on this and related cases ignore the rights of copyright owners to sue for infringement, and inappropriately belittle efforts of copyright owners to seek injunctions and damages.” Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1, 6, 13, 14, 950 F. Supp. 2d 779, 781 (E.D. Pa. 2013).

Yes, we can't have sites that expose the immoral and illegal activities of copyright trolls exposing the immoral and illegal activities of copyright trolls, can we? We'll just have to see what the judge has to say about this exclusionary motion. And in support of its allegations about the content of these blogs, Malibu Media cites a friendly footnote from one of its rare wins [p. 2] -- a derogatory phrase penned by Judge Michael Baylson and co-opted in its entirety by Dallas Buyers Club for use in its threatening letters to alleged infringers.

Rather hilariously, Malibu Media uses an infrequently-used term to describe these blogs, in an equally-sad attempt to appear evenhanded.

Plaintiff, Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves for the entry of an order precluding Defendant Michael Harrison (“Defendant”) and his counsel from referring to copyleft blogs at trial for any purpose...

Sensing the court may not be familiar with the concept of "copyleft," it is more fully described in the attached footnote:

“Copyleft” is the polite way of describing an anti-copyright ideology. “Freetards” is the degrading equivalent of “copyright trolls” when used in association with copyright producers.

With this handy guide to the nuances of the copyright debate now on the record, the case can presumably proceed safely. According to Malibu, the blogs that have long tracked its legal efforts have "no probative value" and the mere mention of the forbidden sites may "provoke" jurors into browsing these blogs during their downtime... which obviously won't win Malibu any new fans favorable jurors.

All in all, it's pretty much a vindication of the efforts made by Fight Copyright Trolls and Die Troll Die. If these were nothing more than storehouses for hyperbolic statements and woodchipper discussions, it's highly unlikely Malibu would be attempting to preemptively banish them from court.

Filed Under: copyleft, copyright trolls, courts, freetard
Companies: malibu media, xart

Australian ISP Promises Free Lawyers For Targets Of Copyright Trolls

from the good-move dept

iiNet, the second biggest ISP in Australia, has been a bit of a magnet when it comes to BitTorrent lawsuits. In 2008 they were sued by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) for failing to prevent its subscribers from infringing copyright via Bittorrent, a case it won, as the court found it was not iiNet's responsibility.

In late 2014, Voltage Pictures – the company behind Oscar winning movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' – started proceedings against Australian users it accused of downloading its movie, just as it has in both the US and Canada. The alleged Australian infringements all occurred between 2 April 2014 and 27 May 2014.

iiNet refused to hand over the account details of the 4,726 IP addresses demanded by Voltage, and took it to court, where, in early April, the judges sided with Voltage. However, in a massive blow to Voltage, they required that any letters sent out to people be approved by the court, undermining the key tactic of exaggerating claims in these kinds of cases. Most such cases rely on threatening significant damages at court in order to 'encourage' the recipient to settle, but Justice Perram has indicated that the damages could be as low as AU$10 (US$8), although there could be significant court costs as well.

Now iiNet has dealt Voltage another blow, announcing in a blog post:

If you do receive a letter you may want to get legal advice. iiNet is working with a law firm that has offered to provide pro-bono services for any of our customers

This would be a major setback to the speculative invoicing model used by Voltage, which relies on the high potential damages, plus the significant cost of defending a case (greater than the settlement demanded) to ensure a steady revenue stream. With the court restricting the intimidating language, and the offer of free legal counsel to defend the cases, it may end up being far more costly for Voltage to pursue claims than they can hope to recoup.

And while iiNet has jumped to the defense of its customers in this way, it may not be alone. The M2 group has also indicated it may provide pro-bono legal assistance in similar cases, although they have refused to commit prior to a court hearing on May 21st when a date for the transfer of customer information will be agreed.

It is not looking like Australia will be a fruitful venue for copyright trolls.

Filed Under: australia, copyright trolls, lawyers, legal help, pro bono
Companies: iinet, voltage pictures

Team Prenda Has A Very Bad Day In Court... And You Can Watch It All

from the make-sure-to-bring-lots-of-popcorn dept

It has been almost exactly two years since Judge Otis Wright released his blistering opinion of Prenda Law and the guys behind it, John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Paul Duffy ("Team Prenda"). There have been various fights here and there since then, but the specific appeal in that case was finally heard yesterday and you can (and should) watch the whole damn thing (which runs almost exactly an hour and a half -- though if you're short on time, you can skip the Morgan Pietz part, and just focus on the first and last parts involving Team Prenda's lawyer, Daniel Voelker). If you follow a lot of appellate case or Supreme Court cases, you should know that it's generally not a good idea to read too much into any particular line of questioning, or even to assume which way judges are leaning. In this case, however, it would be nothing short of shocking if Team Prenda comes out of this story "winning" -- though, in an astounding bit of what appears to be cluelessness, Voelker said that Team Prenda would be perfectly happy having part of the case sent back to the lower court for criminal contempt sanctions. The three-judge panel seemed so shocked by this, that they asked him if he was sure, and one judge, Judge Tallman, pointed out:

"Do you understand that the maximum penalty for contempt is life imprisonment?"

In short, Team Prenda's own lawyer not only seemed completely unprepared and out of his depth in the hearing, he ended up arguing that rather than just pay $250,000, his clients would prefer to face criminal charges with the chance of life in prison (though, admittedly, such a sentence would be highly unlikely). From all indications, all three judges seem prepared to give Team Prenda what their lawyer appeared to be claiming they wanted.

There were many guffaw-worthy moments throughout the arguments, including Judge Tallman asking about the infamous Alan Cooper forgery, and Voelker playing really dumb, leading Tallman to ask if the "tooth fairy" made the document appear. Judge Tallman also repeatedly pointed out, in disbelief, that Voelker could assert that his clients had no idea how the document got forged when Cooper was Steele's "gardener" (actually housekeeper, but close enough).

All three of the judges seemed well aware of what Team Prenda was up to and how nefarious copyright trolling is. Judge Pregerson, who is 91 years old, talked about how his clerks explained to him how BitTorrent works, and then pretty clearly detailed how Team Prenda (and other copyright trolls) abuse the court system to "extort" settlements from end users. He concludes his description by saying, "Now that is just an ingenious... crooked, extortionate operation." Later he said, "They used our court system for illegal purposes -- to extort money." At least one of the other judges, Judge Nguyen referred to copyright trolling as "extortion" as well. The judges didn't refer to Prenda as a company or a law firm, but rather an "operation." It was a complete bloodbath. The judges also seemed well aware of other Prenda proceedings elsewhere in the country as well.

Basically, the judges seemed not just aware of, but very convinced by the evidence against Prenda's copyright trolling practices. Much of the opening part of the arguments consisted of the judges asking Voelker about those facts -- and Voelker dodging every one of those questions or responding that he didn't know, and then going back to procedural questions. The three-judge panel all found this completely unconvincing, and even where they were willing to grant potential procedural problems (mainly with the punitive sanctions on top of attorneys' fees), noted that if they rejected those, at the very least they were likely to (as mentioned above) just send the case back for criminal proceedings, which almost certainly would leave Team Prenda even worse off. Voelker's standard response: "They want their day in court." It sounds like they might get it.

There were two other really amazing tidbits, both from Judge Pregerson. First, right after describing the whole copyright trolling mess and (as noted above) calling it a "crooked, extortionate operation," he noted how historic this case was and how badly it was going to reflect on Voelker, even suggesting that Voelker may be implicated directly as well:

Pregerson: This is going to be written about for years and years, and you're probably going to be part of the story. They all will be. I don't know where this is going to end up. If they really want to have a trial on this... are you sure they want that?
Voelker: Absolutely your honor! They want a trial...
Pregerson: Is that what you want?
Voelker: Your honor, what I want is irrelevant. I'm just an appellate attorney. I'm not...
Pregerson: Well, you may be involved in this.
Voelker: I'm sorry your honor?
Pregerson: You may be involved!
Voelker: I don't believe so, your honor, with all due respect. I'm just the attorney.

And then that leads into this astounding bit of courtroom drama:

Pregerson: And you're a great lawyer.
Voelker: I really appreciate that.
Pregerson: That's what your ad says when you go on the internet, right? I wonder how many "super lawyers" there are in this country?
Voelker: There are a lot of them.
Pregerson: There are a lot of them. And a lot of them is BS too.

Ouch. It appears that Pregerson wasn't joking around either. From Voelker's website: Either way, I can't see how the hearing could have gone much worse for Prenda.

If you want another recap from someone who knows a hell of a lot more about how epically bad this went for Prenda, check out Popehat's take, which includes this:

I have never seen an oral argument go so badly for an advocate. The judges were immersed in the details of the record and plainly convinced that Prenda was a criminal operation that merited some sort of sanction. They clearly viewed the case not in isolation, but as part of a series of cases involving Prenda across the country — most of which are turning out very badly for Prenda. It seemed clear that they believed that Judge Wright had the power to impose some sort of sanctions, and that the record supported his doing so.

I know that many of the Prenda watchers among our readers here keep wondering how it is that Team Prenda is not yet in jail. There are a lot of reasons for that, frankly, but their appeal in the 9th Circuit may actually lead them much closer to being in jail, in part because their own lawyer effectively said that's what they wanted.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, alan cooper, copyright, copyright trolling, copyright trolls, daniel voelker, forgery, john steele, morgan pietz, paul duffy, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law, steele hansmeier

Getty Threatens The Wrong IP Law Firm In Its Copyright Trolling Efforts

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Image licensing giant Getty Images has quite a reputation for being something of a copyright maximalist and occasional copyright troll. The company has been known to blast out threat letters and lawsuits not unlike some more notorious copyright trolls. And that's true even as the company just recently lost a copyright infringement suit in which Getty helped in the infringement. A few months ago, we had told you about Getty starting a new program in which it was making many of its images free to embed, saying that it was "better to compete" that way on the internet, rather than trying to license everything. We actually just tried embedding some Getty images ourselves recently.

However, it appears that this new program has not dampened the company's enthusiasm for copyright trolling. Nor has the recent lawsuit loss convinced Getty to be any more careful in how it goes about that trolling. The company may soon regret sending a troll letter to Florida-based intellectual property law firm Schneider Rothman, claiming that the company had engaged in copyright infringement by posting images to its site and demanding $380 (while threatening a lawsuit). The lawyers at Schneider Rothman know better than to make use of infringing images, so they scoured their site to figure out what the issue was. And they quickly figured out the problem -- and it appears to be with the sloppy way in which Getty sends out these demand letters:

There was a problem, however. We never copied or displayed the Getty image referred to in Getty’s letter.

We looked more closely at what Getty was doing and were shocked to discover what was really going on.

You see, Getty is apparently using an image recognition system to generate its letters to accused infringers. Getty’s system identified a thumbnail image on our website here. Getty matched the thumbnail to an image more than six times the size on Getty’s site.

We are not responsible for the thumbnail. The thumbnail is displayed on our website because we use the Zemanta plug-in for WordPress. Zemanta put it there, something that should have been obvious to Getty.

But Getty did not bother to look. If it had, Getty would have seen that we are simply employing web-feed syndication, a common and generally accepted Internet publishing and search engine optimization practice.

So, instead, the law firm has gone to court, filing for a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe. It's interesting to note that the lawyers didn't just include Getty as a defendant here, but Zemanta as well (seeking, at the very least, indemnification, on the off chance that Zemanta did not actually license the image). They note that Zemanta appears to have properly licensed the image, and to then try to shake down their law firm for using Zemanta's properly licensed use of the image is quite problematic. Plus, since the use is just a thumbnail and (thank you Perfect 10!) the use of thumbnails is fair use, Getty should have quite obviously known that its threat letter and demands for payment were bogus.

The lawyers at Schneider Rothman don't mince words:

Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice has caused actual damages to SRIPLAW by requiring SRIPLAW to expend time and money to bring an action to obtain a declaratory judgment that SRIPLAW did not infringe Getty’s copyright.

Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice has damaged other individuals and businesses similarly situated to SRIPLAW who received letters from Getty that falsely claimed copyright violations and, because these other individuals and businesses lack the technical or legal knowledge and/or funds necessary to defend themselves from Getty false claims, have instead paid extortion money to Getty that Getty was not entitled to.

Unless enjoined, Getty’s unfair and deceptive practice will damage other individuals and businesses who receive letters from Getty that falsely claim copyright violations and demand settlement payments to resolve such false claims.

While it's fun to watch the lawsuits with the small-time copyright trolls like Prenda, it will be interesting to see what happens here, though my guess is that Getty will look to quickly settle this matter...

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, images, shakedown, threats, thumbnails, trolling
Companies: getty, getty images, schneider rothman

International Men Of Mystery: How Discredited German 'Anti-Piracy' Company May Secretly Be Behind Malibu Media's Copyright Trollery

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Things have been getting more interesting on the Malibu Media front lately. The company, which is responsible for 40% of all copyright cases, has certainly faced claims of abusive and seriously questionable practices. But some new information suggests it goes much further down the rabbit hole of questionableness. Like Righthaven and Prenda before it, new accusations are coming out about some highly questionable shell games to try to hide what's really going on.

In this case, it's come out that behind all of Malibu Media's shady tactics, the folks actually pulling the strings (or, at least, heavily involved) may be the German company Guardaley, or one of its many sneaky shell companies. If you've been following copyright trolls for a while, you may recognize Guardaley as the shady company involved (secretly) in some of the original copyright trollery in the US, which was slammed in court for highly questionable technology that was at the center of its attempts to "identify" people to go after in the shakedown scam known as copyright trolling.

Guardaley had been laying low for a while, but back in April, Sophisticated Jane Doe over at FightCopyrightTrolls turned up Guardaley's secret playbook, which was clearly not meant for public consumption. It is... quite a read. It highlights the various shell games and individuals involved -- and also notes how Guardaley can quickly churn out cookie cutter legal filings against the various individuals it "sues" (with the entire effort actually focused on getting people to pay them to go away). And, astoundingly, it basically admits that Guardaley will supply bogus "experts" to support the claims in court. From page 35 of the presentation: Okay, now jump back to January, in which one of the lawyers representing Malibu Media admitted that the "expert" company it uses, IPP (a Guardaley shell) worked "pursuant to an oral contingency fee." In other words, it was getting a cut of any money secured via these lawsuits and corresponding shakedowns. That's kind of a big deal: when your "expert witness" has a direct financial stake in the outcome, that means your expert witness is doing something very, very shady. No wonder Guardaley doesn't want the judges to question them too much.

For the past few months there had been some ongoing efforts to get various Malibu Media lawyers to reveal the details of their relationship with Guardaley/IPP and other related shells. Not surprisingly, Malibu Media lawyers are trying to block all of that. This finally resulted in an impressive filing from copyright troll fighter, lawyer Morgan Pietz, who accuses the company of champerty -- a scheme to "buy into" lawsuits, something that is at the very least frowned upon, but more frequently against the law. Furthermore, Pietz notes that Malibu Media should have been proactively disclosing Guardaley's interest in the cases, but has not -- instead highlighting how the company (actually, its lawyers) has been "fighting tooth and nail all attempts by defendants to inquire about these arrangements." He even calls Guardaley "the German computer guys."

Separately, the filing dismantles Malibu's bizarre attempt to avoid this whole issue by blaming it on some other guy in Florida.

Malibu concedes that it did [disclose this information] here, and counsel on the pleadings here in Maryland concludes that there could not possibly be any kind of breach of this duty because lead national counsel in Miami, not counsel here, negotiated the improper witness contingency agreement. Regardless of what local counsel here did or did not know, lead counsel in Miami, whose firm presumably authored the early discovery papers in the first instance, and who participated in the consolidated proceedings in this district before Judges Titus and Grimm, had a duty to make sure this fact was disclosed to the Courts here and across the country.

The filing then goes into significant detail about the whole mess, under the wonderful title:

International Men Of Mystery: Tobias Fieser, Michael Patzer, Daniel Macek, Patrick Achache, Guardaley & The Shell Companies, And The Software With A Name Nobody Seems To Know

The "software with a name nobody seems to know" involves constantly changing claims about what software is being used to identify people accused of infringement, along with the claims that this unnamed and ever-changing software is somehow infallible (despite Guardaley's tech being so discredited previously). In an amusing section, Pietz points out how quite clearly "fallible" the technology is:

In the letter Malibu submitted to Judge Titus and Judge Grim last year, they argued that IPP’s proprietary software was literally “infallible.” ... In the opposition to the instant motion, Malibu submits a declaration from Michael Patzer where he avers that “the PCAPs recorded the IP address 76.100.228 [sic] infringing Plaintiff’s copyrights.” That is incorrect. Mr. Patzer left out three digits in that IP address. This simply goes to show that no matter how “infallible” Malibu and Patzer think the software and corresponding proprietary system they designed may be, there is always room for human error, at either the input stage, or the output stage.

The filing highlights the similarities of these shell companies with the recent ruling against Prenda, and highlights increasing evidence of how the people above are really deeply involved in a bunch of shell games. It calls out evidence in a non-Malibu Media case, Elf-Man LLC v. Lamberson, which lays out more evidence of an incredible circle of shell companies. I won't repost it here, but it's worth reading, just to see some of the crazy chain of shell companies. This is not the whole chain of crazy, but just a snippet:

As the defendant’s own investigation revealed in Elf-Man, Crystal Bay Corporation, the company Macek (and Patzer?) supposedly “worked for” ... was a defunct South Dakota corporation, apparently incorporated in 2012 by a disbarred lawyer who, according to his website, “now specializes in creating ‘anonymous’ ‘shelf’ corporations.” .... The official address Crystal Bay Corporation registered with the South Dakota Secretary of State? It belongs to a mail forwarding company, and it is the same address given for the disbarred lawyer’s “Agent Services” company.... Same thing with the Stuttgart, Germany address given for Patzer and Macek: it corresponds to an office building in Stuttgart “that offers mail drop services and short term office rents, even by the hour.” ... The Elf-Man defendant also investigated the phone numbers given for Patzer and Macek. The regional code for Macek’s number corresponded to Karlsruhe, Germany. The regional code for Patzer was for a suburb of Karlsruhe....

The coup de grace from Elf-Man: when defense counsel there recently called the (Karlsruhe) phone number given for Macek in the initial disclosures in that case, the person on the other end of the line answered it “Guardaley.”

Boom. Also, there's the part in which one of the guys admits he works for one of these shell companies and then has to be lead by Malibu Media's lawyer into saying he didn't actually work for the company:

More importantly, the testimony Malibu complains Pietz omitted only further supports the argument that Guardaley = IPP = Excipio, and that Patzer, Fieser, and Macek are all part of the same organization. For starters, at the beginning of Patzer’s testimony, he first says “yes” when asked if he works at IPP Limited.... Malibu’s counsel then asks him a leading question, reminding him that “you don’t actually work for IPP, Limited. You said you work for a firm that provides these services to IPP, Limted, correct?” and Patzer confirms that.... However, throughout Patzer’s testimony, he constantly refers to “we” when it is clear he is referring to IPP. None of that suggests that Excipio is really a totally different company that should be credited as possibly more trustworthy than Guardaley; it suggests Patzer thinks of himself as working with Fieser at IPP.

And, of course, days after this was filed, the lawyer who had been representing the copyright holders in Elf-Man, Maureen VanderMay, suddenly filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, noting that "issues have arisen between Plaintiff's representative and counsel, the nature of which make it impossible for counsel to both continue with representation and comply with the governing rules of professional conduct." However, she refuses to detail those reasons, citing their "privileged and confidential nature," though says that if required to, she would like to do so under seal. It's not too difficult to put two and two together here, suggesting the likely issue is that VanderMay realized how much trouble everyone involved in this scheme may be in soon. And, anyone who witnessed both the Righthaven and Prenda debacles knows that random outside lawyers who help out are the first ones often thrown under the bus in these disputes.

There have been stories for quite some time suggesting Malibu Media was, in some ways, worse than Prenda. Now, it appears that it may have been Guardaley and its rotating crew of shell companies behind all of this all along -- something they'd mostly been able to keep quiet. However, it looks like the scheme may be starting to unravel. Now, we just need Pietz to put together one of his infamous org charts like he did with Prenda.

Filed Under: champerty, copyright trolls, daniel macek, elf-man, michael patzer, patrick achache, shell companies, tobias fieser
Companies: apmc, excipio, guardaley, ipp, malibu media

Yet Another Copyright Troll Thinks It's Found The DMCA Subpoena Loophole That Slammed Shut Years Ago

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Over a decade ago, when the RIAA first decided to start going after its biggest fans for sharing music online, one of the biggest challenges it faced was -- of all companies -- Verizon. The RIAA started sending "DMCA subpoenas" to Verizon demanding the names of its customers without filing a lawsuit and without any judicial review. Verizon vigorously fought back, claiming that such subpoenas were unconstitutional and violated its customers' anonymity rights. After some back and forth Verizon prevailed in the DC Circuit appeals court, and the Supreme Court refused to take the RIAA's request to hear the case. Since that time, it's been pretty well established and accepted that you can't use DMCA subpoenas to get info out of ISPs like that. That's not what they were ever intended for, and they go against the basic First Amendment protections for anonymity (which allow people to be revealed, but not solely on the basis of a subpoena with no judicial review). That milestone victory by Verizon is what eventually lead the RIAA to actually filing lawsuits against thousands of unnamed fans, as opposed to just getting their info and threatening them.

Anyone who's spent even just a little bit of time studying copyright law is familiar with this case. A decade ago, it was one of the key copyright legal battles. But, it seems that every few years, some copyright troll lawyers who really have no understanding of copyright law at all "rediscover" DMCA subpoenas and think that they've found some amazing loophole that lets them get user info without judicial review. Three years ago, copyright troll Evan Stone was all excited that he'd discovered this amazing subpoena provision, gleefully telling reporters that it was going to be the key to keeping his copyright trolling going. Instead, he got hit with sanctions for abusing subpoena powers.

So it seems a bit bizarre that another operation, "Rightscorp" thinks that it's discovered some amazing "loophole" to get information on alleged infringers without judicial review (also, odd that Torrentfreak suggests this is a new development, since it also reported on Evan Stone claiming to have found that same "loophole" that doesn't exist). The TorrentFreak article does ask Rightscorp's CEO about the Verizon case, and he insists that it was decided incorrectly. That's a... risky proposition at best. While he's technically correct that the Supreme Court hasn't decided this issue, it has been ruled on in both the DC Circuit (that Verizon case) and the 8th Circuit (similar case, similar ruling) and no one has challenged it for a decade. The interpretation of DMCA subpoenas is pretty widely accepted across the board. If this actually got to court, Rightscorp would find it pretty difficult to prevail and upend rulings that have been considered established law for a decade.

But despite the bluster, it seems quite unlikely that Rightscorp really wants to test this in court. Torrentfreak also notes that "Rightscorp is avoiding any of the major Internet providers." That's clearly a conscious choice, knowing that the legal teams for these smaller ISPs probably are unfamiliar with the details of DMCA subpoenas and how they don't apply. Indeed, it appears that Rightscorp's strategy to date has been somewhat successful, as clueless ISPs are handing over info on their customers that they should not be handing over under the law. I'm wondering if those ISPs, who are violating their customers' privacy (potentially in violation of their own terms of service), may come to regret that decision (and the fact that their legal departments seem unaware of how DMCA subpoenas work). Also, hopefully a little publicity will help those ISPs to quickly study up on DMCA subpoenas and why they don't apply here.

Filed Under: 512h, copyright, copyright trolls, dmca subpoenas
Companies: riaa, rightscorp, verizon

Berlin Law Firm Files Criminal Complaint Against Copyright Troll U+C Alleging Its Demand Letters Are Fraudulent

from the but-no-one-would-fight-being-accused-of-stealing-porn,-would-they? dept

German copyright troll Urmann + Colleagues' (U+C) pain is only just beginning. U+C misrepresented a streaming service as a file-sharing site to a German court in order to obtain subscriber info on thousands of German RedTube users. U+C then used this fraudulently-obtained data to send out collection letters to over 10,000 users, demanding a payment of $345 for copyright infringement.

Red flags were raised by a handful of German lawyers who noted that almost everything about U+C's actions bordered on illegal. At the very least, U+C couldn't demand payment for activity not considered to be infringement by the German courts. The backlash began there.

First, the court that had issued the 50 orders (covering thousands of IP addresses) revoked them after it became apparent that U+C had misrepresented RedTube's service. Then RedTube itself was granted an injunction forbidding U+C (and The Archive AG -- which apparently "owns" the copyright to the porn titles at the center of all this activity) from sending out further demand letters to its German users.

Now a Berlin law firm (MMR Müller Müller Rößner) has filed a criminal complaint against U+C, alleging fraud and blackmail. According to the firm, U+C payment demands were predicated on a false claim (that German RedTube users were liable for copyright infringement for viewing a streamed video). Under German law, nothing illegal had occurred, but U+C was obviously hoping ignorance of the law would net it some income from RedTube users. Roughly paraphrased (and even more roughly translated), the law firm accuses U+C of deploying a "grandson trick" -- a scam -- that preys on the gullible and ignorant, and leverages the underlying threat that their targets' porn-watching habits could be exposed if payment isn't prompt.

Additionally, the method that U+C used to obtain IP addresses still hasn't been adequately explained. Even if it did use a completely above-board method to harvest viewers' IP addresses, the way RedTube serves its streams makes proving who watched what video almost impossible.

Even more incredibly, U+C lawyer Thomas Urmann claimed earlier this month that it makes no difference if shady methods were used to obtain the IP addresses. According to him, it's "too late" to raise that objection seeing as the court had already ruled in U+C's favor by issuing the orders to release user data. Urmann is likely not feeling quite as confident now that the court has repealed its support and revoked the earlier orders, but it's still a bit discomfiting to hear a lawyer boldly claim that the ends justify the possibly illegal means.

Another law firm (Diehl & Partner) weighing in on U+C's misconduct wonders exactly what it plans to use as evidence should any of these cases go to court, considering the works under discussion were only streamed and not downloaded. Obviously, this question is almost entirely rhetorical. Demand letters sent on a massive scale are the business model, not the first step in a complex legal strategy. Here in the US, courts have become less and less willing to entertain copyright trolls' low-level extortion schemes. U+C's audacious (and possibly fraudulent) letter writing campaign will only hasten the development of an identical legal climate in Germany.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolls, extortion, fraud, germany
Companies: the archive ag, u+c, urmann + colleagues

Prenda Wants Another Judge Who Ruled Against Them Disqualified Because He Gave A Speech

from the same-old-bag-of-tricks dept

One of the many (weak) tricks in the big ol' Prenda "bag of tricks" is to accuse judges who rule against them of bias, and try to get them thrown off the case. It hasn't worked so far, but the Prenda spirit seems to be to never, ever, ever give up trying the same old bogus crap. So here we are with Paul Hansmeier trying to get magistrate judge Franklin Noel disqualified from the case in Minnesota where he's been a giant pain in the ass for Team Prenda, because he's been digging into their actions to determine if a bunch of Minnesota lawsuits were actually fraud on the court. Noel's been pretty careful and methodical, even as Team Prenda has done their usual tapdance. Remember, Judge Noel was the one who ordered them to show up in court with someone who could answer questions -- and Prenda failed to produce Mark Lutz (who, as far as I can tell, is still missing).

So what was Noel's big crime that should get him thrown off the case? Apparently it was giving a talk about copyright trolls and some of the details of Prenda to the Student Federal Bar Association at the University of Minnesota Law School (added bonus: Paul Hansmeier and John Steele are alumni of that school). They claim that the talk is a form of ex parte communication and shows that Judge Noel has "prejudged" them in part because the emailed description of the event mentioned Prenda's "bad behavior." Even as they admit that Noel probably didn't write the email, they say it's guilt by association.

They also claim that the emailed announcement contains details that Hansmeier insists were only filed under seal in the cases -- suggesting that Judge Noel may have revealed that information:

The e-mail further discloses information about the settlement demands in this case. Yet, Plaintiff’s settlement demands were filed under seal by order of the district court. The e-mail’s author appears to be in possession of non-public sealed information, which a reasonable person might conclude was furnished by the Magistrate Judge, even if it was not.

Of course, the information on settlement demands by Team Prenda can be found widely online. Hansmeier leaves that bit out, of course.

Hansmeier continues to flail wildly around, arguing that Judge Noel has clearly been reading blogs including those "created by individuals who have been caught infringing" because "many of his comments echoed criticisms" on those blogs. Of course, what Hansmeier leaves out is that those same criticisms have now been validated by multiple federal courts. It is not, in any way, out of turn for Judge Noel to make note of that. Later, Hansmeier argues that the cases have generated "notoriety" and uses the example that a letter he sent the judge "was the subject of an immediate feature story on several pirate websites." As far as I know, we here at Techdirt were actually the first to write about that letter. I know Ars Technica picked up on our story and wrote one as well. Neither of our sites are "pirate blogs." We're both media organizations that cover a variety of issues. Earlier in his filing, Hansmeier argued that these pirate blogs were all set up by people who had been accused of infringement. That's a blatantly false statement regarding us, and one hopes that Hansmeier will correct the record, though that seems unlikely.

Back to the issue at hand, it does seem a bit strange, and perhaps unwise, for a judge to give a talk about a case that is still ongoing. But whether or not it actually qualifies for being disqualified from the case seems like a stretch. But, it is the Prenda way: flail and flail and flail some more.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, disqualify, franklin noel, john steele, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law

Copyright Trolls Now Going After Random Bloggers Who Reposted Photos

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Apparently, the Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG), one of the earliest copyright trolling operations in the US, is really building up its copyright trolling photo business. Last year, we wrote about how CEG had gone after a Lindsay Lohan fan site because the young fan had posted some (you guessed it) photos of Lohan. And now it appears that it's ramping up the practice, as a number of sites have apparently received demands from CEG for $500 because they posted a random photo which they likely found via Google's image search. Yes, reposting photos in such a manner can be copyright infringement (though, quite frequently, there may be a very strong fair use defense -- but that's very context specific), but it really does seem quite scammy to go after clearly naive internet users, who are just trying to post a photo of a red pepper to go with a blog post about vegetables.

As noted by the Cashman Law Firm, this whole practice seems really icky. Yes, technically, the law may have been broken, but does anyone actually think that these users would have otherwise purchased the image? And is hitting the ordinary internet user who just wants to illustrate their blog post about red peppers with a federal lawsuit threat really seem proportionate?

On a personal note, hitting website users with a threat of a lawsuit over an image pulled from a Google image search is simply obscene. I would certainly understand such a letter if the image had a watermark pointing the user to a website where they can purchase rights to the photo without the watermark, or if there was a copyright mark on the image. Yet these photos have none of these, and they are literally trolling old websites and blogs looking for photos which were copied from other websites.

What makes this so obscene is that the photo copyright owners are asserting the same copyright infringement claims as do the copyright holders for the bittorrent cases we deal with daily. Along with the same copyright claims come the same shock of having the law provide statutory damages of $150,000 to the copyright holder who can prove the infringement. $150,000 for a movie download in my mind is an obscene and disproportionate punishment for the “crime” of downloading a copyrighted title. Even moreso for a photo. AND, even moreso for an unmarked and unwatermarked photo freely available on a Google image search.

And, in fact, it appears to be even worse, since that same blog post later indicates that at least some of the people being threatened had the images show up via third party RSS aggregators -- meaning they didn't post or host the image themselves. But, that's the kind of situation you get when copyright laws are completely screwy.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, photos
Companies: copyright enforcement group

Appeal Over Former RIAA Lobbyist Judge Allowing Prenda To Get Info On Over 1,000 John Does Moves Forward

from the doesn't-that-look-silly-now dept

You may recall Judge Beryl Howell, the former RIAA lobbyist who helped author the DMCA, and also went against a very large number of other judges dealing with copyright trolling lawsuits by ruling that it was perfectly fine to lump over 1,000 John Doe defendants into a single lawsuit and then get discovery on them for the purpose of shaking them down for payment. While so many other courts have ruled that such lumping together is an abuse of the legal system in misjoining unrelated parties, Howell not only stuck to her guns, but then proceeded to blame ISPs for copyright trolls, suggesting that if they just did more to crack down on infringing, trolls wouldn't be a problem.

What you may not remember is that the key case in which Howell did this happens to be a case involving... you guessed it... AF Holdings and its "law firm" Prenda Law. Oh, and the "copyright assignment" that AF Holdings is using for this case was one of those supposedly signed by... Alan Cooper. While Judge Howell may be well served to pay attention to Judge Otis Wright in California and his actual investigation into Prenda/AF Holdings/Alan Cooper, the case is out of her hands for now, as the various ISPs who have the info in this particular case have appealed Howell's ruling and the EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen and Public Knowledge have stepped in as well with additional arguments in an amicus brief.

Both briefs are well worth reading, though you might be surprised that the amicus brief is probably the more reserved of the two. The ISPs who took part include: Bright House, Cox, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast -- with most of them (Verizon and Comcast being the exceptions) not even providing service in the jurisdiction of the district court: Washington DC. Comcast joining in is interesting, given that they own NBC, but we'll leave that aside for now. To put it mildly, the ISPs think the appeals court should put an end to these kinds of cases, noting that a majority of other courts have refused to allow joinder on so many defendants, and have blocked the discovery process. It points out, of course, that these cases are almost never taken to court, but are usually just used to reveal names and then offer settlement demands. Specifically, they feel that Howell made a pretty big legal mistake, in that a showing of "good cause" is required for discovery, and Howell ignored that.

The district court’s conclusion that rules governing personal jurisdiction and venue provide no impediment to pre-Rule 26 discovery of the ISPs is legal error. A showing of “good cause,” which is required for discovery ostensibly intended to identify defendants, requires an evaluation of whether the information sought from the ISPs would be used to name and serve defendants in the forum. See, e.g., Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352-53 & n.17 (1978) (where “the purpose of a discovery request is to gather information for use in proceedings other than the pending suit, discovery properly is denied”). The Copyright Act and the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute limit the court’s reach to defendants who reside in the district. And the uncontroverted evidence before the district court showed that few, if any, of the targeted Internet subscribers reside in the District of Columbia—as publicly available geolocation software used by Plaintiff’s counsel in other cases confirms. The district court’s decision to defer any consideration of personal jurisdiction or venue until after the subscribers’ personal information had been disclosed to Plaintiff requires reversal.

The court’s decision to permit discovery of the ISPs before deciding whether the 1,000-plus “Does” are misjoined provides an additional basis for reversal. Plaintiff, by routinely declining to name and serve defendants after obtaining the subscribers’ personal information, virtually ensures that Rule 20’s requirements for joinder will go unaddressed if not evaluated at the outset. And as a growing majority of courts have concluded, deferring a ruling on joinder deprives the courts of filing fees and encourages a proliferation of improperly coercive lawsuits. Given the groundswell of published opinions that disagree with the lower court and have severed or dismissed non-resident “Does” or all Does except for “Doe No. 1,” deferring a ruling on joinder in a suit that seeks nationwide subscriber information also encourages forum shopping—as the record here shows persuasively.

The ISPs also, quite reasonably, point out that if mass joinder and discovery is allowed in this case, the trolls will descend on the DC Circuit courts in a mass forum shopping situation:

The record reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel’s cases have migrated across the country, with the venues selected, not by the locus of the parties or situs of harm, but based on counsel’s perceptions of which forum is most likely to authorize the greatest discovery, at the lowest cost, with the least judicial oversight.

The specter of intra-district, judge-specific shopping in Plaintiff’s counsel’s cases further underscores the problem with the lower court’s approach. The ISPs raised below Plaintiff’s counsel’s practice of filing complaints and dismissing them vel non based on the judicial assignment—only to re-file in another court. When presented with the same facts, Judge Wilkins quoted with approval Judge Huvelle’s finding: “Plaintiff’s actions a[re] akin to ‘judge shopping.’… This Court could not agree more.” ...

The ISPs respectfully submit that the district courts in this Circuit should not be the destination for 1,000-plus Doe cases that are brought primarily to compile mailing lists—not to adjudicate actual cases or controversies.

The ISPs also go through, in detail, the accusations against Team Prenda, and the claims of Alan Cooper. As it notes:

AF Holdings and its counsel owe a duty of candor to the Court, and a duty of fairness to appellants.... The serious issues concerning attorney misconduct and potentially forged documents were not identified for the court below; they necessarily affect the “good cause” analysis and provide an alternative basis for reversal to address the evidence now being considered in the pending disciplinary proceedings in the Central District of California.

The EFF/ACLU/PK/PC filing is more focused on the specific errors in Howell's ruling, concerning the "good faith" standard for discovery and the mass joinder of over 1,000 people. They also point out the jurisdiction problems of the defendants who are clearly outside the jurisdiction of a DC court -- and the fact that these cases rarely end up in actual lawsuits means that the question of proper venue will not be "cured" later. Finally, the brief argues that Howell ignored key First Amendment issues concerning revealing anonymous internet users, and the higher standard for them to be revealed. This argument wasn't made by the ISPs, so we'll focus on that one here. It points to the key Dendrite standard we've discussed many times before concerning the revealing of anonymous users. This does not mean that you cannot identify those accused of copyright infringement, but rather that you can't go on a random fishing expedition to get names, as many copyright trolls have done.

Specifically, in a series of cases beginning with Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 760-61, 342 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 2001), courts have adopted a balancing standard to assess requests for early discovery to identify anonymous online speakers that protects the right to speak anonymously while at the same time ensuring that plaintiffs who have valid claims are able to pursue them. Without such a standard, abusive plaintiffs could too easily use extrajudicial means against defendants from whom they could not, in the end, obtain judicial redress. See Levy, Litigating Civil Subpoenas to Identify Anonymous Internet Speakers, 37 Litigation No. 3 (Spring 2011).

The use of BitTorrent to select and share movies is expressive and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. Call of the Wild Movie, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 350 (“[F]ile-sharers are engaged in expressive activity, on some level, when they share files on BitTorrent, and their First Amendment rights must be considered before the Court allows the plaintiffs to override the putative defendants’ anonymity.”).

Although the expressive aspect of the conduct alleged here – the posting of copyrighted movies to BitTorrent – is somewhat minimal, that does not mean that discovery to identify the anonymous user without adequate initial evidence that individual Doe Defendants committed the alleged infringement. The weakness of AF Holdings’ assertions of personal jurisdiction and proper joinder means that First Amendment concerns weigh more strongly here in favor of quashing the subpoenas. Certainly it was not appropriate for the district court to ignore the question altogether.

It will be interesting not only to see how the appeals court deals with it... but also Prenda's argument, since they seem to be getting more and more wacky lately.

Filed Under: appeal, beryl howell, copyright trolls, discovery, joinder
Companies: aclu, af holdings, at&t, bright house, comcast, cox, eff, prenda, prenda law, public citizen, public knowledge, riaa, verizon