IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions

from the copyright-trolling-smackdown dept

It looks as if Judge Otis Wright is about done humoring Brett Gibbs and Prenda Law/AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13 LLC's continued legal asshattery. In a lengthy order that reads more like a smackdown, Wright attacks Gibb's abuse of the legal system and thoroughly dismantles his so-called "business model."

First, Wright takes on the evidence Prenda Law presents, consisting of a "snapshot" of possible infringement in progress. He points out that a time-coded screenshot hardly makes the case that actual infringement occurred.

This snapshot allegedly shows that the Defendants were downloading the copyrighted work—at least at that moment in time. But downloading a large file like a video takes time; and depending on a user’s Internet-connection speed, it may take a long time. In fact, it may take so long that the user may have terminated the download. The user may have also terminated the download for other reasons. To allege copyright infringement based on an IP snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it. No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence...

And as part of its prima facie copyright claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants copied the copyrighted work. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). If a download was not completed, Plaintiff’s lawsuit may be deemed frivolous. In this case, Plaintiff’s reliance on snapshot evidence to establish its copyright infringement claims is misplaced. A reasonable investigation should include evidence showing that Defendants downloaded the entire copyrighted work—or at least a usable portion of a copyrighted work. Plaintiff has none of this—no evidence that Defendants completed their download, and no evidence that what they downloaded is a substantially similar copy of the copyrighted work. Thus, Plaintiff’s attorney violated Rule 11(b)(3) for filing a pleading that lacks factual foundation.

TorrentLawyer summarizes Wright's opening salvo as laying down two rules via case law, ones that will adversely affect copyright trolling in California, and which could affect proceedings elsewhere:

RULE 1. IN ORDER TO SUE A DEFENDANT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MUST PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT DOWNLOADED THE ENTIRE COPYRIGHTED VIDEO.

RULE 2. A “SNAPSHOT OBSERVATION” OF AN IP ADDRESS ENGAGED IN DOWNLOADING AT THAT MOMENT IS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

This sort of lawsuit has almost always relied on little more than a snapshot and an IP address as "evidence," the latter of which has been shot down by multiple courts for its inability to correctly identify alleged infringers. Now, Wright is throwing out Gibb's precious bundle of snapshots as well.

Wright tackles the IP address issue next, under a heading titled "Lack of reasonable investigation of actual infringer's identity." He points to earlier explanations by the plaintiffs as to how they arrived at the identity of the alleged infringer and picks apart their "methodology." Here's Ingenuity 13 LLC's explanation of their deductive process.

Though the subscriber, David Wagar, remained silent, Plaintiff’s investigation of his household established that Benjamin Wagar was the likely infringer of Plaintiff’s copyright. As such, Plaintiff mailed its Amended Complaint to the Court naming Benjamin Wagar as the Defendant in this action. (ECF No. 14, at 2.)...

In cases where the subscriber remains silent, Plaintiff conducts investigations to determine the likelihood that the subscriber, or someone in his or her household, was the actual infringer. . . . For example, if the subscriber is 75 years old, or the subscriber is female, it is statistically quite unlikely that the subscriber was the infringer. In such cases, Plaintiff performs an investigation into the subscriber’s household to determine if there is a likely infringer of Plaintiff’s copyright. . . . Plaintiff bases its choices regarding whom to name as the infringer on factual analysis. (ECF No. 15, at 24.)

"Factual analysis?" Really? Wright calls it for what it is.

The Court interprets this to mean: if the subscriber is 75 years old or female, then Plaintiff looks to see if there is a pubescent male in the house; and if so, he is named as the defendant. Plaintiff’s “factual analysis” cannot be characterized as anything more than a hunch.

Wright gives Ingenuity 13 LLC several suggestions on how to narrow this list of suspects down, including "wardriving" to check whether the WiFi connection in question is open, whether several downloads have occurred at the same IP address, or just a good old-fashioned stakeout.

Such an investigation may not be perfect, but it narrows down the possible infringers and is better than the Plaintiff’s current investigation, which the Court finds involves nothing more than blindly picking a male resident from a subscriber’s home.

This sentence is damning enough, but the followup is the killer:

But this type of investigation requires time and effort, something that would destroy Plaintiff’s business model.

Wright notes the difference between criminal and civil suits that rely on IP addresses for identification. In criminal proceedings, the court usually can rely on the fact that an actual investigation has taken place prior to the charges being brought. In a civil case, the court has no such guarantee, but that doesn't mean the judicial system has to entertain these claims.

[W]hen viewed with a court’s duty to serve the public interest, a plaintiff cannot be given free rein to sue anyone they wish—the plaintiff has to actually show facts supporting its allegations.

Back to TorrentLawyer with another addition to California federal court case law and another blow to trolling-as-business-model.

RULE 3. BEFORE SUING A DEFENDANT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MUST DO A “REASONABLE INVESTIGATION” TO DETERMINE THAT IT WAS THE NAMED DEFENDANT WHO DID THE DOWNLOAD, AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE WITH ACCESS TO HIS INTERNET CONNECTION.

All in all, this smackdown is going to make copyright trolling in California a rather unprofitable venture. Expect to see some venue-shifting in the future. Unfortunately for Ingenuity 13 LLC, it's already entrenched in a losing battle, and it's going to get even worse. Wright also had some choice words for Brett Gibbs' misconduct. Two allegations stem from his failure to comply with the Court's orders to cease discovery. Gibbs first told the court the plaintiffs had not obtained any information about the subscribers in question, before later regaling the court with tales of its efforts to obtain the forbidden information when responding to Orders to Show Cause.

The third allegation is more serious, alleging fraud on the court. This circles back to the mysterious "Alan Cooper."

Upon review of papers filed by attorney Morgan E. Pietz, the Court perceives that Plaintiff may have defrauded the Court. (ECF No. 23.) At the center of this issue is the identity of a person named Alan Cooper and the validity of the underlying copyright assignments. If it is true that Alan Cooper’s identity was misappropriated and the underlying copyright assignments were improperly executed using his identity, then Plaintiff faces a few problems.

First, with an invalid assignment, Plaintiff has no standing in these cases. Second, by bringing these cases, Plaintiff’s conduct can be considered vexatious, as these cases were filed for a facially improper purpose. And third, the Court will not idle while Plaintiff defrauds this institution.

Wright then orders Gibbs to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for this misconduct, while declining to extend the sanctions to AF Holding and Ingenuity LLC -- based on Gibbs' "fiduciary interest" in the plaintiffs and the likelihood that the plaintiffs are "devoid of assets."

Wright gets in a little dig at the still-nonexistent Alan Cooper:

If Mr. Gibbs or Mr. Pietz so desire, they each may file by February 19, 2013, a brief discussing this matter. The Court will also welcome the appearance of Alan Cooper—to either confirm or refute the fraud allegations.

Things were already looking pretty grim for Brett Gibbs, but the worst may still be on the very near horizon:

Based on the evidence presented at the March 11, 2013 hearing, the Court will consider whether sanctions are appropriate, and if so, determine the proper punishment. This may include a monetary fine, incarceration, or other sanctions sufficient to deter future misconduct. Failure by Mr. Gibbs to appear will result in the automatic imposition of sanctions along with the immediate issuance of a bench warrant for contempt.

What started out for Gibbs and co. as a route to easy money has morphed into possible jail time and a complete undermining of the "business model" Prenda Law, AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 LLC hoped would make them, if not actual millionaires, at least slightly richer. And so another chapter of the Gibbs/AF Holdings/Prenda Law saga concludes, leaving us with the sort of cliffhanger that only those whose names haven't been listed above will enjoy seeing played to its conclusion.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, copyright, evidence, hunches, ip address, prenda, snapshot, subscribers
Companies: af holdings, prenda law

'Defendant' In Prenda Law Case Reveals He Agreed To Take A Dive

from the incredible dept

Back in December, we wrote about one of Prenda Law's latest tricks (or, rather, a whole bag of tricks) involving using shell companies (who appear to be controlled by Prenda itself, where the CEO may have been faked via identity fraud) to file cases against a single "named" defendant who settles quickly... but part of that "settlement" is that the "defendant" agrees to allow discovery of a long list of "co-conspirators." Prenda argues that those co-conspirators cannot fight back against discovery, because they're not "defendants." And, thus, Prenda gets a big list of names/contact info of more people to shake down.

As we noted, there was some suspicion that the "named" defendants and their lawyers were somehow in on the deal -- and the judge in at least one case flat out asked Prenda's John Steele, and the defendant's lawyer Adam Urbanczyk, if they "were in bed together" to come up with such a settlement. At the time, we pointed out that it was still a big leap to assume that, but now there's a bit more evidence. In one of these cases, involving the likely-Prenda-shell-company Guava, one of the named defendants, Spencer Merkel, has filed an incredible affidavit in which he admits that Prenda had offered him a "settlement" in which he would be "named" in a lawsuit and agree to cough up his BitTorrent log files. And Prenda provided him with the lawyer who would then represent him thousands of miles from his home.

Michael offered me a settlement deal. The deal consisted of the following parts:

a. I would agree to be sued.

b. Prenda would ask for, and I would provide, a copy of the bit-torrent log from my computer. The excuse for gathering this log is that it would corroborate the IP address evidence that they had already gathered through the use of Prenda's sottware.

c. Prenda would, upon receipt of the information, dismiss the case against me.

4. In discussion of the settlement, Michael stated that he did not know of any pro bono attorneys in Oregon, but could provide the name of an attorney who might take my case in Minnesota. Because I cannot afford to pay an attorney, I agreed to be sued in the state of Minnesota. I then retained my attorney, Trina Morrison, based on the information provided to me by Prenda Law.

Now, throughout all of this, he believed that Prenda was representing Hard Drive Productions, one of the porn companies that Prenda used to represent, but whose cases they dropped entirely not too long ago to focus solely on these questionable shell companies they claim to be "representing."

5. Before the start of this case, I had not heard of Guava LLC. I believed that I would be sued by Hard Drive Productions, Inc. I believe that Guava LLC's case against me is based on my admission to Michael that I downloaded the video at issue in the Hard Drive Productions case.

6. Before the case against me was filed, I had not heard of Alpha Law Firm. I believed that opposing counsel was Prenda Law.

7. Afier subpoenas were served in the case against me, I learned of Guava LLC's and Prenda Law's practice of finding one John Doc to be a named defendant, and then discovering the names of and requesting settlement money from other John Does by issuing subpoenas to ISPs.

Oh, and it gets worse. After all of this... Prenda went after him again, which seems to be why he's now willing to speak out about the "deal."

8. Last week, on 01/15/13, I was once again contacted by Prenda Law Firm. I received a voice mail from someone on behalf of Prenda Law stating that I needed to make payment arrangements or I would be sued.

At the very least this raises very serious questions about the conduct of Prenda Law and some of the lawyers who represented these named defendants. Given that Prenda is already dealing with serious questions in multiple courts about possible fraudulent activity, finding out that they may have effectively blackmailed a defendant into taking a dive, for the purpose of "agreeing" to discovery to find another batch of people to go after, can't look good.

Filed Under: discovery, john steele, prenda, settlements, spencer merkel
Companies: guava, prenda, prenda law

Prenda Law Accused Of Fraud On The Court In Defending Itself Against Claims Of Fraud On The Court

from the this-is-just-getting-silly dept

Prenda Law, the copyright trolling law firm that was accused by a judge of committing "fraud on the court," has now been accused of committing more fraud on the court in its very attempt to fight the original claim of fraud on the court. Yes, they're being accused of fraud on the court to cover up their original fraud on the court. Grab some popcorn, because this one keeps getting more and more entertaining.

As a bit of background, we've been writing a number of stories lately about the copyright trolling law firm, Prenda Law, and some of its nuttier actions in a variety of cases. However, the case that still tops them all is the one from Florida that had the Abbott-and-Costello worthy hearing, involving bumbling lawyers all trying to disassociate themselves from the case, and the mysterious appearance of John Steele, one of the folks behind Prenda Law, who has been told not to practice law in Florida, in which he was clearly orchestrating things, and the judge called him on it. The lawyer for the defendant in that case, Graham Syfert made the case why Steele and Prenda Law deserved sanctions for its actions, but Prenda's actions just haven't stopped.

The firm hired a Florida-based law firm that specializes in dealing with "white collar crime" to defend itself, and then filed some declarations for some of the parties, including one Daniel Weber. Weber is the husband of Sunny Leone, and an executive at SunLust Pictures, the company that officially filed the original trolling lawsuit. As came out in the hearing, no one actually representing SunLust was in the court that day. There were lawyers hired by Prenda who wanted nothing to do with the case. There was a letter from Prenda "sole partner" Paul Duffy insisting that Prenda had nothing to do with the case, and there was John Steele -- who also denied having anything to do with the case, other than being generally interested. The "official" representative of the company was Mark Lutz, who had worked for Prenda, but who the judge eventually got to reveal was not actually a representative of SunLust in any way, shape or form. He was just hired to sit there and pretend to be a representative of the company.

So... Weber files a declaration that tries to explain why he couldn't be in court that day, claiming that he and his wife were in India filming a movie (which is what Steele had suggested in court). The only problem, as uncovered by the site Fight Copyright Trolls, was that Weber's own Twitter feed showed that he was very much in the country that day. It also showed that Weber misspelled his own name on the filing, writing it Webber. A new affidavit was quickly filed after this was called out, in which he claimed to "clarify" his earlier statement, arguing that he had originally "been scheduled" to be in India on that date, but had changed plans due to an "emergency surgery" on his dog. Again, FCT showed some Twitter evidence that suggested this wasn't true, and that Weber had made earlier statements showing he had no intention of being in India until early December (and that he and his wife had other travel plans around the US during this time, which they took, suggesting the "sick dog" excuse, even if true, wouldn't explain why he was unable to attend).

Now, following all that, Syfert has filed an incredible new motion for sanctions against John Steele, going even further in suggesting dirty tricks as it relates to the Weber affidavit. In other words, Syfert is suggesting that, in defending the charges of "fraud on the court," Steele is committing another fraud on the court. In the filing, Syfert claims that Weber's affidavit was not actually from Weber at all, but was actually created by John Steele himself. The filing notes a number of issues discussed above, as well as some other questionable things, including the timing of the execution and faxing of the document based on statements and corresponding tweets.

The Declaration of Daniel Webber was an attempted fraud on the Court, explaining his absence from the hearing first by distance in India, but no mention of a city, and somehow misspelling his own name or signing without reviewing a single word. The current amended exhibit, the Affidavit of Daniel Weber ... is another fraud on the Court by claiming an emergency dog surgery during the November 27th hearing, such surgery having occurred at least three days prior to the hearing, according to public statements. Also according to those public statements, Daniel Weber was recording a new album with his rock band on November 27th, 2012 and a behind the scenes video was recorded.

Although a correction has been issued to the Declaration of Daniel Webber, such correction would have not been made, and fraud would have continued, if not for the actions of Defendant. The amended Affidavit states that Mr. Weber was "unexpectedly in Los Angeles" due to a dog surgery on the date of the hearing, but evidence from his twitter account shows that he was in Los Angeles on the 23rd of November, and so Mr. Weber had at least four days to expect that he was in Los Angeles on the date of the hearing. Defendant should not be forced to continuously be a gatekeeper of the correct spelling of the name of Plaintiff's principals or the truth of statements made in this court under penalty of perjury.

The filing is full of more examples of questionable statements or behavior from Steele with relation to the case. For example, in Steele's affidavit, he explains why he was speaking to Lutz, but Syfert notes that this argument makes absolutely no sense given the context and other statements in the filing:

Paragraph twenty of Steele's affidavit states that he drove with Mark Lutz to Tampa to observe the hearing before this court, but paragraph twenty-one states that in the middle of the court proceeding, he felt the need to reassure his existence to Mark Lutz... Although they had spent four hours in a car together, found a parking spot together, went through security together, rode up in the elevator together, and entered the courtroom together, John Steele asks this court to believe that he suddenly felt compelled to notify Mr. Lutz, "Hey, I'm here." as if Mr. Lutz was worried about John Steele suddenly abandoning him in Tampa, or turning invisible like a superhero.

The courtroom was entirely empty other than court staff, Mr. Lutz, Mr. Steele, Mr. Syfert, and the Defendant. Mr. Steele was the only person present in the gallery of this court. Mr. Steele was present when the Court took the bench, and before any proceedings. Mr. Steele did not relieve himself of the Court, and then re-enter- nor did he perform any other disappearing act until after the Court dismissed the case. Common sense states that Mr. Steele should have no desire or need to reassure Mr. Lutz of his existence within the courtroom in the middle of a proceeding. Mr. Steele, being an attorney practicing before the federal courts of the various states, should have known that it was improper for him to speak up in the middle of a proceeding. It is less likely that he was reassuring Mr. Lutz and it is much more likely that Mr. Steele was trying to explain to the struggling Lutz his role as a 1099 contractor who is available to be appointed for Prenda Law clients, or to inform him what attorney was hired.

Then there's this slip up by Brett Gibbs, a lawyer for Prenda in California, who we've been writing about in connection to some of the Prenda California cases. As you may recall from the original hearing, the lawyer, Jonathan Torres, who Prenda had hired to handle the case, but who was desperately trying to get out of it, told the court that his only communication had been with Gibbs. Syfert notes that despite Steele claiming to have nothing to do with the case, in Gibbs' own affidavit to the court, he includes the email he sent to Torres which also shows who he bcc'd (which Torres never would have seen). Guess who's there?

Attorney Torres testified at the hearing that his only communication had been with Brett Gibbs.... John Steele has always denied any involvement in this case other than driving with Mr. Lutz to the hearing.

In the Affidavit of Brett Gibbs, he includes e-mail communication between Gibbs and Torres regarding Prenda’s great interest in having Mr. Torres file another bar complaint against Graham Syfert for his actions in this case.... Gibbs blind carbon copies two e-mail addresses in his communication, so that Mr. Torres would not know that they were being sent to those particular individuals. He blind carbon copies jlsteele@6881forensics.com (John Steele, Illinois attorney, subject of this motion) and prhansmeier@6881forensics.com (Paul Hansmeier, Minnesota attorney (also licensed State of Illinois, Minnesota and others), former partner of John Steele))....

John Steele and Peter Hansmeier were supposed to have sold all their interest in Prenda Law, Inc. to Paul Duffy and Joseph Perea when Prenda Law, Inc. purchased Steele|Hansmeier, PLLC. Also compelling and interesting is the fact that Paul Duffy, the man who sits where the buck is supposed to stop at Prenda Law, is unquestionably absent from inclusion in the correspondence between Gibbs and Torres.....

Who Gibbs chose to include on such an e-mail should be explanatory as to where final decisions rest as well as the true management of the many faces of the current Prenda Law. Not Mr. Duffy, Illinois Principal. Not Mr. Wasinger, Florida Plaintiff's counsel. Not Mr. Lutz, a Corporate Representative"for hire." Not Mr. Weber or Ms. Leone. Now that Perea is out of Prenda Law, Paul Duffy is really the only person who should have an interest in what is going on between Torres and Gibbs. Instead, we find Mr. Steele included.... For the level of involvement claimed by Mr. Steele, the urging of Torres to file a bar complaint against Graham Syfert is unnaturally Mr. Steele's concern. The use of the bcc, or blind carbon copy, ensured that Mr. Torres would not have record of Mr. Steele's or Mr. Hansmeier's involvement in the communication.

It would appear this legal soap opera is far from over. Stay tuned...

Filed Under: copyright trolls, daniel webber, daniel weber, graham syfert, john steele, mark lutz, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law, sunlust

Prenda Law Tries To Dismiss Case After Being Accused Of Directly Violating Judge's Orders

from the these-guys-again? dept

We've been covering a number of stories about copyright trolling law firm Prenda Law lately, and each time, we're somewhat amazed at their really brazen attempts to abuse the court process to basically get information which they can then use to pressure people into paying Prenda not to be sued over copyright infringement. Some of the more amazing cases we've highlighted include the one in Florida where the judge accused Prenda of fraud on the court after a court hearing that was worthy of a comedic movie. And then there's the ongoing questions about the mysterious Alan Cooper who may or may not be Prenda founder, John Steele's, housekeeper, rather than an actual executive running a firm that Prenda is representing. Oh, and let's not forget Prenda's big bag of tricks in another set of cases. Basically, every time Prenda Law / John Steele pop up, it's not long before serious questions follow.

So... here we go again. The site DieTrollDie has the story of a Prenda case in Colorado against one William Cisa and "1385 "joint tortfeasors." Basically, Prenda is trying to get information on 1,386 people... from whom they will then demand settlements. Unfortunately, the judge in that case initially allowed "discovery" to go forward, allowing Prenda to get some info on all of those people. Eventually, the magistrate judge realized that something sketchy was going on and reversed the order on discovery and killed the outstanding subpoenas to ISPs for info. The magistrate judge, Kathleen Tafoya, also made it clear to Prenda not to contact anyone whose info it had received:

Insofar as any personal identifying information of the non-party “joint tortfeasors” has already been provided to Plaintiff from the “joint tortfeasors’” ISPs, Plaintiff is prohibited from further communicating with these subscribers.

Sounds good... except that the anonymous person behind DieTrollDie noticed that a lawyer hired by Prenda, Timothy Anderson, had been filing lawsuits for Prenda in Virginia -- including some against the people associated with the IP addresses uncovered in the Cisa case. And, remember, the CO court made it clear that Prenda is prohibited from communicating with those people... and yet it's filing lawsuits.

The person behind DTD sent an email to the court alerting it to this likely violation of Judge Tafoya's order... and soon after that Anderson sought to dismiss the Cisa case entirely, without bothering to respond to the claims of violating the order. Whether or not the judge decides to do something about this, I imagine that the judges in the cases in Virginia may be informed about the background here...

Filed Under: copyright trolls, john steele, prenda, tim anderson, william cisa
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Prenda Law Accused Of Trying To Start Over Again Under A New Name

from the when-your-name-becomes-toxic... dept

We've written a few times about Prenda Law and John Steele lately -- including some of the trouble that Prenda is running into for doing things like being accused of fraud on the court after a crazy hearing in which Prenda denied being associated with the case, despite hiring lawyers and having John Steele present (while trying to deny any role). And then, of course, there are the still open questions about whether or not Prenda set up a shell company by signing, as CEO, the name of a guy who John Steele hired to take care of some property.

For those who have been following these cases, you know that Prenda Law was actually John Steele's "new" firm, after his previous firm Steele Hansmeier was dissolved. Of course, that happened soon after a judge told Steele to stop filing copyright trolling lawsuits.

Given the increasing hot water that Prenda looks to be in, along with the fact that lawyers in other Prenda cases across the country are now alerting judges to Prenda's questionable behavior, the site FightCopyrightTrolls is suggesting that Steele and his crew of copyright trolling lawyers are trying to set up yet another new firm, called the Anti-Piracy Law Group. The evidence is compelling. The group has put up a website at "wefightpiracy.org" -- quite similar to Prenda's existing "wefightpiracy.com." And, that new page, in the fine print, admits that it's Prenda. It also includes a page of sample cases that are Prenda cases -- including the now infamous Tuan Nguyen in Florida, which resulted in that "fraud on the court" issue. FightCopyrightTrolls notes that this new "Anti Piracy Law Group" is already sending out "settlement" letters, using the same address as Prenda Law. Once again, watching Steele and his friends do what they do, you get the feeling that they think they're smarter than everyone else, and one step ahead of everyone else. Given the events of the last few months, it seems that he's getting closer and closer to being informed that his theory is incorrect.

Filed Under: copyright troll, john steele, prenda
Companies: anti-piracy law group, prenda, prenda law