DailyDirt: Cheaters Sometimes Prosper...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you're going to commit a crime, there's a certain amount of logic to trying to pull off the biggest crime you can. Why risk going to jail over a relatively small amount of money? If you can get away with a multi-milion dollar heist, you only have to do it once (if you're not too greedy). And if you get caught, you might have the resources to escape the authorities. Here are just a few examples of some scams that might have demonstrated that crime can pay.

• In 2012, Italian police arrested 8 people related to a scheme involving $6 trillion (yes, trillion) in fake US Treasury bonds. According to US authorities, these kinds of documents are part of a growing trend of "fictitious instrument fraud" where fake securities are used as collateral in a scam aimed at unwitting investors. [url]
• How often do traders misplace a decimal point on purpose? David Miller would have made a killing buying 1.625 million shares of AAPL (instead of 1,625 shares!) if the stock beat its estimates, but Apple's shares actually fell... oops. [url]
• The London interbank offered rate (aka Libor) is a global benchmark for financial instruments worth over $300 trillion -- and it's part of one of the largest and longest-running banking scams in history. Traders at several large banks colluded to manipulate Libor for years... because bankers were trusted to report honest numbers. hmm. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: banking, cheaters, crime, fraud, libor, scams
Companies: apple

HP Wasn't Going To Let A Little Fraud Stand In The Way Of Acquiring Autonomy

from the what's-a-little-fraud dept

There’s a lot going on in the recent Wall Street Journal story about how Hewlett-Packard “missed a chance to back away” from its acquisition of Autonomy – which HP now thinks did a lot of revenue recognition fraud and on which it has taken zillions of dollars of writedowns – but this description of the board’s approval process for the deal is the only thing you really need to know:¹

HP directors and bankers calculated how much revenue Autonomy would have to add over 10 years to justify such a price. Autonomy’s trajectory alone wouldn’t get there. The deal required assuming more revenue growth as a result of the tie-up than HP usually assumed in acquisitions, said people familiar with the matter. But the directors believed they could make the numbers.

Those calculations were done without knowledge of the alleged fraud but who cares? Here is, roughly, HP’s thought process:

• The price that Autonomy demands is X²
• Autonomy’s DCF value is Y₁ based on expected revenue growth but no synergies
• Y₁ < X
• Well but the DCF value is Y₂ with regular-to-aggressive synergies
• Y₂ < X
• Well but … well we could make up another number Y₃
• Y₃ >= X
• LOOKS GOOD.

If you notice that current revenue numbers are made up, then that changes Y₁, but Y₁ isn’t an input into Y₃ – the actual value that HP put on Autonomy – because that number was also just made up. “Synergies” was just a plug to get the equation to balance. The bankers’ math in the board book to approve the deal was just there to be soothing – directors get twitchy³ if they can’t look at a football field slide while approving an acquisition – not to have an impact on the outcome. You can hypothesize that HP would have rejected the deal if it had known Autonomy’s true revenue situation, because then the valuation numbers wouldn’t work, but that is a silly hypothesis because even using fake⁴ revenues the valuation numbers didn’t work and it didn’t reject the deal.

That is too glib – off by a lot is worse than off by a little, and “oh you’re a massive fraud actually” is a great point to make in negotiating down the asking price – but I think it’s the right analysis. As Usha Rodrigues writes, “The die was cast on the Autonomy acquisition when the HP board picked Apotheker, a CEO ‘bent on a high impact acquisition.’” If you have a CEO who really wants to do a deal, and a deal he really wants to do, it’s hard to imagine that some accountant coming to him with some minor boring technical quibble like “all these revenues are fictitious” would cause any more trouble than – well, than some banker coming to him with some minor boring technical quibble like “the price you are paying is more than the discounted cash flow of this asset to you.” Shut up, nerds! We’re doing important CEO business here!

How should this make you feel about the social value of M&A? Sort of same as you always felt? Some deals are good and some are bad, and CEOs tend to like making acquisitions because they are optimists and doing acquisitions makes them feel like big shots, and boards should try to shut down acquisitions that are bad for shareholders, but sometimes they don’t because country clubs etc. Everyone knew that already; this anecdotal confirmation is pleasing but, after all, just anecdotal. I’m sure HP’s current CEO would never do an acquisition that might destroy shareholder value.

How should it make you feel about Dragon Systems? Dragon, you’ll remember, sold itself for stock to a company that turned out to be a giant fraud and whose stock turned out to be worthless; Dragon’s shareholders then went out and sued their ragtag team of junior investment bankers at Goldman for not noticing that the acquiror was a giant fraud. And one of those junior bankers testified that they did a “great job” for Dragon, insofar as “We guided them to a completed transaction.” This got them made fun of a lot, here and elsewhere, but you get the sense Apotheker would approve. Dragon’s, and HP’s, bankers saw themselves as service providers, providing a particular narrow service – roughly, transaction execution – and leaving other services (auditing, fraud detection) to other providers, or no one, as the case may be. It was clear – to the bankers, and HP, though perhaps not to Dragon – who was in charge of the deal, and it sure wasn’t the bankers.

One popular and reasonably promising path to medium-term success as an investment banker is to tell clients what they want to hear. This is good because then clients will find you pleasant to be around; it’s also good because what they want to hear is frequently “oh yeah you should totally do this transaction that involves paying investment banking fees.” So there’s a synergy there. CEOs, after all, tend to (1) want to do stuff, (2) want to do big stuff, and (3) have a high degree of confidence in their ability to make investing decisions. If those decisions are systematically biased toward destroying shareholder value … well, I mean, we just work here, y’know?

Also, the Journal had an article about the flood of stock buybacks analysts expect this year.

Inside HP’s Missed Chance To Avoid a Disastrous Deal [WSJ]

1. Though you should read the rest because it is pretty entertaining? Like this is good:

HP became aware that bloggers and some financial analysts had claimed in the past that Autonomy was aggressive in its accounting. HP asked Autonomy’s [CEO] Mr. Lynch about how his firm recognized revenue, receiving answers and documents that allayed concern, said HP General Counsel John Schultz.

Bloggers! That happened right after the acquisition agreement was signed, as did this: “[HP board chairman Ray] Lane spoke to senior HP executives and found a near-universal view that their CEO wasn’t right for the job.” Imagine being a board chairman and sidling up to like the CFO and saying “hey, everything good with this Apotheker dude?” and the CFO saying “no he’s horrible you have to fire him.” And you’re like, hmm, that’s discouraging. And you check in with the COO and hear the same thing. And then you ask everyone and get “a near-universal view that their CEO wasn’t right for the job.” Never mind the big acquisition you just signed. “Gee, you know that information really would’ve been more useful to me YESTERDAY,” you might find yourself thinking.

2. Which we’ll take as a given: it’s a 50% premium to market price, which “wasn’t unusual for a software deal.”

3. For “twitchy” read “sued.” Imagine that the rest of this footnote discusses the negative effects of Smith v. Van Gorkom on, like, life, and its positive effects on investment banking M&A advisory revenues.

4. This footnote runs the global “allegedly” macro. I have no idea. Lynch remains adamant that there was no monkey business at Autonomy.

Other posts from Dealbreaker:

• Morgan Stanley Finalizes Its Entry In The “Who Said The Worst Things About Its Own Products?” Competition
• Hedge Fund Manager Will Get Chance to Fulfill Dream of Spending Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Badly
• Bank Investors Push For Change Via Strongly Worded Poll Responses

Filed Under: fraud, mergers
Companies: autonomy, hp

DailyDirt: Bad Science Is Coming to Get Us

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Scientific publishing has been a lucrative industry in recent years, even though scientists have faced increasing competition over limited funding. The publish-or-perish academic model may be contributing to an increase in scientific fraud, but maybe the increased accessibility of digital journals is simply making it easier for honest mistakes to be caught. The scientific method is supposed to weed out incorrect conclusions, but there may be a lot of wasted effort as scientists try to replicate experiments that are just completely fictitious. It gets harder and harder to make decisions based on evidence -- if there is growing uncertainty that any evidence can be trusted....

• The number of retractions from scientific journals has increased tenfold over the past decade. But it's not clear how much is misconduct and how much is honest scientific mistake... [url]
• Data detective Uri Simonsohn has published his statistical methods for exposing the suspicious data of social psychologists. Lies, damn lies and statistics... but at least statistics can be used to ferret out the lies. [url]
• Apparently, the UK is notorious for its bad science journalism. We're talking "labvertisements" -- industry/product-funded science stories about (possibly fake) studies conducted by questionable scientists with dubious methods. But at least they're honest about it and take their research with a huge grain of salt. The US just re-packages many of these reports as serious news. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: academia, data, fraud, mistakes, publishing, retractions, science, statistics

Paul Ceglia's Case For 50% Of Facebook Falls Apart Soon After He's Arrested For Fraud

from the yeah,-that's-not-going-to-go-well dept

For a few years now, we've covered the situation with Paul Ceglia, a guy who once hired a young Mark Zuckerberg to do some programming work for him, claiming that Zuckerberg did a deal to provide half of Facebook to Ceglia. The details were a little weird, but Ceglia was able to bring on some high powered lawyers, the types who usually don't take on bogus cases. Of course, then that law firm eventually looked at the details and dropped him. In fact, it seemed like he had trouble keeping lawyers. Facebook grew progressively more aggressive in arguing outright fraud and presented ever increasing evidence that the whole thing was a complete sham.

While the case was clearly flopping, the last week has not been a good one for Ceglia. Late last week he was arrested by the feds for the supposed fraud in the case, and if that wasn't enough to deal with, his case against Facebook & Zuckerberg looks to be (unsurprisingly) closer to falling apart completely after the court has decided that the extremely damning evidence of fraud can be discussed in the case.

Filed Under: fraud, paul ceglia, scams
Companies: facebook

FTC Declares Rachel From Cardholder Services 'Enemy Number 1'; Files Complaints Against Five Scammy Robocollers

from the always-in-arizona-and-florida dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that the FTC was offering up $50,000 to anyone who could help stop "Rachel from cardholder services" robocalls. It appears they don't really need that much help, as the agency has filed complaints against five such operations based in Arizona and Florida (why is it that so many scammy operations seem to be based in Florida and Arizona?). FTC boss Jon Leibowitz overstates his organization's infatuation with robocalls:

“At the FTC, Rachel from Cardholder Services is public enemy number one,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re cracking down on illegal robocalls by bringing law enforcement actions and pursuing technical solutions to the problem.”

Of course, I think that it's important not to get confused about what the real problem is here. While robocalls are both annoying and illegal, the real problem isn't the calling, but the scams behind the calls. They're basically trying to get people to fork over money for services that are never actually delivered.

In the robocall cases announced today, the FTC alleges that the defendants place automated calls to consumers, typically with a prerecorded message from “Rachel” or someone else from “Cardholder Services.” The calls purport to have an “important message” regarding an opportunity to reduce high credit card interest rates. Consumers are urged to “press 1” to connect with a live representative, or “press 2” to discontinue getting such calls. Consumers who press 1 are connected to live telemarketers. Most consumers have no way to screen the calls using Caller ID, as the incoming number allegedly is often “spoofed,” or displayed as a false number. In many cases, the name displayed on the Caller ID is so generic, such as “Card Services,” that it provides little information about who is calling.

According to the FTC, consumers who reach a live telemarketer are then pitched allegedly deceptive offers to have their credit card interest rates substantially reduced, sometimes to as low as 6.9 or even zero percent. The telemarketers allegedly guarantee that lowering card interest rates will save the consumers thousands of dollars in finance charges in a short period of time and will allow them to pay off the balances more quickly. Some telemarketers allegedly claim that consumers will save at least $2,500 in finance charges and will be able to pay off their balances two to three times faster, without increasing their monthly payments.

In some cases, according to the FTC, the telemarketers claim to be calling from the consumer’s credit card company. In other cases, they use “Cardholder Services” to suggest a relationship with a bank or credit card company. If the consumer expresses an interest in the rate reduction offer, the telemarketer sometimes conducts a purported “audit” to determine whether the consumer qualifies. Consumers provide their financial and personal information, and are then put on hold while the “audit” is completed. According to the FTC, the “audit” typically is used only to determine whether consumers have enough credit available on their credit cards to pay the company’s fee.

The charges filed against the operations include both charges for making false claims and also for violating telemarketing laws, but it seems that the false claims/fraud stuff is the much bigger deal. Instead, however, the FTC seems to focus the publicity aspect on its "fight against robocalls." I realize that may generate publicity, but isn't the fraud aspect the bigger deal?

Filed Under: fraud, ftc, rachel from cardholder services, robocalls

Anti-Islam Movie Actor Sues Producers, YouTube To Have Film Removed

from the cat's-outta-the-bag dept

Not long after I had written my opinion that YouTube should absolutely not censor the disgusing anti-Islam movie that has inflamed oft-flammable parts of this rock we all live on together, interesting news began filtering into the bloodstream. Actors in "Innocence of Muslims" began accusing its producers of misleading them about the roles they played, dubbing dialogue over their performances, and other bizzare tactics that had supposedly been used to keep those in the film from knowing what the end product was going to look like.

[Lily] Dionne was one of about 79 cast and crew who say they were "grossly misled" when they answered casting calls on Craigslist, Backstage magazine and other publications in July 2011 for a film that was described as "an historical Arabian Desert adventure."

But from the beginning, Dionne said the cast and crew had questions, including why the central character in a period piece had a Western name.

"We did wonder what it was about. They kept saying George. And we were like, 'This is the Middle East 2,000 years ago. Who's George?'" she said.

According to Dionne, the actors were then brought back after shooting to do the dubs, but the producers had them speak isolated lines and words, completely out of context. For instance, they were asked to simply say the name "Mohammed" and nothing else, with no explanation as to why. 79 cast and crew members have since released a statement claiming they were taken advantage of.

Now, one actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, has gone a step further and sued the man who produced the film, as well as YouTube, to, among other things, get the film taken down.

In a 17-page complaint filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the lawsuit from Cindy Lee Garcia also names YouTube LLC, the video-sharing website on which the video is posted, and its parent company, Google Inc., as causing irreparable harm to Ms. Garcia for refusing to remove the content from their site.

"The lawsuit is not an attack on the First Amendment or the right of Americans to say what they think," but it demands the content be pulled off because "Ms. Garcia in no way consented to the use of her performance, image or likeness in such an offensive and file film," Garcia's attorney, M. Cris Armenta, said in a statement.

A couple of things strike me here, so I'll take them in order. First, I'm unaware of how a film's director could be sued for slander (another aspect (pdf) of Garcia's lawsuit) because of the way he/she decides to portray the actors in their films. Slander should be out the window, since Garcia and the others were playing fictional roles, and so are not portrayed to be anything at all beyond the characters they were playing. Could Kevin Bacon sue Sleepers director Barry Levinson because the result of post-production for the film made his character look just a tad too child-rapey? The privacy violation and likeness rights violation in the suit seem equally ridiculous. She consented to be in a film! It's understandable why she's upset, but if that's allowed, imagine how many actors would start suing every time a film edit is a disaster and makes them look bad.

As for the "fraud" claim, that may be the strongest of a bunch of very weak claims. You could make the case that the various elements of fraud are present, but almost every one of them is a stretch.

In any case, today the judge refused to order an emergency takedown of the video—though the lawsuits will move ahead.

Even if there is a civil suit to be had here, targeting YouTube and requesting they take the film down has all the hallmarks of a head-in-the-sand approach (beyond raising questions of secondary liability). The cat is not only out of the bag at this point, it's protesting at its local US Embassy. The damage is done. I can certainly understand* the distress actors feel over the worldwide reaction to a film they probably thought would never be seen, but that doesn't mean the film has to come down. Google, thus far, agrees, and has refused to remove the video beyond censoring it in certain countries.

*One caveat: the trailer for this film was released in May. Where the hell were all these outraged actors back then? Why is it only now the film has made the news that they are releasing statements, speaking out, and filing lawsuits? Did none of these actors bother to view the movie they were in before the mainstream media picked this up?

Filed Under: fraud, innocence of muslims, lawsuit, privacy, publicity rights, secondary liability
Companies: youtube

Big Banks Finally Punishing Employees For Fraud... Like The Call Center Guy Who Used A Fake Dime 50 Years Ago

from the rules-are-rules? dept

Wells Fargo, of course, was one of a bunch of the big banks heavily involved in questionable activities that brought the world to the precarious economic conditions we're still living in today. Just a few weeks ago, the company settled charges that it had misled cities and non-profits when selling them risky securities without disclosing the risks. The company gets a slap on the wrist -- without having to admit guilt -- and one executive (again without admitting guilt) gets a six month suspension. Have you heard about any top execs at any of the banks getting fired for financial malfeasance? No? Well, perhaps it's because they're focusing on the real trouble makers. Like Richard Eggers. 49 years ago, Eggers, as a teenager, tried to stick a cardboard cutout of a dime into a washing machine. He didn't get away with it at the time, and was arrested for fraud. He somehow put his life back together and, until recently, was a phone customer service agent for Wells Fargo.

And now he's really paying the piper: Wells Fargo has just fired him for the decades-old incident that, again, involved a dime. Even accounting for inflation, we're talking about a dime. However, thanks to supposedly "tough" new regulations concerning financial institutions, barring them from employing execs convicted of fraud, Wells Fargo is claiming that it had to fire Eggers.

“We don’t have discretion to grant exceptions in situations like this. Once we find out someone has a criminal history of dishonesty or breach of trust we can no longer employ them.”

Eggers has responded by filing a civil rights complaint against the company and federal regulators. He and his lawyers are hoping to turn it into a class action lawsuit, as apparently a number of other employees at banks have lost their jobs under these rules. Actual execs responsible for the financial crisis? Not so much.

This is yet another case where laws like this must "sound good at the time" to the policy makers putting them together without any sense of who it will really impact. And the end result is that we sure are making Mr. Eggers "pay" for that dime stunt in 1963, huh?

Filed Under: banks, firing, fraud, regulations, richard eggers, scams
Companies: wells fargo

DOJ Gives Up On Arguing That Violating Your Employer's Computer Use Policy Is Criminal Hacking

from the about-time dept

For a few years now, we'd been noting serious problems with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which was supposed to be about "criminal hacking" of computers. That's the theory, at least. Except that various prosecutors had defined it so broadly that they felt basically anything people did that violated a computer use policy or terms of use policy could make you a criminal hacker. It's why prosecutors went after Lori Drew for supposedly "violating" MySpace's terms of service. There was nothing else they could pin on her, so they twisted the law. Of course, that also creates great power for anyone who creates a terms of service agreement, as it makes it easy to turn your users into criminals.

Early last year, we wrote about a very troubling CFAA ruling, which effectively found that if you do anything on a work computer that your employer doesn't like, you're a criminal for violating the CFAA. Yes, by failing to abide by your employer's broad "computer use policy" you could be charged with a being a criminal hacker under the CFAA. That's what happened to David Nosal. He had accessed some information from his employer's computer system -- which he was authorized to access. He wanted to use that info because he was going to a competitor. That's obviously questionable on the ethics scale, but computer hacking? Hardly. Except that the district court thought it was.

Thankfully, earlier this year the 9th Circuit appeals court reversed the ruling, with Judge Kozinski noting that it makes little sense to interpret a statute in a manner that turns "ordinary citizens into criminals."

A few weeks ago, the DOJ (who seemed to love these kinds of cases) seemed to realize that perhaps it was silly to keep arguing against Nosal here, and admitted that it wouldn't ask the Supreme Court to hear the case on appeal, meaning the 9th Circuit ruling stands. While it's good that the DOJ apparently realized that pursuing this any further was a bad idea, it's still ridiculous that it went forward with this theory in the first place, and argued it all the way through the initial appeal. Either way, while Kozinski's ruling is only binding on the 9th Circuit, hopefully other courts will pay attention to the reasoning behind it.

Filed Under: cfaa, computer use policy, doj, fraud, hacking, terms of use

DailyDirt: Fooling Some Of The People Some Of The Time...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There's a sucker born every minute -- if you like to believe unverifiable statistics. Usually, if it's too good to be true, it ain't true. But as technology gets better, sometimes it's hard to distinguish sufficiently advanced algorithms from magic. Here are a few scams that successfully fooled some folks for a while.

• A stock-picking robot named Marl convinced thousands of investors that it could identify penny stocks that were about to soar in price. The SEC is looking to impose a fine and force the creators of Marl to repay their duped investors... but with claims on a website like: "The longer Marl is allowed to run on a computer … The More Advanced He Becomes!" How could anyone go wrong? [url]
• Penn and Teller don't usually do pranks, but when it comes to tricking Nobel prize laureate, Arno Penzias, they apparently make exceptions. Creating a fake computer with voice recognition in the late 1980s fooled this brilliant physicist, but nowadays Apple's Siri is in TV ads all the time doing nearly the same routine. [url]
• Baron Wolfgang von Kempelen built a mechanical chess-playing machine (shaped like a Turk...) that gained widespread fame in 1769. This mechanical turk was actually controlled by a hidden human being, but only a few hundred years later, we actually could build a chess playing robot with grandmaster skills. [url]
• To discover more interesting AI-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: chess, fraud, marl, nobel prize, penn and teller, sec, siri, statistics

Lawsuit Against US Copyright Group For Fraud & Extortion Moves Forward

from the conduct-is-actionable,-it-seems dept

US Copyright Group was the first of the US-based copyright trolls, suing thousands of individuals in a single lawsuit, trying to get them to pay up (rather than going through an actual trial). US Copyright Group is really a front for a DC law firm, Dunlapp, Grubb & Weaver. One of its very first "big" lawsuits was against about 5,000 people for supposedly partaking in the sharing of Uwe Boll's Far Cry. Of course, as we had noted, there was a pretty big problem in the Far Cry lawsuit, in that the US copyright registration was filed too late for many of the accusations of infringement.

Partly on the basis of the registration problems, Dmitriy Shirokov (with the law firm Booth Sweet) sued US Copyright Group, DGW and its key lawyers for fraud, extortion and conspiracy back in 2010. DGW shot back angrily, claiming that it's perfectly fine for for lawyers to lie to the court, if it's part of the course of litigation:

"Although an attorney may be accused of defrauding opposing parties, knowingly committing discovery abuses, lying to the court, or purposely and maliciously defaming another individual, if it takes place during the course of litigation, the conduct simply is not actionable,"

Of course, the threats and extortion weren't actually "during the course of litigation." DGW also claimed that there was no "harm" for Shirokov, because he didn't settle, and thus hadn't paid up. DGW then went even further, asking for sanctions against Shirokov and Booth Sweet, claiming that it was actually them who were filing lawsuits for "improper purpose."

The court has now ruled in response to DGW's motion to dismiss, and it seems pretty clear that the judge is not impressed by DGW at all. The motion to dismiss was rejected and the class action lawsuit against the company moves forward.

Judge Boal recommended that the motion for dismissal be denied in significant part. The defendants had argued that Mr. Shirokov was not entitled to sue them at all, since he wised up before paying their demands, and his claimed injuries were out-of-pocket costs of investigating the threats. They claimed that the Noerr-Pennington privilege, an antitrust doctrine, prevented any liability. And they argued that lawyers and their clients have absolute immunity for even intentional torts, or in DGW’s words: “although an attorney may be accused of defrauding opposing parties, knowingly committing discovery abuses, lying to the court, or purposely and maliciously defaming another individual, if it takes place during the course of litigation, the conduct simply is not actionable.” Just think about that one for a minute.

Judge Boal thoroughly debunked each of those claims. The fees Mr. Shirokov incurred in investigating the trumped-up copyright claims constitute an injury-in-fact that gives him standing to sue. The Massachusetts litigation privilege does not apply to threats of litigation that are not seriously contemplated in good faith. And the Noerr-Pennington antitrust doctrine did not apply outside of antitrust law, and even the First Amendment right to petition isn’t an absolute protection for litigation threats.

It's important to note that, in this case, it's the specific issue of the non-registered copyrights that is key. That is, the lawsuit isn't about the general practice of copyright trolling -- but the fact that it was done using claims and demands that were not true (e.g., the statutory damages if found guilty of sharing, even though such statutory damages were not available for a work that hadn't been registered).

Along those lines, the court didn't completely side with Shirokov, saying that some of the racketeering and fraud charges should be dismissed. But, large parts of the lawsuit survive and will move forward -- which doesn't seem like a good thing for DGW or US Copyright Group. Perhaps, next time, they'll check the copyright registration before filing suit.

Filed Under: copyright, dmitriy shirokov, fraud, registration, thomas dunlap, trolls, uwe boll
Companies: booth sweet, dunlap grubb & weaver, us copyright group