Voltage Pictures Continues To Use Its High Profile Films To Copyright Troll

from the sad dept

Voltage Pictures is the movie studio which famously kicked off the process of copyright trolling by "suing" thousands of people who, it claimed, had illegally downloaded its Oscar-winning movie, Hurt Locker, via Bittorrent, and whose producer, Nicolas Chartier, said that anyone who thought this was a bad plan was a moron and a thief. It recently did the same thing in Canada, and apparently can't resist still suing fans. The latest is a new lawsuit filed against 31 anonymous people for supposedly using Bittorrent to get Dallas Buyers Club, an Oscar-nominated film from the same studio. This lawsuit at least seems a bit more targeted, in that it tried to make sure the targeted IPs were actually in the jurisdiction of the court, unlike in the Hurt Locker case. These attempts at lumping a bunch of individuals for a single lawsuit has run into trouble in many (though not all) courts. Still, as a way of making sure that a lot of people will simply avoid any Voltage movie, it seems like an effective strategy. It seems like a reasonable rule to not support any company that sues its fans.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, dallas buyers club, joinder, nicolas chartier
Companies: voltage pictures

Copyright Troll Perfect 10 Loses Once Again, Setting More Good Precedents For Copyright Law

from the keep-it-up dept

We've written about Perfect 10 a number of times. The company, which claims to be a publisher of pornographic magazines has really been a copyright troll for much of its life, as was outlined in one response to one of its many, many lawsuits -- all of which it seems to lose in the end. Perfect 10 has actually become something of a wonder, filing case after case after case -- and losing pretty much all of them, but often setting really useful precedents along the way concerning the contours and outlines of copyright and the DMCA along the way. It appears to have done so again.

In 2011, we wrote about Perfect 10's decision to sue Usenet provider Giganews, and once again, Perfect 10 has received quite the judicial smackdown from a judge who is clearly not at all impressed by Perfect 10 and its owner, Norman Zada. There are some procedural issues here, as the ruling is on Perfect 10's motion for summary judgment (which fails in every way), but the judge notes various ridiculous procedural mistakes by Perfect 10, including trying to block declarations that were filed properly -- while also noting that Zada's own declaration is almost certainly not admissible as "some of Zada's statements are tantamount to expert testimony that Zada is not qualified to give." Sloppy lawyering does not make a judge happy. But getting to the meat of the case, and Perfect 10 loses on, well, everything.

Perfect 10 argued that Giganews didn't have a valid repeat infringer policy as required by the DMCA to obtain safe harbor protections. But the judge points out that's just wrong. First, Giganews clearly does have a repeat infringer policy. Perfect 10, however, appeared to argue that it wasn't a "reasonable" policy because it doesn't delete all messages from a user, just the ones claimed to be infringing. The judge notes that's not the law.

Giganews acknowledges that it removes only the specifically-identified infringing messages posted by a repeat infringer, and not all of the messages ever posted by a repeat infringer. The Court is not persuaded that § 512(i)(1)(A) requires a service provider to disable or delete all messages a repeat infringer has ever posted. By its terms, the section requires “termination . . . of subscribers and account holders,” not the deletion of messages. In addition, by Plaintiff’s reading, § 512(i)(1)(A) would require a service provider to take down all of a user’s messages, not just the infringing ones. Because deleting noninfringing messages does not serve any infringement-preventing purpose, there is no justification for reading such a requirement into the statute. In short, the Court will not read into the statute a requirement that its plain language does not support and that goes far beyond stopping and deterring copyright infringement.

Then, Perfect 10 argued that because only 46 "repeat infringers" had their accounts terminated, despite removing 531 million messages that were claimed to be infringing, it shows the policy is not adequate. The judge isn't buying it, noting that this "conclusion is not compelled by the evidence," which is further explained later, once you realize that many of the messages removed are just via other usenet providers, so not even direct users of Giganews (meaning there's no way for them to remove those users anyway). Perfect 10 also tries to argue that since Giganews can't identify all of the users (because many are not actually from Giganews), that shows the policy is inadequate. Thankfully, the judge appears to realize that this is a function of usenet itself, and isn't Giganews' specific issue:

However, that a Usenet service provider cannot identify all users whose messages reside on its servers appears to be a function of how the entire Usenet works. According to Giganews, all Usenet service providers encrypt the data that identifies the user who posted a message; this encrypted data is reflected in a part of the message header called the X-trace field. Only the Usenet service provider with whom an account is registered can decrypt the X-trace field it has attached to a message posted by that user. Many of the messages hosted on Giganews servers are posted through accounts registered with other Usenet providers. Because Giganews cannot decrypt the X-trace field on such messages, it cannot link such messages to any specific users, and thus cannot apply its repeat infringer termination policy to such users.

It's nice to see judges understand at least a little basic technology.

The judge also takes issue with the way that Perfect 10 sends its DMCA "notices." We've seen this multiples times before. In other cases, companies have highlighted that Perfect 10 seems to delight in sending notices that make it nearly impossible to actually find and takedown the content, meaning that they're not valid DMCA notices. For example, in the case against Google, Perfect 10 sent Google image files, without actually sending links to where those images were, or one what searches they were appearing. Basically: here are the images, block them. But that's not how the DMCA takedown process works. It's almost as if Perfect 10 tries to make it hard for sites to take down content it claims is infringing so that it can sue (hmm....). The judge here is not impressed, as it appears that Perfect 10 also tried to make things complex for Giganews:

At this point, a description of Plaintiff’s Notices is in order. Plaintiff’s Notices instruct Giganews to use certain newsreaders to conduct searches of specific names within certain newsgroups, and then tell Giganews that all of the messages yielded by those searches on a certain date contained infringing material. Along with (verbose) written instructions for performing these searches, Plaintiff’s Notices include pages of thumbnail images of the infringing materials and/or screen shots of the newsreader interface reflecting the search results. Plaintiff contends that this satisfies § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) because the search results and thumbnails both “identify” the infringing messages and also provide sufficient information to permit Giganews to “locate” those messages.

Giganews, in turn, points out that this isn't nearly enough information to find and disable those messages. It points out, quite reasonably, that it needs message-IDs for each message. The court agrees, pointing out that the caselaw is pretty clear here -- even citing a previous Perfect 10 case. The judge goes through a lengthy description of just how difficult it would be for Giganews to actually comply with Perfect 10's requests, given that they're presented in a nearly impossible to follow manner. Perfect 10 tried to argue that because Giganews did still remove some messages this way that it shows it can do it, but the court isn't buying it -- in fact, suggesting that Giganews actually went above and beyond what is required by the law.

Giganews has presented substantial evidence of the untenable burden it would face if every DMCA notice it received required it to undertake the Message- ID extraction process Plaintiff expects of it. That Giganews evidently chose to undertake this process for two of Plaintiff’s Notices does not necessarily mean that those Notices satisfy § 512(c)(3)(A); it may mean that Giganews went beyond its duty.

Basically, it's yet another complete loss for Perfect 10, who still seems to keep filing these lawsuits because some companies (you know who you are) actually decide to settle and pay up, rather than push back against this bit of trolling.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, dmca, norman zada, usenet
Companies: giganews, perfect 10

Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone

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

For all the attention that Prenda has received this past year or so as being at the extreme crazy end of copyright trolling, many have argued that Malibu Media is just as bad, if not worse. While the porn company has hit some snags with its lawsuits, such as getting sanctioned for the infamous Exhibit C, which was an incredibly sleazy attempt to intimidate people into paying up, the company appears to have shook off that loss and just continued suing as many people as possible. Dave Maass is pointing out that in just 2013, the company has filed more than 1,100 lawsuits. Think about that. We're talking about around 3 lawsuits per day by this one company. If you ever needed proof that the company is focused on using abuse of our judicial system as a key piece of its business model, that seems like fairly compelling evidence.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, lawsuits
Companies: malibu media, xart

RedTube Smacks Down German Copyright Troll For Attempting To 'Blackmail' Its Viewers

from the barely-legal-trolls-stripped-bare-and-humiliated! dept

German copyright troll U+C (Urmann and Colleagues) recently upped its trolling game by sending out settlement letters to German Redtube viewers who had the misfortune of watching some rather generically-titled porn under its nominal control. U+C's previous trolling efforts had concentrated on P2P file sharing, so this new move, targeted at viewers of supposedly infringing streams raised several questions.

First and foremost: how did U+C acquire the names and addresses of those who had viewed the streams? Streaming viewers don't leave IP addresses exposed like P2P sharers do. Redtube denied turning over any user data. The theory arose that U+C had misled the courts by presenting Youtube as a "swap meet," i.e., a file sharing site. Obviously, Redtube is not in the business of file sharing and under German law, those viewing streams -- even if the streams themselves are infringing -- cannot be held liable for infringement. The other theory mooted was that U+C was utilizing some sort of malware to trap IP addresses, but no evidence has surfaced that this is the case. (Although, it should be pointed out that Google indicates Redtube "might be hacked.")

A few German lawyers stepped into the fray, offering their assistance and telling those served with letters to ignore them until further notice. Now, Redtube itself has weighed in on the matter via a press release, and it sounds thoroughly irritated by U+C's shady activities.

RedTube, the leading provider of adult content with 25 million daily users, refutes the matter in which thousands of RedTube users have received so-called "cease and desist letters". RedTube stands by its firm opinion that these letters are completely unfounded and that they violate the rights of those who received it in a very serious manner.

RedTube reaffirms its position that the Company takes all its customers personal data very seriously and applies the highest privacy standards for its visitors on an on-going basis.

The Company goes on to emphasize that RedTube certainly did not submit any personal data to any law firm or any authority or entity, and that it seems very likely that the data was obtained by using dishonest measures.

"Serious allegations have surfaced in the media recently," stated Vice President Alex Taylor, "rest assured that our counsel received an immediate mandate to pursue all necessary actions to make all related entities accountable for the damage that has been caused." Taylor continued, "In 2013, blackmailing and violating the privacy of German citizens' private domain should not and will not be tolerated."

Redtube would like to reach out to its viewers who have received one of the spamming letters, and ask they get in touch with Redtube immediately. If you have received one of these letters, please let us know by contacting us at media@redtube.com.

So, Redtube's got your back, Einhänders. It remains to be seen what the court U+C misled will do once this information makes its way back to it. It may have very little effect on what's already been done, but it will (hopefully) guide its interactions with U+C in the future. In the meantime, those who have been sent letters asking them to pay up are probably safe just running them through the shredder. There doesn't seem to be any German law under which U+C can hold viewers accountable for streaming allegedly infringing material.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, germany, trolling
Companies: redtube

German Copyright Troll Sends Thousands Of Shady Demand Letters To Users Of Streaming Porn Site, Redtube

from the this-again? dept

Online porn is big business, perhaps not so much for pornographers as it is for copyright trolls and anxious government entities. Urmann and Colleagues (U+C), a German copyright troll, is continuing the settlement letter tactics it began last year. The difference this time is that rather than pursuing downloaders via torrent tracking and threatening to out them as porn watchers if they don't pay up, U+C is now targeting viewers who have streamed allegedly infringing content from porn aggregator Redtube.

Tens of thousands of German internet users have been sent threatening letters by a law firm apparently acting on behalf of a rights-holder, on the basis that they watched copyrighted material on the pornographic video-streaming site Redtube.

The letters, issued by law firm U + C on behalf of Swiss firm The Archive AG, demand €250 ($344) per watched clip. The films in question include titles such as “Hot Stories” and “Amanda’s Secrets.”

According to the source article, a Cologne-based lawyer estimates that, based on the number of calls he alone has received, U+C has targeted 20,000-30,000 viewers.

There are multiple problems with what's going on here. First of all, The Archive AG is itself a "copyright protection" company, meaning it's acting on behalf of the porn producers through U+C, rather than producing the porn. Beyond that, the titles listed in the letters (Miriam's Adventures, Amanda's Secret, Dream Trip, Hot Stories) show up in searches only a) as part of articles detailing U+C's actions or b) as the unrelated names of websites and blogs. If this porn exists other than on Redtube, it's not easily located on the web.

Furthermore, U+C offers no proof that these titles were uploaded to Redtube without permission. On top of that, there's plenty of legal questions surrounding the supposed illegality of viewing infringing streams, especially since users are never fully in possession of the infringing content. Even if they were in possession of the video (however temporarily), German law allows for "private copying" without legal penalty.

Then there's the question of how U+C obtained IP addresses. Data on streaming viewers isn't as easy to obtain as it is with torrent services.

As for how the viewers’ IP addresses were identified, that also remains a mystery for now. The itGuards “Gladii” software mentioned in court records is reportedly only designed for monitoring file-sharing networks. File-sharing is easier to monitor in this sense, as IP addresses are there for the harvesting unless the user deploys a VPN or proxy.

Some have suggested that users were targeted with malware that harvested their IP addresses. If so, this would be a new low for a particularly obnoxious facet of the copyright industry.

According to the source article, U+C apparently misrepresented Redtube as a file sharing site ("swap meet" in the original article) in order to obtain court orders demanding the release of subscriber IP addresses.

What this looks like is Prenda-type tactics. Misrepresentation to the court. Possible honeypot deployment (the porn titles seem to be nonexistent). Shakedown letters sent en masse. And, going one step further than the most infamous of porn copyright trolls, the possible deployment of malware to track IP addresses. (Google currently indicates that Redtube "might be hacked.")

With the ownership of the disputed clips almost impossible to verify and U+C's tactics crossing the line from "shady" to "possibly illegal," lawyers in Germany are advising recipients of the demand letters to ignore them for the time being and by no means encourage U+C by paying the legally dubious fee. Of course, it will probably take more than this to discourage U+C. Settlement letters are generally issued on the same principle as mass mailing: a 1% response rate is more than enough to cover the expenses incurred.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, germany, streaming
Companies: porn, the archive ag, u+c, urmann and colleagues

Copyright Troll Malibu Media Sanctioned For Bogus Copyright Abuse & Intimidation Tactic

from the there-goes-another-one dept

For the last few months, I'd been meaning to write some more about Malibu Media, a major copyright troll who we've mentioned a few times in the past. Some have been arguing that (believe it or not), the company is even worse than Prenda. Of course, with so much other stuff going on, I haven't had as much time to dig in, but the company just got hit with some sanctions. A few months back, people realized that one of Malibu Media's tactics was to send a now infamous "Exhibit C" court filing to the subscribers they were accusing of infringing on their copyrights. The problem? The movies in Exhibit C -- which tended to be hard core porn films -- had no connection to Malibu Media. They didn't hold the copyright on them at all, and certainly had no standing to sue over them. Basically, Malibu would file this list of other movies the person may or may not have been sharing, with really offensive names, knowing that if the names became public it would likely be quite embarrassing for the recipients of the threat letters. It seemed pretty clear that the idea was to intimidate people into paying up. EFF summed up the situation a few months ago:

Malibu Media, which runs the site "x-art," files civil complaints in courts around the country. Each complaint accuses an anonymous Internet user of illegally downloading and sharing one or more of Malibu's movies. But the complaint goes further: Malibu attaches a list of other movies and files that Malibu accuses the user of copying illegally. Some of them have titles that are far more lewd and embarrassing than the titles of Malibu's own movies. But Malibu doesn't own the copyright in those other movies, and can't actually sue over them. There's no legitimate reason to attach that list of other titles to a complaint, because complaints in federal court are not the place for laying out evidence. They're just to initiate a case and let the other side know what the case is about. But adding some really embarrassing titles to a complaint and filing it on a public court docket ups the embarrassment factor and discourages innocent people from standing up for themselves in court. (It's not clear what those extra titles would add to a court case, anyway - most judges would bar them from being read to a jury.)

A court became suspicious of this, and ordered Malibu Media to explain. The company's main lawyer in these cases, Keith Lipscomb, was then quoted in a ridiculous filing in which he swore up and down that he had no intention to intimidate people with that bogus list at all. He was just... um... making his "case stronger." Yeah, that's the ticket...

It goes on to claim that Exhibit C, which (again) does not involve anything that Malibu Media holds a copyright on, and which they have no right to sue over, is part of the "breadcrumbs" that help solve the "whodunit." How, you might ask? Well, Malibu Media claims that all of the other non-Malibu Media content that they attach to the lawsuit helps establish who really did the file sharing, because that other content might just include other things associated with that person.

Of course, even if that's true (and it's incredibly weak as arguments go), it doesn't matter, because you don't file that kind of thing with the initial case. It's (at best) evidence that is presented during the actual case itself, not with the initial complaint. EFF thankfully jumped in and filed an amicus brief highlighting just how ridiculous Malibu Media's explanation was:

This is nonsensical. Complaints are pleadings, not affidavits, so they have no “evidentiary purpose.” Complaints are to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” .... Here, in each case, plaintiff is explicitly disavowing any claim based on Exhibit C. If it were to matter, under what rule of evidence would Exhibit C be relevant at any stage of this lawsuit? Propensity evidence is forbidden by F.R. Ev. 404(b)(1). Plaintiff makes no claim that Exhibit C is relevant under Rule 404(b)(2), and if it did, then the weighing process of Rule 403 would militate forcefully toward excluding this evidence. So what’s really going on here?

Even a cursory review of each lawsuit’s Exhibit C shows first, that it is always much, much longer than the short list of titles that is the actual subject of plaintiff’s lawsuit, and second, that among the innocuous titles listed in each Exhibit C (e.g., “Top Gear,” “Star Trek VI”) are numerous “adult” programs, usually many more than the handful for which plaintiff is claiming a copyright violation, and many with titles exponentially more lewd than any title claimed by plaintiff. Compare “Red Satin” with “[Bestiality] Young Blonde . . . Dog (www.sickporn.in).” One needn’t be a cynic to suppose that an intended purpose–perhaps the primary purpose–of Exhibit C to the complaint in each of these lawsuits is to increase the pressure on a subsequently identified Doe defendant to settle before s/he is publicly linked to hardcore/deviant titles that are completely irrelevant to plaintiff’s actual claims in the lawsuit.

Thankfully, the judge has now agreed and issued sanctions. The opinion more or less adopts exactly the points made in the EFF's filing. Judge William Conley also shreds Malibu's explanation for the filing, pointing out how each argument Malibu made makes no sense and could have been accomplished in other ways that don't lead to "extorting unreasonable settlements." As the Judge says:

Nothing is gained by filing this document publicly in unredacted form, except to harass and embarrass defendants into early settlements

Later in the filing, after eviscerating all of the reasons Malibu presented, the judge notes that the silly statements of both Malibu and its lawyer that there was no "ill intent" here don't even pass the laugh test.

Malibu Media's denials do not pass the smell test, and any denial of improper motive by its counsel does not pass the laugh test. For the reasons described above, there exists no good basis upon which a reasonable attorney -- subject to the ethical rules and restrictions of Rule 11 -- could conclude that attachment of Exhibit C to a complaint "for evidentiary purposes only" served any legitimate purpose at that stage of litigation.

Later, the judge acknowledges that copyright trolling cases "already give off an air of extortion" and uses that to claim that making that situation even worse with things like Exhibit C makes the whole effort sanctionable. Unfortunately, the judge then limits the sanctions to just $200 per case (there are 11 related cases) for a total of $2,200, and then actually lets the cases move forward (they had been stayed while this issue was resolved). It's at least something, and shows yet another dirty trick from a copyright troll, and how Rule 11 sanctions can be used against such activities -- but it's hardly a game changer. Since it seems likely that they've used Exhibit C elsewhere, however, it seems likely this will come up again.

However, given some of the other things that Malibu Media has been accused of doing recently, you have to wonder if Malibu and Lipscomb are on their way down the Righthaven/Prenda trail of more and more courts realizing what they're up to.

Filed Under: copyright troll, exhibit c, intimidation, keith lipscomb, rule 11 sanctions, sanctions
Companies: eff, malibu media

Copyright Troll Malibu Media Seeking 'Six Strikes' Info From Verizon In Lawsuit

from the but-of-course dept

One of the many complaints about the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS) in the US is the fact that while it doesn't directly lead to litigation, there is nothing in the agreement that prevents copyright holders from seeking out and using information from the six strikes system in copyright infringement lawsuits. And, surprise surprise, it appears that at least one copyright trolling operation has jumped to the front of the line in testing this out. Malibu Media, who was already building up quite the reputation as a copyright troll (not quite Prenda-like, but still up there), is trying to get Verizon to cough up a ton of information, including details from its six strikes system.

As TorrentFreak notes, the list of information demanded via subpoena has been culled down to the following:

• DMCA notices and if applicable six strike notices sent to the applicable subscribers.
• Defendants’ bandwidth usage.
• Information about the (reliability of the) correlation of the IP-Address to the subscriber for purposes of use at trial.
• Content viewed by Defendants to the extent the content is the same show or movie that Plaintiff learned from third-party BitTorrent scanning companies that Defendants also used BitTorrent to download and distribute.

So far, Verizon (who has been one of the better companies in resisting copyright trolls) is objecting to handing over the information and has so far refused to do so, arguing that it does not wish to help "shakedown tactics" by copyright trolls. Malibu is now trying to have the court compel Verizon to cough up the info. Given that we'll likely see more of this, how the court responds should be worth following.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright alert system, copyright troll, information, lawsuits, six strikes
Companies: malibu media, verizon

Pure Scamming Copyright Troll Implies It's A Gov't Agency And That You Will Face Jail Time If You Don't Pay Up

from the wow dept

We've seen some pretty brazen copyright trolling efforts lately, but this latest one may be the most extreme. FightCopyrightTrolls has the story of the "Internet Copyright Law Enforcement Agency," which has some features like a normal copyright troll, and some that go way, way beyond trolling to out and out fraud. I will note, however, that as I was writing this article, it appears that whoever is behind this bit of fraud has apparently decided to run away. The ICLEA website now states:

Important Notice

Effective immediately, the Internet Copyright Law Enforcement Agency has ceased operations. Please disregard any notices you received from us, and please do not send us any payments.

Here's what the website looks like as I type this: And here's what it looked like a few hours ago: But, let's explore just a bit of what they were doing before FCT exposed them. First off, by both the name and the terminology they clearly were implying to people that they were a government agency rather than a private company. The name itself -- incorporating both "law enforcement" and "agency" implied as much. They used a seal that one might incorrectly interpret to be a law enforcement shield. They also were using a virtual office space based in Washington DC, not far from many federal buildings. Originally, their website claimed that they were

... an international organization that helps to enforce copyright laws on the internet worldwide by informing potential copyright law violators regarding the serious possible criminal and/or civil liability they may face, and providing them with an opportunity to help them comply with copyright laws.

In the letters they sent out, they went even further, claiming:

We work with law enforcement agencies and strategic partners around the world to enforce copyright laws, and to help prosecute individuals and companies who violate these laws.

Also, the letter repeatedly suggests that individuals may face criminal charges for merely downloading a song. The letter (which we've reproduced below) does correctly call out the section of copyright law that highlights criminal penalties, but conveniently leaves out the part that defines what qualifies for criminal enforcement. Oh, and the fact that a private bogus company pretending to be a government agency can't bring criminal charges.

Like all trolls, they demand payment to "avoid further action from being taken against you." From a quick search online, it appears that a bunch of people started receiving these letters in the last week or so, with varying amounts being demanded (generally between $300 and $500, it appears), and with payment being required by March 1st. One hopes that no one actually paid up, though it's likely that some did.

Again, the full letter is below, and even with the company claiming that it has now "ceased operations," some questions remain. It's not at all clear who was behind this. The letters come from a "David Walsh," though it's anybody's guess as to the person's real name. The office, again, was a virtual office, so the person behind this could be anywhere. What's not clear is how they got the information about specific downloads which it could use to accuse people. There are a few different theories floating around, but until there's more proof one way or the other, it remains pure speculation.

Either way, it seems pretty clear that this has gone beyond your everyday copyright troll. While they often go pretty close to the line of "extortion," they can at least claim some marginal legitimacy by actually representing copyright holders. With the ICLEA, that doesn't appear to be true at all. They're misrepresenting who they are, and demanding cash to avoid possible incarceration (which they can't do). It seems like that likely violates all sorts of laws having to do with fraud and extortion. So, whoever is behind this, while they may have chosen to misrepresent criminal copyright law, they might want to spend some time familiarizing themselves with criminal law in other contexts.

Of course, while the DOJ and ICE keep claiming that they're so focused on "criminal" copyright issues these days, one wonders if they'll spend any time or effort to go after the folks behind this actual scam. Or, do they only go after sites that Hollywood doesn't like?

Either way, we've posted the text of one of the letters below to show just how over the top the claims were.

Filed Under: copyright troll, extortion, fraud, scam
Companies: internet copyright law enforcement agency

Prenda Tries Yet Another Loophole; But Entirely Plagiarizes Someone Else's Failed Attempt

from the not-particularly-shocking dept

Prenda Law seems to be the gift that keeps on giving if you're writing about absolutely ridiculous attempts at copyright trolling. If 2012 was the year of Righthaven as the representative of brazen, hubristic, bullshit copyright trolling getting its due, 2013 looks to be the year of John Steele / Prenda Law (or whatever he's calling it these days). It is clearly going above and beyond what Righthaven only dreamed about. The latest is that Prenda has sought out yet another questionable loophole in trying to force ISPs to hand over subscriber info without having to first go to court. It's using a misreading of a Pennsylvania state law to do so (it's tried a similar move under a Florida state law, which flopped). However, as the good folks at FightCopyrightTrolls have noticed, the argument it's using in Pennsyvania has failed in the past as well. And not just that the general argument has failed but the specific, word-for-word argument. That's because Prenda or its local-lawyer-for-hire, Isaac Slepner, appears to have copied word for word (and stylistically too!) a filing for Liberty Media (represented by Jordan Rushie), and simply slapping the Prenda shell company Guava's name at the top. Rushie confirmed with FCT that he had nothing whatsoever to do with this new filing.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not quite the same thing -- and there have been discussions of whether or not you can really infringe on copying a legal filing (it happens often enough, though usually in snippets, rather than wholesale). Not that anyone took Steele's claims of "protecting" copyright seriously, but it really says something when the law firm billing itself as protecting against piracy chooses to copy top to bottom someone else's legal filing. Check out both filings below.

Filed Under: copyright troll, john steele, jordan rushie, pennsylvania, plagiarism
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Prenda Law Fails In Attempt To Remove Judge Who Wants To Know Who Alan Cooper Is

from the i-think-the-courts-are-on-to-prenda... dept

Remember Brett Gibbs? The California-based lawyer, who is handling a bunch of Prenda Law cases, has been trying to avoid the inevitable in some cases in California. As you may recall, Prenda Law was formed, in part, by copyright troll John Steele. Recently, Prenda has been involved in a number of very fishy cases, including representing firms "AF Holdings" and "Ingenuity 13", which some have accused of being mere shells for Prenda or associated lawyers. Things got strange when a guy named Alan Cooper, who works as a caretaker for some John Steele properties in Minnesota, sought to intervene in some AF Holdings cases, after he realized that "Alan Cooper" was the name listed as CEO of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and he feared that Steele had misused his identity.

A lawyer in California, Morgan Pietz, representing some of the defendants sued by Gibbs/Prenda, had brought Alan Cooper's claims to the attention of the judge in California, and sought to have Gibbs explain if the Alan Cooper listed as CEO of Ingenuity 13 was the same house caretaker complaining that he thought his name was being used without his permission. If, in fact, it was a different Alan Cooper, the simple response would be to show that there's another Alan Cooper and that person really is in charge of these companies. Instead, Gibbs threw something of a hissy fit, refusing to answer such a basic question.

Pietz then asked the court to compel Gibbs to answer some specific questions about the "Alan Cooper" named as CEO, as well as about Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings. The court agreed and gave Gibbs a short deadline. Rather than doing his homework, Gibbs threw another temper tantrum and made a motion to get rid of the judge, Otis Wright, making a bizarre and silly argument that the judge somehow hated copyright holders.

The court has reviewed Gibbs' request... and rejected it soundly, pointing out that there is no good reason to remove Judge Wright from the case, and that contrary to Gibbs' claims, there appeared to be no bias against him, his clients or copyright law.

Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification is without merit. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that Judge Wright is biased or prejudiced against it.

Plaintiff's argument boils down its disagreement with the merits of Judge Wright's discovery orders. This is not a cognizable basis for disqualification.

Furthermore, the court notes that it would appear that a much more logical explanation for Judge Wright's orders is not bias against copyright or porn copyright holders, as Gibbs had claimed, but rather "the potential for discovery abuse." In other words, not only does Judge Wright understand what Gibbs appears to be up to, but others at the court have quickly seen through his attack as well. So, the remaining question is what will Gibbs do next: will he actually answer the questions, or find another reason to throw a temper tantrum?

Filed Under: alan cooper, brett gibbs, copyright troll, john steele, morgan pietz, otis wright
Companies: ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law