Copyright Troll's Tech 'Experts' Can Apparently Detect Infringement Before It Happens

from the welcome-to-pre-crime,-amateur-edition dept

When you sue Does en masses for copyright infringement with no more evidence than an IP address, you're going to run into problems. Those who aren't intimidated by baseless federal court filings fight back. The problem with every troll is they're completely unequipped to handle actual litigation.

Pumping out lawsuit after lawsuit stretches the resources of most copyright trolls. Often they look to outside consultants and experts with malleable morals to pitch in on the tech side of things. David A. Lowe, a Seattle-based copyright litigator hoping to help studios somehow turn box office losers like "Elf-Man" and "London Has Fallen" belatedly turn a profit, has apparently farmed out expert witness work to Guardaley. Guardaley, somewhat infamously, is also the secret sauce behind an awful lot of copyright trolling, including for notorious troll Malibu Media -- either under its own name or using one of its many shell companies.

This does not mean Guardaley offers competent work in exchange for a cut of the profits. But Guardaley's "experts" are willing to sign almost any statement put in front of them, as is evidenced by Fight Copyright Troll's latest post. According to the letter [PDF] sent by a troll victim's lawyer (J. Christopher Lynch of Lee & Hayes, PLLC), the experts employed by Criminal Productions (represented by Lowe) apparently can detect infringing activity that has yet to take place.

In investigating for Mr. Bethke, again we looked for overlap between alleged observations of Mr. Macek and Mr. Arheidt. And again, we found overlap in declarations filed in D CO with declarations filed in WD WA. For example, in the Criminal Productions WD WA Case No. 2:16- cv-1016, Mr. Arheidt’s declaration covers “observations” from June 25 through June 27. By contrast, in the Criminal Productions D CO Case No. 1:16-cv-1761, Mr. Macek’s declaration covers “observations” from June 25 through June 28. Both declarations cover the same “hash number” of the movie, i.e. the same soak. This overlap seems impossible if we stick with the fictions of the Complaint and Motion for Expedited Discovery that the declarant “observed” the defendant “infringing.”

We looked carefully and discovered another anomaly our Courts should question. Mr. Macek’s declaration from that D CO case 1:16-cv-01761 (ECF # 4-1) is dated June 14th (maybe June 16th) – but BEFORE the date of the accompanying “observations” that ran from June 25 through June 28.

How can a witness sign a declaration that he observed something BEFORE it happened? Criminal Productions submitted four such Declarations of Mr. Macek that were executed BEFORE the dates of the accompanying typed up list of observations that Mr. Macek swore that he made. Unless Daniel Macek is also Marty McFly, it is impossible to execute a declaration claiming to observe something that has yet to happen.

The letter contains pictures of four obviously copy-pasted signatures from Macek from four different lawsuits, all covering the same date range. But whoever was rubber-stamping Macek's signature didn't pay attention to the dates of the supposed infringement "observation."

Lynch's letter goes on to state he intends to move for discovery to give the court a better idea of how Lowe's cohorts in trolling actually operate: experts in letterhead only signing assertions they have no evidence for in multiple court jurisdictions. He's also willing to fully explore Criminal Productions' trolling history, which is littered with bogus subpoenas obtained with the assistance of false declarations and nonexistent witnesses.

Of course, this won't be happening. Having been caught in its own web of bullshit, Criminal Productions has voluntarily dismissed [PDF] a number of defendants from this suit (albeit without prejudice). Of course, the dismissal motion says nothing about its experts' ability to spot infringing activity before it even happens.

The Internet Service Provider was unable to provide subscriber identification information in response to the subpoena issued pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Expedited Discovery or Plaintiff has otherwise been unable to identify or locate the responsible party via the subscriber identification provided by the Internet Service Provider. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses its claims against the noted Doe Defendant(s) without prejudice.

That's three out of eight defendants dismissed. The other five just need to make the same assertions and Criminal Productions -- apparently taking its name very literally -- will drop the rest.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, daniel macek, david lowe, declaration, elf-man, infringement, london has fallen
Companies: guardaley

Australian Court Says Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Trolling May Proceed, With Some Caveats

from the the-details-will-matter dept

Late last year, we noted that Australian ISP iiNet -- well-known for pushing back against anti-consumer practices in both surveillance and copyright enforcement -- had decided to go to court to fight a copyright trolling attempt by Voltage Pictures, the Hollywood studio behind Dallas Buyers Club. Voltage Pictures has also made a name for itself as a major copyright troll, shaking down people around the globe and loudly insulting anyone who questions the strategy.

As iiNet explained at the time, it had no problem with going after copyright infringers, but it wasn't comfortable with the copyright trolling practice of "speculative invoicing" -- which is the nice term for shaking people down by sending them an invoice and telling them the only way to avoid a lawsuit is to pay up. iiNet basically said that it would turn over user information only if ordered by a court, which is the proper response. Even though, during the course of the court case iiNet raised serious concerns about Voltage Pictures' "expert" Daniel Macek (a name you may recognize as also being a key figure in Malibu Media's copyright trolling game via a variety of shell companies), the court has now said that iiNet has to turn over the info.

However, the court appears to recognize at least some of how copyright trolling works, and says that the shakedown letters sent to iiNet subscribers must "first be submitted [to the court] for approval." It remains to be seen what the court will approve concerning such letters, but at the very least, hopefully this will prevent the aggressive shakedown actions seen concerning Dallas Buyers Club/Voltage Pictures in other countries.

Also, it's worth noting that last month, another Australian ISP, TPG, announced plans to acquire iiNet (subject to regulatory review), leading many to (reasonably) wonder if iiNet was going to continue its pro-subscriber advocacy in the future. Given the strong efforts made by iiNet over the years to stand up for the rights of its customers, it would be a shame to see the new company turn into yet another ISP with little concern for its subscribers.

Filed Under: austalia, copyright, copyright trolling, dallas buyers club, daniel macek, privacy
Companies: dallas buyers club llc, iinet, voltage pictures

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

from the well,-look-at-that dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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