Malibu Media California cases ordered to reveal geolocation accuracy.

BIt is nice to see when a house of cards starts to shake.  It reminds me that with a gentle blow, all the cards can come tumbling down.  SJD shares that Malibu Media California Cases (X-Art) are about to experience some wind.

Kudos to Sophisticated Jane Doe at Fight Copyright Trolls for breaking this story.  Her article, entitled “Judge Alsup threatens to bar further Malibu Media cases in his district until the accuracy of the geolocation technology is fully vetted” is a worthwhile read. This is true EVEN for those who do not delve into the details of what happens in Malibu Media California cases versus Malibu Media Texas cases filed by Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg.

California Judge Alsup Order Asks To Scrutinize Maxmind Geolocation Services.

Malibu Media, LLC has filed 6,000+ lawsuits across the US relying on a Maxmind geolocation database which they use to determine which infringers to sue (based on their city and/or zip code), and in which federal court to sue them.

The zip code data becomes relevant internally because Malibu Media targets accused defendants who live in ‘wealthy’ neighborhoods and ignores defendants who they believe do not have the ‘assets’ to pay them the ransom they demand from each accused downloader.

Taken from Maxmind’s site, they even offer services which provide their customers the estimated average income of each infringer so that Malibu Media can focus their efforts on only the ‘highest income infringers.’

Average Income (US Only)The weighted average income in US dollars per person for the zip code(s) associated with the IP address.

More relevant to the Malibu Media California cases and SJD’s article, geolocation data is important because filing a lawsuit against a defendant who does not live in that district deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the case against that defendant.  This is called ‘personal jurisdiction.’

But, in the California Malibu Media Cases, this “Maxmind” service might cause the downfall of all of the Malibu Media California cases.  Why?  Because Judge Alsup is about to figure out exactly how the geolocation services work.

You could bet that if they fall in California, I will be sharing what made those cards fall with the judges in Texas, NJ, NY, (and since I follow Malibu plaintiff attorney Jackie James around with her Malibu Media cases), CT too.  Why?  Because California Judge Alsup’s rulings are binding only in the California federal courts.  However, in all other federal courts, they are still PERSUASIVE.

If I had one wish, it would be for Judge Alsup to also review the Guardaley Black Box.

Not to look a gifthorse in the mouth, but when I wrote this article initially, I thought that Judge Alsup was going to investigate Guardaley’s black box.  Here is why:

Malibu Media California Cases | Soon to fall like a House of Cards
wilhei / Pixabay

“Because we download fragments from you, you must have the entire file.”

The Guardaley bittorrent tracking system dips in to various bittorrent swarms and connects with computers to download tiny bittorrent file fragments with the logic that if the download from a particular internet user’s computer was successful, then [LOGIC JUMP] that user must have the entire file downloaded on his computer.

This identical black box issue applies to the other MOVIE LAWSUITS too.

It should be noted that without getting into conspiracy theories about how the MPAA / RIAA colluded with Malibu Media, LLC and the other pornography companies to break copyright, other mainstream movie cases potentially ‘have egg on their faces’ too with Judge Alsup’s order.

Why?  Because whether we are dealing with a Malibu Media, LLC case, a ME2 Productions case, a Cook Productions case, a I.T. Productions case, or even a WWE Studios Finance Corp. movie… you are still dealing with RIGHTSENFORCEMENT, Carl Crowell, Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), and ultimately… Guardaley, the German company behind each of the various US-based shell companies selling rights to use their black box bittorrent tracking software.

I could also bet that these same companies are likely using the same “Maxmind” geolocation services as well (since they cut-and-paste their boilerplate strategies, whether applying their system to internet users accused of downloading pornography, e-books, or movie content).

How much of the infringing file must you have for Malibu Media to prove copyright infringement?

If Judge Alsup continues to investigate Malibu Media’s cases beyond the Maxmind geolocation services, I encourage him to also investigate the Guardaley black box.

QUESTIONS TO ASK:  Judge Alsup might ask how the system chooses to connect to the computers, and whether it randomly selects one “block” (a file fragment; often 16 KB in size) hundreds of blocks, or millions of blocks (Malibu Media bittorrent files (“.torrent” files) usually comprise a siterip which contains multiple movie files contained in one bittorrent “.torrent” file.  Each movie file can be hundreds of MEGABYTES large, and the total bittorrent “.torrent” file can potentially be MULTIPLE GIGABYTES large).

Simplifying the numbers:  Assuming a .torrent file contains 1GB of movie files (1GB = 1,000 MB = 1,000,000 KB), and that 1GB torrent is broken down into 16 KB blocks (file fragments), then the Malibu Media X-Art Movie bittorrent will be broken down into 62,500 blocks.  If Malibu Media’s Guardaley black box shows that they have successfully downloaded 100 separate 16KB blocks, that means that they have established only that accused infringer has downloaded 1.6 MB of a 1 GB torrent file.  At 200 KB/s (not going into the minute differences between a Kilobyte and a Kilobit), that means that the downloader participated in the bittorrent swarm downloading Malibu Media’s Siterip content for a total of 8 seconds, and that they have only 1.6 MB of Malibu’s X-Art movie (1.6 MB of 1 GB = .0000016% of Malibu’s Siterip, hardly enough to prove that it was “more likely than not” that the accused John Doe Defendant committed copyright infringement.

If Malibu Media’s Guardaley black box is selecting and connecting to only a small number of blocks (a small set of file fragments, noting that there are potentially tens of thousands of blocks needed to complete a download) this does not prove that the accused defendant downloaded anything more than the number blocks the Guardaley black box software tracked the user as possessing on his or her computer.

Malibu Media California Cases and the “Preponderance of Evidence Standard”

Malibu Media, LLC will counter that the evidence they need to prove is “more likely than not,” namely, that it is more likely than not that the accused downloader downloaded enough of the infringing file to constitute copyright infringement.  This is also called the “preponderance of evidence” standard of proof in legal speak.  Thus, Malibu Media, LLC will not need to prove that the entire file was downloaded; only that ‘it was more likely than not’ that the file was downloaded.

However, for the Malibu Media California cases, I am hoping that the plaintiff attorney will need to prove to Judge Alsup that this is the case, and to do this, they will have to open their black box software up to Daubert-level scrutiny.  If they fail in this task, Malibu Media California cases will end and the next ‘wave’ of cases will need to be spread across other federal courts, sans California.  Looking into the geolocation technologies (which Malibu Media, LLC claims is 100% accurate), however, is a good start.

He just used the words…”HEARSAY.”

Of interest to me is something that Fight Copyright Troll’s article didn’t talk about — namely, that UNLESS THE MAXMIND GEOLOCATION SERVICES CAN BE VETTED, the printouts and data Maxmind purports to share about an accused John Doe Defendant’s location is nothing other than HEARSAY.  (See Judge Alsup’s Order, p.2, line 12).

The declaration parroted several hearsay statements about the accuracy of Maxmind from its website.

To the copyright troll attorneys who read my blog to learn what we are thinking about as far as strategy: While I am not making a big deal to flush out the hearsay issue, I just wanted to take a moment to point out that those same words just came out of Judge Alsup’s mouth.  Namely, that the so-called geolocation evidence that the Maxmind services provide might not even be admissible at trial because the it is considered HEARSAY, and likely not admissible under the hearsay exceptions.

Since these words came out of his mouth, I bet it is a good idea to have a good explanation prepared why the data provided by the Maxmind geolocation service should not be considered hearsay and thus inadmissible as you are trying to reach that “more likely than not” evidence standard.

Malibu Media Copyrights No Longer Filed, but X-Art is still FILMING?

Five days ago, I wrote an article noting that Malibu Media copyrights were no longer being filed.  I noted that from 2012-2015, Colette and Brigham Field, owners of X-Art (Malibu Media, LLC) filed over 100+ copyrights each year, and that to date they have filed over 6,000 copyright infringement lawsuits in federal courts across the US.  Because the number of copyright filings dropped off in 2016 (and now in 2017, there were ZERO copyright filings to date) I mistakenly assumed that Malibu Media was no longer filming porn videos.

This morning, I read an article by Breitbart author Warner Todd Huston that not only is X-Art still filming their porn videos, but that they did so from NBA star Chris Bosh’s 10,755-square-foot mansion in Pacific Palisades, California.  Pictures of Bosh’s 1.5 acre estate [now the backdrop of future X-art.com films] can be found here.

Malibu Media still filming X-Art porn videos, but are filing NO COPYRIGHTS.

The fact that valid Malibu Media copyrights exist has been the tactical keystone to justify the thousands of copyright infringement lawsuits they have filed over the years.  To date, Malibu Media holds 731 copyrights, each of which have been used or asserted against those who have downloaded their films using bittorrent.

Copyright.gov Malibu Media Copyrights

Malibu Media copyrights, just like every other action taken by Colette and Brigham Field are filed are maneuvers to maximize the profitability of their X-Art adult films (even to the point of complaining that the Bosh house was full of toxic mold and rat droppings in order to recoup a $92,000 security deposit):

…the mansion was unsafe and filled with toxic mold, roof leaks, rat droppings, plumbing problems, and slow internet connections. The couple is suing to get their $92,000 security deposit back.

What I do not understand is why they are not filing copyrights for these new films.  There must be a REASON — a tactical reason — whether it is to scheme, scam, or extort money from some family or some internet user who has stumbled upon their films.  Why to date are there ZERO copyright filings for their new movies?

Malibu Media Copyrights To Date (Filed 2009 – YTD 2017)

Here is a tally of the number of copyrights filed by Malibu Media to date:

  • In 2009, Malibu Media, LLC filed for only 2 copyrights.
  • In 2010, 15 copyrights.
  • In 2011, 61 copyrights.
  • In 2012 (when they first started suing), 129 copyrights.
  • In 2013, 177 copyrights.
  • In 2014, 189 copyrights.
  • In 2015, 112 copyrights.
  • In 2016, 46 copyrights.
  • In 2017, ZERO copyrights filed.

Malibu Media movies, and why it is important to know this list.

MALIBU MEDIA MOVIES

Malibu Media, LLC is the biggest filer of copyright lawsuits, possibly ever.  Since 2012, Malibu Media, LLC filed 6,000+ cases filed in federal district courts across the U.S. (and counting).  Their lawsuits sue for $150,000 in copyright infringement damages for the unlawful download of ONLY ONE MALIBU MEDIA MOVIE, but in their filing against the individual ISP account holder, they accused that subscriber of downloading tens, sometimes over 100 films. Malibu Media movies are no longer filmed (or, at a minimum, they are no longer filing copyrights for any new movies), but it appears as if 100% of their efforts is on tracking users who view those movies without authorization over the internet.

Malibu Media, LLC has been accused of not properly publishing their movies before suing defendants, and more often than not, internet users have reported that they were sued for downloading Malibu Media movies which were not yet posted on Malibu Media LLC’s X-Art.com website.  Curiously, Malibu Media movies first appear as “leaked” onto the bittorrent networks.  Recently, it has become a question as to whether Malibu Media, LLC is running what is called a ‘honeypot’, similar to what John Steele of Prenda Law Inc. was caught doing.

Malibu Media, LLC deceptively takes advantage of the three-month rule loophole as codified in 17 U.S.C. § 412  by suing for Malibu Media movies which were not copyrighted at the time the alleged downloads took place.  Thus, any internet user who took the time to visit the Copyright.Gov website to check on the status of Malibu Media movies before downloading them (a ‘careful’ infringer) often will not find the searched-for Malibu Media movie title, yet Malibu Media still claims copyright rights over that movie.

What makes Malibu Media, LLC especially dangerous?

I normally wouldn’t spend the time on an article like this, but what makes Malibu Media, LLC especially dangerous to a copyright infringement defendant is that unlike other copyright holders who file a lawsuit as soon as infringement is detected, Malibu Media, LLC waits.

Malibu Media, LLC does not immediately file the lawsuit once infringement is detected.  Rather, using technology akin to wiretapping, they will watch the IP address and network of their suspected infringer, and they will sit in the background like a virus and will log each and every movement, web page visited, and every movie watched (legally, illegally).

NOTE: Both I and Professor Sag have gone in depth about the lack of evidence Malibu Media, LLC has in their cases.  Like the other ‘common troll’ copyright trolls and those affiliated with Guardaley and their German shell company counterparts, the type of ‘evidence’ Malibu Media, LLC appears to log and produce is ‘snapshot’ evidence.  Snapshot evidence is proof that on a certain date and time, a computer having an IP addressed assigned to a defendant’s internet account was ‘in the room’ (in a bittorrent swarm).  However, this is not evidence that actual copyright infringement happened, or that they actually logged anything other than a snapshot.  Similarly, this “other evidence” they have when they track you 1) is likely inadmissible because it is illegal, and 2) if it is not wiretapping and it was obtained with legal means, it is likely prejudicial character evidence.  And even if it is not, 3) it is still likely hearsay.

Once Malibu Media’s German investigators have enough so-called ‘evidence’ on an alleged infringer, they will file a copyright infringement for one lawsuit, and as an attachment, they will list “other Malibu Media movies” they claimed were also downloaded, some logged months or even over a year before the lawsuit was filed.

I used the term ‘wiretapping’, which is illegal.  However, wiretapping is not the subject of this article.  The point to acknowledge is that Malibu is somehow tracking the activities of its selected targets, and once it has amassed enough incriminating data on that defendant, they file a lawsuit.

How do I know that Malibu is tracking their users?

The fact that Malibu Media, LLC is actually tracking the activities of their targeted users over a long period of time was not immediately clear to me.

In 2013, Malibu Media was listing “other downloaded movies and copyrighted titles” in their lawsuit filings.  Back in 2013, Malibu Media, LLC spent quite a bit of time trying to establish that their defendants were ‘serial’ infringers, and thus the judge should rule that any innocuous downloads should be considered ‘willful infringement’.  (‘Willful infringement’ carries statutory damages of $150,000, whereas ‘non-willful infringement’ can allow for minimum statutory damages of only $750).  Malibu’s goal at the time was to prove that since the defendant was a ‘serial infringer,’ meaning, since he downloaded all of these other titles, he must have downloaded their adult videos as well, as claimed in the lawsuit complaint.

The courts obviously did not like Malibu’s practice of including “other non-Malibu titles downloaded,” and they ruled that this evidence was prejudicial character evidence.  Since then, Malibu Media, LLC stopped including this extraneous data (although, this has not stopped other copyright attorneys from doing the same thing out of the court).

Thinking back, however, the question the attorney defending the case should have asked (it wasn’t my client’s case) was not only whether the so-called evidence of other downloaded movies is prejudicial character evidence, but whether Malibu Media, LLC broke federal and state wiretapping laws to acquire that information.

Just yesterday, I wrote that Malibu Media, LLC was on a three-month hiatus, and that based on their pattern of filing lawsuits, I did not expect new lawsuits to be filed until the summer.  However, for users watching and viewing Malibu Media movies, it occurred to me that they have already likely tagged you and are actively tracking your internet activities.  They will likely continue to do so until they file suit in their next round of lawsuits.

What can we do about it if Malibu is already tracking me?

Remember, Malibu Media only files lawsuits against defendants who have a history of viewing their copyrighted movies.  So if you were tagged, the best way to minimize your chances of being sued is to stop viewing Malibu Media movies.

However, as soon as you see the X-Art.com logo featured at the top of this page in Malibu Media movies’ intro clips, it is likely too late.  They have likely already tracked that, so unplugging the power from the wall won’t change the fact that they just monitored you downloading their adult film.  It is better to be aware of the sheer number of Malibu Media movies already copyrighted, and to be aware of which adult movie titles belong to Malibu Media, LLC.  Better yet, it is a good idea not to get tracked at all, but that is outside the scope of this article (and take those precautions at your own risk), especially since we do not yet understand how they are tracking your activities.

How can I look up the Malibu Media movies which have been copyrighted?

The Copyright.Gov page allows you to do a search.  You would search for “Malibu Media” in the “Name”.

When you do the search, you will see the following page snippet; click on “Malibu Media, LLC” (as of writing this article, they have 731 titles copyrighted).

Copyright.gov Malibu Media Search

How Many Malibu Media movies were filed each year?

This is not exactly relevant or useful (yet), but it is still interesting to note.

  • In 2009, Malibu Media, LLC filed for only 2 copyrights.
  • In 2010, 15 copyrights.
  • In 2011, 61 copyrights.
  • In 2012 (when they first started suing), 129 copyrights.
  • In 2013, 177 copyrights.
  • In 2014, 189 copyrights.
  • In 2015, 112 copyrights.
  • In 2016, 46 copyrights.
  • In 2017, ZERO copyrights filed.

Obviously, I can pull a lot of information from this data, namely that the number of Malibu Media movies filmed appears to follow the number of copyright infringement lawsuits filed for the sharing of these titles, as if they were filmed for the sole purpose of suing for the infringement of these titles.

I also want to note that at the peak of their lawsuits — 2013-2014, they filed a total of 366 full length adult videos.  That’s a lot of video taping (and a lot of something else) — almost one full length adult film churned out every other day.

Lastly, it is notable that in 2016 and 2017, the number of new Malibu Media movies dropped to 46 in 2016, and ZERO in 2017.  At this point, Malibu Media, LLC and X-Art.com are no longer in the adult film business.  Their activities appear to now comprise 100% copyright trolling.

Can I see the list of Malibu Media, LLC movie titles?

And last, but not least, the list of Malibu Media movies currently copyrighted (in ABC order).

MOVIE TITLE#DATE:
Above the Air.PA00019442002015
After Hours.PA00017804612011
Afternoon Picnic.PA00018269982013
Afternoon Snack.PA00018332672013
Afterthoughts.PA00019094792014
Alexis Lovely and Ready to Fuck.PA00019704602015
All About Anna.PA00018861952014
All I Want for Christmas.PA00019869762015
All Oiled Up.PA00018851872014
All Tied Up.PA00018660772013
Almost Famous.PA00018646872013
Alone in My Room.PA00018596632013
Alone is a Dream Left Behind.PA00018609842013
Amazing Grace.PA00018064772012
Among the Wildflowers.PA00019547942015
And Then There Was You.PA00018746152013
Angel Afternoon Delight.PA00017768352012
Angel Dust.PA00019442012015
Angel Journey to the East.PA00017694902011
Angel Seaside Romp.PA00017715282012
Angelica Means Angel.PA00019097822014
Angie VIP Lounge.PA00017717052011
Anneli Dream Girl.PA00017694892011
Anneli Leila Menage a Trois .PA00017716622012
Another Night.PA00018333592013
Any And All For You.PA00019086772014
Apartment in Madrid.PA00018269922013
Apartment Number Four.PA00018359542013
Apertif Our Style.PA00018745222013
Are You Man Enough.PA00019507612015
Arrest Me.PA00018719412013
Art of Anal Sex.PA00017768342011
Artiste.PA00020201802016
Aspirations.PA00018346692013
Aspirations.PA00018385942013
Asstastic.PA00020150882016
At Home With Tiffany.PA00018804962014
Au Paradis.PA00018958462014
Aurora Wants It All.PA00020252412016
Awakening.PA00018688062013
Awe Inspiring Orgy.PA00019177122014
Baby Blues.PA00018678872013
Back For More.PA00019284272014
Back to Bed.PA00018476562013
Backdoor Lover.PA00017859582011
Backstage.PA00017979432012
Bad Girls.PA00018476612013
Barely Fits.PA00019284122015
Be With Me.PA00019075742014
Beautiful Girl.PA00019097842014
Beautiful Place.PA00019954802016
Bedtime Hijinks.PA00019127762014
Being Me.PA00018025602012
Best Blondes.PA00018658162013
Best Friends With Benefits.PA00019351022015
Black and White.PA00018312262013
Black Lingerie Bliss.PA00018064682012
Black On White.PA00019094892014
Black Widow.PA00019871832015
Blindfold Me : 2.PA00018678902013
Blindfold Me and Tie Me Up.PA00018678882013
Blindfold Me Baby.PA00019029712014
Blonde Ambition.PA00017797962012
Blonde In My Bedroom.PA00018692472013
Blonde Perfection.PA00019260612014
Blonde Teenage Dream.PA00020252372016
Blondes Love Brunettes.PA00019373762015
Body Language.PA00018680962013
Bohemian Rhapsody.PA00018675842013
Bottoms Up.PA00018385962013
Bound By Desire.PA00019507602015
Brazilian Love Affair.PA00018950952014
Breakfast at Eves.PA00019094802014
Breakfast in Bed.PA00017872532012
Brilliant Jillian.PA00018826482014
Bring Me To My Knees.PA00019321062015
Bunny Love.PA00018431092013
Burning.PA00018609512013
By Myself.PA00018161672012
Cabin And My Wood.PA00019739972015
California Dreams.PA00017805642012
California Surf Fever.PA00019539532015
Call Me Fox.PA00019212912014
Cant Let Go.PA00019177132014
Caprice Makes Me Cum.PA00019740232015
Caprice Tropical Vibe.PA00017768022011
Capture Me.PA00019442022015
Caribbean Christmas.PA00019260932014
Carla Intimate.PA00017787672012
Carlie Beautiful Blowjob .PA00017620792010
Carlie beautiful blowjob & 9 other titles; motion pictures.V3621D3962012
Carlie Beautiful Blowjob / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971912011
Carlie Big Toy Orgasm.PA00017768392010
Carlie Big Toy Orgasm / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971922012
Carlie Leila Strawberries and Wine .PA00017620812010
Carlie Leila Strawberries and Wine / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971902011
Carmen An Afternoon to Remember.PA00017759022012
Carmen Leila Christmas Vacation.PA00017717062011
Carmen Poolside Striptease.PA00017716722012
Carry Me Home.PA00019084522014
Cassie My Love.PA00018660532013
Casual Affair.PA00018004712012
Casual Sex.PA00018208572012
Cat Fight.PA00019160432014
Catching the Sun.PA00019507622015
Catching Up.PA00018893912014
Chloe Loves Carl Part 2.PA00019065612014
Christmas Story.PA00018745272013
Circles of Bliss.PA00018332972013
Classic Beauty.PA00018064732012
Clean and Wet.PA00018609552013
Close to the Edge.PA00018005792012
Cloudy Hot Day.PA00019187902014
Cock Teaser.PA00019953342016
Come Close.PA00019051402014
Come From Behind.PA00018632482013
Come Fuck With Me.PA00020149512016
Come Inside From the Cold.PA00018624842013
Come to Me.PA00017913502011
Come To Me Now.PA00018921812014
Come To My Window.PA00017995762012
Come Together Part #1.PA00019428402015
Come Together Part #2.PA00019428412015
Coming Late.PA00019042862014
Competition.PA00019321162015
Connie True Love.PA00017759032012
Constance Aaron X-Art on TV.PA00017717072011
Coucher Avec une Autre Fille.PA00018017152012
Creamy.PA00018746172014
Cristalina.PA00017939722011
Crush on Kush.PA00020149352016
Cum In Get Wet.PA00019239482014
Cum Inside the Fantasy Suite.PA00019420002015
Cum on the Floor.PA00019148182014
Cum With Me.PA00018177142012
Cum Worthy.PA00019364742015
Cut Once More Please.PA00019054912014
Czech Beauties.PA00018596542013
Czechmates.PA00020149322016
Daddy’s Office.PA00017768382010
Daddy’s Office / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971842012
Dancing Romance.PA00019039152014
Dangerous Game.PA00018105052012
Dangerous When Wet.PA00019547932015
Dark Desires.PA00018596582013
Date Night at Home.PA00018646892013
Day to Remember.PA00018118502012
Daydream.PA00018104552012
Deep Awakening.PA00019493682015
Deep Blue Passion.PA00018851682014
Deep Down In Me.PA00019229552014
Deep In Love.PA00020150852016
Deep Inside Caprice.PA00017768372011
Deep Longing.PA00018257222013
Deepest Desires.PA00019351102015
Digital Love.PA00018630552013
Do It To Me One More Time.PA00019441982015
Do Me Darling.PA00019212972014
Do Not Keep Me Waiting Part #1.PA00019412832015
Do Not Keep Me Waiting Part #2.PA00019412842015
Domination.PA00019739992015
Domination Part 2.PA00019740012015
Dorm.PA00017804682011
Double Daydreams.PA00018692462013
Double Oh Heaven.PA00019187362014
Double Tease.PA00018921832014
Dream Come True.PA00018003562012
Dream of You.PA00019095162014
Dreams do Come True.PA00018519792013
Dressed to Thrill.PA00019739952015
Drinks For Two.PA00019055122014
Dripping Desires.PA00019187372014
Dripping Pleasures.PA00019412852015
Early Morning Orgasm.PA00019145362014
East Meets West.PA00019260882014
Elevated Erotica.PA00019095132014
Elle Hearts Girls.PA00018476522013
Emilie Is All Alone.PA00018899132014
Enchanting Real Orgasms.PA00018332952013
Enjoy My Backdoor.PA00019041492014
Enjoy the Ride.PA00019260862014
Epic Love.PA00018980912014
Erotic Encounter.PA00019657582015
Erotic Stretching and Sex.PA00018622932013
Evening at Home.PA00017825592012
Evening at Home Part 2.PA00017852042012
Everlasting Friendship.PA00018346202013
Everlasting Friendship.PA00018385952013
Every Guys Perfect Threesome.PA00020151132016
Every Mans Sexy Camping Trip.PA00019670792015
Exposed And Aroused.PA00019212932014
Falling For You.PA00018460972013
Fantasy Come True.PA00018746292013
Farewell.PA00018004732012
Fascination With My Body.PA00018851892014
Fashion Fantasy.PA00018851852014
Fashion Models.PA00018385992013
Fashion Models Are Bisexual.PA00019260852014
Faye Prelude to an Orgy.PA00017768362011
Featherlight.PA00018346182013
Feeling Frisky.PA00018806712014
Finding Elysium.PA00018147842012
Fine Fingerfucking.PA00020150982016
Fireside Fantasy.PA00019076072014
First and Forever.PA00018631122013
First Lesbian Experience.PA00019470932015
First Love.PA00018064762012
First Time.PA00019260922014
Flexible Beauty.PA00018118532012
Floating Emotions.PA00018871262014
Foot Fetish.PA00017939702012
For Your Eyes Only.PA00019094852014
Forever You Part #1.PA00019239652014
Forever You Part #2.PA00019239662014
Formidable Beauty.PA00018147852012
Four Play.PA00020149382016
Four-Way Fuckathon.PA00019785122015
Four Way In 4K.PA00019954992016
Four Ways.PA00019145322014
Foursome.PA00017804702011
Freckle Faced Fox.PA00019704542015
From Three to Four.PA00018980592014
From Three to Four Part 2.PA00019029702014
Fuck Me More.PA00019239572014
Fucking Ballerinas.PA00019284042015
Fucking Goddesses.PA00019160512014
Fucking Hot Threesome.PA00019577002015
Fucking Perfection.PA00017895072011
Fucking Picnic.PA00019704872015
Fun for Three.PA00019147312014
Get Wild At Home.PA00018774702014
Getting Down.PA00018386012013
Getting Our Pussies Wet For You.PA00019953322016
Getting Ready for Bed.PA00018806692014
Getting Ready For You.PA00018747442014
Gift From Colette.PA00018729692013
Gift From Vegas.PA00019740042015
Girl in a Room.PA00018609682013
Girl in My Shower.PA00017835492009
Girl in My Shower / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971782012
Girl Like You.PA00018270062013
Girl’s Fantasy.PA00018192942012
Girls Just Want to Have Fun.PA00019470902015
Girls Love Pink and Diamonds.PA00018622902013
Girls Night.PA00017939712012
Girls Night Out.PA00017624092011
Girls Who Like Girls.PA00018526762013
Girly Girls.PA00018622842013
Give Me More.PA00019043112014
Give Me More Part 2.PA00019054792014
Go Down On Me.PA00019041312014
Go Fish.PA00018804692014
Going Strong.PA00018596602013
Good Morning Baby.PA00018476552013
Good Morning I Love You.PA00019412872015
Good Morning Melissa.PA00020201752016
Good Night Kiss.PA00018729702013
Good Vibrations.PA00018003592012
Grace Angelic.PA00018000222012
Green Eyes.PA00018430902013
Group Sex.PA00018921822014
Grow Up With Me.PA00018661852013
Happy Birthday Capri.PA00018460872013
Happy Couple.PA00017944612012
Happy Ending.PA00017804642011
Hayden Pink and Tight.PA00017768052011
Heart & Soul.PA00018153532012
Heaven Sent.PA00017881362012
Heavenly Brunettes.PA00017807662012
Her First Threesome.PA00017913492011
Her First Time.PA00018630462013
High School Dropouts.PA00018719342013
Highrise Rendezvous.PA00019082132014
Hippie Chic.PA00019461892015
Holiday in Spain.PA00017804662011
Horsing Around.PA00019955022016
Hot Bath for Two.PA00019147342014
Hot Brunettes.PA00018659572013
Hot Chocolate.PA00018596572013
Hot In Here.PA00019900012016
Hot Number.PA00018784562014
Hot Orgasm.PA00019039222014
Hot Sauna.PA00017804712011
Hot Summer Rain.PA00019239602014
Hot Winter Fox.PA00019740182015
House of the Rising Sun.PA00018064752012
I Am In the Mood.PA00018806722014
I Can Not Wait.PA00018774732014
I Know You Love Me.PA00019461902015
I Like Cherry Pie.PA00020252422016
I Love James Deen.PA00018609822013
I Love X-Art.PA00018332962013
I Touch Myself.PA00018460842013
I Want to Tell You.PA00018720822013
I Want You To Want Me.PA00019253352014
I Want You To Watch Me.PA00018921792014
I Will See You In The Morning.PA00018747462014
Ibiza Love.PA00018208552012
If Only It Were You.PA00017906562011
In Bed.PA00018118972012
In Bed With Me.PA00019351012015
In Charge.PA00018659562013
In For The Night.PA00018746702014
In Love with a Girl.PA00018660522013
In Love With Lexi.PA00018333182013
In Love With Little Caprice.PA00019749932015
In My Living Room.PA00018950882014
In the Blind.PA00019094872014
In The Dark.PA00019084512014
In the Garden of Ecstasy.PA00020149402016
In the Mirror.PA00019321182015
Infinite Luvv.PA00019586062015
Insanely Gorgeous.PA00018852052014
Inside Caprice.PA00019900042015
Inside Perfection.PA00018177562012
Inspiration.PA00018017142012
Instant Erotica.PA00019160582014
Intimate Experience.PA00018476572013
Introducing Angelica.PA00018182832012
Introducing Diana.PA00017895112012
Introducing Kaylee.PA00017836462012
Introducing Kennedy.PA00019657592015
Introducing Kenzie.PA00018622862013
Introducing Kiki.PA00018609652013
Introducing Maya.PA00019284292015
Introducing Mila.PA00018596522013
Introducing Veronika.PA00017768012012
Invisible.PA00018268602013
It Has Always Been You.PA00018784242014
It Is A Fine Line.PA00018804372014
Je Mappelle Belle.PA00019212942014
Jennifer Naughty Angel.PA00017768092010
Jennifer Naughty Angel / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971852012
Jillian Multiple Orgasms.PA00020151162016
Journey.PA00018656032013
Jumping on the Bed.PA00018332982013
Just Jennifer.PA00019038422014
Just Married.PA00017804722011
Just Natalie.PA00019229532014
Just the Three of Us.PA00018806702014
Just the Two of Us.PA00017816722011
Just Watch.PA00018980922014
Just Watch Part 2.PA00019029642014
Kacey Jordan Does Xart.PA00019160652014
Kat Translucence.PA00017620732009
Kat Translucence / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971762011
Katka Cum Like Crazy.PA00017620742010
Katka Cum Like Crazy / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971892011
Katka Sweet Surprise.PA00017620752010
Katka Sweet Surprise / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971882011
Keep Cumming Kylie.PA00019670822015
Keep on Cumming.PA00019419992015
Kitty Will Play.PA00020201832016
Knock On My Door.PA00018957632014
Kristen Girl Next Door.PA00017620762010
Kristen Girl Next Door / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971872011
Kristin and Nine Unleashed.PA00020151072016
LA Love.PA00017904582010
LA Love / by Malibu Media LLC.PA00013980152010
LA Plans.PA00018692482013
Late for Work.PA00018333602013
Leila Faye Awesome Threesome.PA00017768042011
Leila Faye Awesome Threesome / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971812012
Leila Last Night.PA00017759062012
Leila Naked in the Hot Sun.PA00017768032011
Leila Sex On The Beach.PA00017620832010
Leila Sex On The Beach / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971832011
Let Me Join You.PA00019364752015
Let Me Take Your Picture.PA00018624862013
Life In The Fast Lane.PA00019733402015
Light My Fire.PA00019239612014
Like a Dove.PA00017904572012
Like the First Time.PA00017788442012
Like the Sun.PA00018659552013
Lily Ivy Like the First Time.PA00019869782015
Lipstick Lesbians.PA00018177552012
Lisa’s Hidden Cam.PA00019145342014
Lisas Playroom.PA00019470912015
Listen To Me Cum.PA00019082112014
Little China Girl.PA00019441992015
Little Lover.PA00017949762012
Little Play Thing.PA00019405972015
Little Rain Must Fall.PA00018226532013
Little Time For Myself.PA00018774742014
Lonesome Without You.PA00018871082014
Lost In My Own Moment.PA00018772532014
Love at First Sight.PA00018727562013
Love From USA.PA00019284302015
Love Story.PA00018192962012
Love With A View.PA00018633692013
Lovely Lovers.PA00017873302012
Lovers at Home.PA00018688162013
Lovers in Paradise.PA00017804632011
Lovers Lane.PA00019586222015
Lovers Quarrel.PA00018142472012
Lovers Way.PA00019051412014
Loving Angels.PA00018177522012
Loving It Hard And Deep.PA00019953312016
Luckiest Man Alive.PA00019962162016
Luminated Emotions.PA00019222752014
Luminescense .PA00018692492013
Lunchtime Fantasy.PA00017817022012
Lying Around.PA00018727542013
Mad Passion.PA00018310832013
Maddy Me Crazy.PA00019493672015
Made for Each Other.PA00018609742013
Make Love To Me.PA00019704952015
Make Me Feel Beautiful.PA00018596512013
Make Up Sex.PA00019387712015
Making Music.PA00018837692014
Malibu Moments.PA00018622832013
Malibu Moments II.PA00018609582013
Many Shades of Grey.PA00018720832013
Marry Me Caprice.PA00018476502013
MaryJane Young Love.PA00017624042011
Masseuse.PA00017796342011
Maybe Yes.PA00019314752015
Me Myself And I.PA00019336862015
Meet Me in Madrid.PA00018476582013
Meet My Lover From Austria.PA00018980942014
Megan Morning Bath.PA00017620772010
Megan Morning Bath / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971932011
Midnight Passion.PA00019336852015
Mile High Club.PA00018772492014
Mina’s Fantasy.PA00017620782010
Mina’s Fantasy / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971772011
Miss Me Not.PA00018177632012
Miss Perfect.PA00018092842012
Miss You.PA00018332622013
Model Couple.PA00018526772013
Model Couple on Vacation.PA00018746132013
Morning Desires.PA00018192922012
Morning Fantasy.PA00017804742012
Morning Glory.PA00019029682014
Morning Meditation.PA00018826502014
Morning Memories.PA00018064692012
Morning Tryst.PA00018003552012
Move With Me.PA00018789802014
Much Needed Vacation.PA00018660832013
Mutual Orgasm.PA00017833572011
Muy Caliente.PA00019336832015
My Best Friend’s Boyfriend.PA00017895102011
My Blue Heaven.PA00019670772015
My Days in Rome.PA00018861872014
My Love.PA00017796922011
My Naughty Girl.PA00018680942013
Names.PA00018431062013
Natural Beauty.PA00017804672011
Naughty & Nice.PA00018192902012
Never Better.PA00019260872014
New Romance.PA00018609722013
Newlyweds.PA00018596622013
Nice and Slow.PA00019160382014
Night of Excitement.PA00020201772016
Nina Needs It Now.PA00020151122016
No Hurry.PA00018688112013
No Turning Back Part #1.PA00018745242013
No Turning Back Part #2.PA00018745252013
Not Alone.PA00018894102014
Oh Mia!PA00018526742013
Old Enough to Know Better.PA00018385972013
On My Own.PA00017949652012
One and Only Caprice.PA00017804622012
One Day In Paradise.PA00020150992016
One Night Stand.PA00017949732012
One Show For Each.PA00019212952014
Only Girls.PA00018526782013
Only Lorena.PA00018476542013
Only The Lonely.PA00019065632014
Our Little Cum Cottage.PA00019145372014
Out of This World.PA00018332942013
Paint Me Beautiful.PA00019086742014
Paint Me White.PA00019097852014
Paradise Found.PA00017833622012
Party Boat.PA00018624852013
Perfect Girls.PA00017834542012
Perfect Lovers.PA00017859592011
Perfect Match.PA00018624192013
Perfect Timing.PA00018958482014
Perfect Together.PA00018052622012
Perfectly Taylored.PA00020151092016
Photo Fantasy.PA00018086312012
Photo Finish.PA00018746162013
Pink Magic.PA00019321042015
Pink Orgasm.PA00017979442012
Pink Perfection.PA00018870982014
Play Me.PA00018476592013
Playful And Wet.PA00019387702015
Playing Dress Up.PA00018747422014
Pleasant Surprise.PA00019351072015
Pool Party for Three.PA00018596562013
Poolside Passion.PA00018118512012
Poolside Pleasure.PA00019314772015
Poolside Romp.PA00017851222011
Positively in Love.PA00018003582012
Precious Metal.PA00019082482014
Prelude to Passion.PA00018161662012
Pretty Babies.PA00018359532013
Pretty Back Door Baby.PA00017894272012
Pretty Bad Girl.PA00019095042014
Pretty Little Belle.PA00018784252014
Pretty Pink.PA00019160552014
Private Time.PA00018049662012
Puffy Nipple Lovers.PA00019733412015
Pure Aubrey.PA00019260842014
Pure Grace.PA00018004842012
Pure Passion.PA00017804732011
Putting On A Show For You.PA00018928892014
Queen of Hearts.PA00019147202014
Raw Passion.PA00018609792013
Ready for Bed.PA00018311992013
Ready For Love.PA00018729682013
Ready or Not.PA00018526752013
Red Hot.PA00018105032012
Red Hot and Ready.PA00019351042015
Red Hot Summer.PA00017804692011
Red Satin.PA00018288922013
Remembering Strawberry Wine.PA00018851842014
Rendezvous.PA00018893972014
Retro Romp.PA00019442032015
Rich Girl Part 2.PA00017628082011
Rich Girl – Part One.PA00017804752011
Risky Business.PA00018784552014
Rock Me Baby.PA00019837452015
Rock Me Baby.PA00019075922014
Rollergirl.PA00020150812016
Rolling in the Sheets.PA00018476532013
Romance In The Garden.PA00020252382016
Romantic Memories.PA00017903752012
Romp at the Ranch.PA00019539522015
Roommates.PA00017862652012
Rope Priority.PA00018957602014
Rose Petals.PA00018385982013
Rub Me the Right Way.PA00019493662015
Rub Me The Right Way Too.PA00020150952016
Russian Connection.PA00018861892014
Russian Invasion.PA00018086292012
Sacred Romance.PA00018257212013
Santas Little Helper.PA00018745202013
Sapphic Experience.PA00017933642012
Sapphic Waltz.PA00018431102013
Sapphically Sexy.PA00019215422014
Saturday Eve.PA00019095112014
Season of Love.PA00018772522014
Secret Weapon.PA00018460982013
Secretary.PA00019283972015
Seeing Double.PA00018248402013
Seize the Moment.PA00019493712015
Self Pleasure.PA00017913512011
Selfie Love.PA00019351062015
Sent From Heaven.PA00018192952012
Serving Seduction.PA00019167042014
Sex and Submission.PA00018826492014
Sex At The Office.PA00019900032016
Sex Drive.PA00019962292016
Sex With Glasses.PA00019039142014
Sexual Vanity.PA00019284222015
Sexy and Wild.PA00019145302014
Sexy En Noir.PA00019097832014
Sexy In The City.PA00019055112014
Sexy Lazy Afternoon.PA00019412812015
Sexy Summer Camp.PA00019900022016
She Bad.PA00018622952013
She Is On Fire.PA00019364762015
She’s A Spinner.PA00019145212014
She’s Not Alone.PA00019145352014
Should Have Seen Your Face.PA00019351052015
Show You My Love.PA00017871212011
Show You My Love.PA00017939692011
Side By Side.PA00018052612012
Silver Bullets.PA00017903732012
Silvie Centerfold.PA00017747622012
Silvie Eufrat Strip Poker.PA00017759092012
Silvie the Siren.PA00018430892013
Simply Stunning.PA00018431032013
Sizzling Hot.PA00019284332015
Skin-Tillating Sex For Three.PA00019739932015
Sleepover.PA00018386002013
Slippery Sensations.PA00018956682014
Slow Motion.PA00017878752012
Smarty Pants.PA00019127742014
Sneak n Peek.PA00017915222012
Sneaking In.PA00018609622013
Snow White and the Prince.PA00018460952013
So Beautiful.PA00018689192013
So Close Together.PA00018609762013
So Cute.PA00019298022015
So Right Its Wrong.PA00018720842013
So Young.PA00018774722014
Soul Mates.PA00018133612012
Spanish Garden.PA00017913522011
Spanish Heat.PA00019177092014
Sparks.PA00019160392014
Spellbound Lovers.PA00019229542014
Spilled Milk.PA00018332992013
Spontaneous.PA00018609772013
Spread Across The Floor.PA00019373782015
Spread Wide Open.PA00019321152015
Spur of the Moment.PA00018201922013
Starting Over.PA00018036632012
Stay for a While.PA00018596612013
Stay with Me.PA00017804652011
Still Mine.PA00019253462014
Still With Me.PA00018133602012
Strawberry Blonde.PA00017944502012
Strawberry Morning.PA00019260892014
Studio Part #1.PA00019366212015
Studio Part #2.PA00019314762015
Submissive Seduction.PA00018784202014
Suds And Sex.PA00019953332016
Sultry Summer Invitation.PA00019442062015
Summertime.PA00019222742014
Summertime Lunch.PA00019070782014
Sunday Afternoon.PA00018003532012
Sunday Afternoon Solo.PA00018226752013
Sunset Memories.PA00019212962014
Super Cutie.PA00019298042015
Super Nymphs.PA00019373832015
Superhot Sexting.PA00020252392016
Supermodel Sex.PA00019670752015
Surprise Surprise.PA00018921862014
Surrender to Seduction.PA00019533672015
Susie Forever.PA00020149392016
Sweet Awakening.PA00019070772014
Sweet Dreamers.PA00018837712014
Sweet Moment.PA00018729672013
Sweet Sensations.PA00019962302016
Sweet Surrender.PA00018848612014
Sweetest Dreams.PA00018201942013
Take Me Now.PA00019373802015
Take Your Picture.PA00019428632015
Tantalizing Fox.PA00020149502016
Tantric Massage.PA00018921802014
Tarde Espanola.PA00018153452012
Taste Me.PA00019127732014
Tatiana the Voyeur.PA00017768082011
Tease and Please.PA00018719372013
Tease Me Please Me.PA00019260952014
Technicolor Dreams.PA00018431012013
Teenage Dream.PA00017914912012
Teenage Lust.PA00020252402016
Then They Were Three.PA00018177612012
These Girls Are On Fire.PA00020149482016
They Meet Again.PA00018660492013
They Only Look Innocent.PA00018774712014
They Seem So Sweet.PA00019041512014
This Is What Heaven Looks Like.PA00019869752015
This Really Happened.PA00018609702013
This Side of Paradise.PA00018026032012
Those Beautiful Lips.PA00019314782015
Thought Of You.PA00019071042014
Thought of You Part 2.PA00018956652014
Three for the Show.PA00018086302012
Three in the Morning.PA00017833602011
Three Way Is The Best Way.PA00018784262014
Threes Company.PA00018049392012
Threesome With a View.PA00020151102016
Through the Looking Glass.PA00018519802013
Thunderstorm Love.PA00019095072014
Tickle My Pink.PA00019740092015
Tie Her Up For Me.PA00019065512014
Tiffany Sex with a Supermodel.PA00017620222011
Tiffany Teenagers In Love.PA00017620192010
Tiffany Teenagers In Love / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971822011
Tiffanys Tight Ass.PA00019127722014
Tight and Wet.PA00019231762014
Tight and Wet.PA00019239592014
Tight Ass Teen.PA00019387482015
Time to Go.PA00017807712012
Tiny Seductress.PA00019740112015
Together Again.PA00018192882012
Together at Last.PA00018460962013
Too Hot To Handle.PA00019253452014
Tori The Endless Orgasm.PA00017620822010
Tori the endless orgasm & 6 other titles.V3621D3972012
Tori The Endless Orgasm / by Malibu Media, LLC.PA00013971862011
Transcendence.PA00017995772012
Triple Play.PA00019507632015
Triple Threat.PA00018609612013
Trophy Wife.PA00018837672014
Tropical Sexcapades.PA00020149422016
Truth or Dare.PA00018460992013
Tuesday Morning.PA00018288972013
Twice as Nice.PA00019953352016
Twice The Fun.PA00019373812015
Two Boys and a Girl.PA00018288962013
Two By Two.PA00018980932014
Two Cocks In Karla.PA00019953362016
Two Fingers Deep.PA00019740142015
Ultimate Blowjob.PA00017768062011
Unbelievably Beautiful.PA00018053152012
Unbreelievable.PA00019388302015
Under My Blanket.PA00019252982014
Underwater Lover.PA00018064742012
Undress Me.PA00018692382013
Unforgettable View Part II.PA00018177652012
Unforgettable View Part One.PA00018177592012
Unveiling Part #2.PA00018661882013
Unveiling Part One.PA00018631052013
Up Close and Personal.PA00018596532013
Vacation Fantasy.PA00018142502012
Veronica Wet Orgasm.PA00017624122011
Veronika Coming Home.PA00017747612012
Wake Me Up.PA00018871052014
Wake Me Up Like This.PA00018622892013
Want You.PA00018226502013
Warm and Fuzzy.PA00018727532013
Warm Inside.PA00018208562013
Watching.PA00019260902014
Waterfall Emotions.PA00018177572012
Way I Feel.PA00018747452014
We Love Ourselves.PA00018609442013
Wet Dream.PA00018003572012
What a Girl Wants II.PA00018476602013
White Hot.PA00018004722012
Why I Love Czech Girls.PA00019222722014
Wild at Heart.PA00017859692012
Wild Things.PA00018092872012
Without Words.PA00018596502013
Wonder Waltz.PA00018596552013
Wonderful World.PA00018476512013
Working Out Together.PA00018248412013
Xmas Cums Once A Year.PA00019871842015
Yeah Baby.PA00018596592013
Yoga in the Sky.PA00017947152012
Yoga Master & Student.PA00018226512013
Young & Hot.PA00017949692012
Young and the Restless.PA00018431112013
Young Passion.PA00018118522012
Yours Forever.PA00019075732014
Zeppelin on Fire.PA00018746142014

In Summary

In closing (if you even got this far in the article), be aware that Malibu Media, LLC is no longer in the adult movie business, but rather, in the copyright enforcement business. Their entire operation is based on monetizing the value of the 700+ copyrights they have filed with the copyright office. Similarly, I must assume that 100% of their operations budget is going into the costs of enforcement, namely, computer servers, and the costs of monitoring each of the hundreds of defendants I expect they are currently tracking and will be suing in the coming months.

If you are interested in Malibu Media, LLC content, get a membership to their site (but do not expect to see new content). Do not view any of their content via bittorrent networks, as this is how they are compiling their lists of who to sue. In fact, if you see anything X-Art related, it’s probably a safe bet just to click away from the site and shut the window. Even streaming can get you sued these days.

And if you are sued, our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC can be of assistance to you. Malibu Media, LLC cases all suffer from the same inherent faults, and that gives our clients a number of options on how to ignore, fight, or settle claims against our clients.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Future-Pacing Copyright Infringement Tracking Amazon Fire TV Devices.

Identifying the risks of installing and using Kodi software on an Amazon Fire TV device, and specifically, how a copyright holder can sue for copyright infringement is the subject of this article.

amazon-fire-tv-image

We are able to forecast and predict with accuracy what movies will be the subjects of future lawsuits.  We are able to predict trends based on filing patterns of which copyright holders have sued, where they have sued, and how their attorneys will react based on legal precedents in a particular court or with a particular judge.

And, we have been proactive with developers of software, even getting into public heated arguments with the developers (e.g., with the Popcorn Time software developers as to why they put their customers at risk for being sued (at the time, for promoting a fake VPN feature which masked the browsing of copyrighted titles, yet exposed the IP address of a user of that software during the actual acquisition or streaming of that same movie).

This ability to forecast the future with some accuracy is not based on genius, insight, or brainpower, but it is simply based on hard work, analyzing the data, watching the trends, and understanding the technology and seeing where things can go wrong causing people to be sued.

How copyright holders can catch those using Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV Device.

In March of this year (2017), I wrote about the Dangers of Using Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV Stick device.  I actually did this analysis as a favor to one of my readers who asked me whether it was safe to do so.

For the last 60 days, literally thousands of you have read my article, either because you were interested in the topic, or were considering doing so on your own Amazon Fire TV device.  The conclusion of the article was that you likely would not be sued for copyright infringement from using Kodi on your Amazon Fire TV device, but doing so (even with a VPN on the router) still exposed your identity to copyright holders because Amazon.com tracks every device of theirs and links them to the account holder who made the purchase of that device.  And, even IF Amazon was trustworthy in that it protected the privacy interests of its users, I expect that they would comply with a subpoena for that same information when it is signed by a federal judge in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Yet some of you have asked me to further elaborate on the topic, namely, how can someone actually get caught using Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV device.

QUESTION: How would the copyright holder know that an Amazon fire TV stick had been used to access the copyrighted content?

Pornhub lawsuit exposes the dangers of Google Analytics

FACTOR #1: GOOGLE ANALYTICS

It took me a few seconds to think through your good question. My whole premise in the “WHY INTERNET USERS CAN GET CAUGHT VIEWING STREAMED TUBE-LIKE CONTENT” article is that copyright holders can make use of Google Analytics to determine the IP addresses of those who have viewed and streamed copyrighted video. One of the features that makes Google Analytics dangerous is that it can tell a lot of information about what kind of ‘machine’ was used to connect to the offending web page containing the copyrighted content. Was it a PC? a Laptop? a Tablet?

The “Why I would not put Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV Device” article was a bit forward thinking, in that I am addressing a problem that has not yet happened (some would say this has been the strength of our entire site — seeing a problem and reacting to it before it actually becomes a problem).

So far, I don’t think you WOULD get caught using Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV Device. But because your Fire TV device uses your internet connection, it exposes your ISP and your IP address to the copyright holders. Through that, they can subpoena the ISP to obtain the account holder who was assigned that IP address, along with other information RELATED TO the offending device. E.g., the MAC ADDRESS of the device used to make the connection to the pirate site.

While Google Analytics does not yet identify specific devices other than “Computer,” “Tablet,” “Phone,” they are always advancing their technology to provide ever more specific demographic information about the internet user who is visiting a particular site. And as much as I love the Google Analytics platform, I trust Google ‘as far as I could throw them.’ Meaning, I wouldn’t think twice before being cautious that Google would respond to a subpoena from a copyright holder and provide demographic and device-specific information in response to a subpoena signed by a federal judge.

Amazon Tags Devices With User Accounts
geralt / Pixabay

FACTOR #2: AMAZON TAGS ALL ITS HARDWARE AND ASSOCIATES ALL TAGS WITH AN AMAZON ACCOUNT.

Also, in the above paragraph, I mentioned the MAC ADDRESS of the Amazon Fire TV device. With the MAC ADDRESS, you can identify what make and model of the device is being used. Is the device a network card in a computer? A USB dongle attached to a computer? An Amazon Fire TV device? See my point?

Lastly, as much as I love Amazon for their amazing services offered to their Prime membership members, I also wouldn’t trust them with my personal information. Specifically, they tag EACH AND EVERY AMAZON DEVICE THEY SELL. Thus, if my Echo (“Alexa”) device were stolen and found, they know that device was sold to me. They also link my account information to each and every Fire TV device and E-book reader I purchase, so even if I wipe the device, root it, and reprogram it with a better operating system, the HARDWARE (INCLUDING THE MAC ADDRESS) would not change. Thus, if I committed a crime with that Fire TV device (or stick, or e-book reader, etc.), Amazon would immediately know that device that was involved in the ‘crime’ was sold to me via my Amazon.com account.

ANSWER: A copyright holder can, through the courts, gain access to 1) Google Analytics, 2) your ISP, 3) your Amazon.com account, or any combo thereof to identify you as being the owner of the infringing device.

In sum, I am not saying you will be caught today if you put Kodi on your Amazon Fire TV device. I am saying that the technology is lining up in a way that a person CAN be caught using Kodi on their Amazon Fire TV device in the near future. The tech is already in use. The companies already are known to be working with authorities to comply with subpoenas and other identifying information about their users. It is only a matter of time before Amazon Fire TV stick users start calling me (like Popcorn Time users are now) asking me to represent them in a lawsuit because they have been sued for copyright infringement.

How, hypothetically, could I get tracked and sued using Kodi on my Amazon device?

NOTE: I don’t like doing this kind of analysis, because invariably, some enterprising ‘troll’ attorney will follow my instructions and will start suing based on how I said it could be done.  However, because the steps to do this are tedious, and since a federal judge would be reluctant to allow a copyright holder to engage in what is called a ‘fishing expedition,’ obtaining the approval to send out these subpoenas would no doubt be met with skepticism and resistance.

If I were a copyright holder, I would identify the Kodi links to the servers or websites which are sharing my copyrighted content.  I would then file a lawsuit naming those companies or websites as defendants, and ask a judge to have them turn over the Google Analytics data surrounding those particular pages sharing my client’s copyrighted content.  Step 1.

Then, using the Google Analytics IP address data (technology currently available and in use), I would see the IP addresses and the demographics of which IP addresses are visiting that particular page (or downloading copyrighted content from it).  Seeing the IP addresses, I would have the judge authorize me to send subpoenas to the ISPs to discover the identities of the subscribers that were assigned those IP addresses on those particular dates and time.  Step 2.

I would then have the ISPs provide the MAC ADDRESSES of the network cards assigned to each subscriber (I do know ISPs have the capability to provide this, as 1) I have seen it provided in certain bittorrent lawsuits over the years, and 2) my own Comcast ISP goes so far as to have “Station IDs” or names of computers which have connected to their network routers, along with identifying information about the machines which have connected to their router.  I know this when I was troubleshooting a connection issue on my own router.)

From there, I would sort and identify the device as an Amazon Fire TV device (or an Apple TV device, etc.) based on the MAC ADDRESS or identifier of the device.  I would then (with authorization of the court) send a subpoena to Amazon requesting each individuals’ account information, specifically asking 1) who purchased that device, and 2) which e-mail addresses or Amazon.com accounts have registered the device since the purchase.  Step 3.

If Step 2 is not allowed, or if the ISP no longer has the information (e.g., if they purged the subscriber data according to their IP address retention policy), I would alternatively get the identifying information of the infringing device from Google Analytics.  [As far as I know, as of writing this article on 5/5/2017, this information is not yet available, but the technology to capture it is present.]  I would then contact Amazon.com and follow Step 3, above.

In Summary

No I don’t think you would get caught using Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV device.  But because you COULD get caught and sued (now, AND in the future when technology advances, even slightly), why risk it when there are ways of obtaining the same content but taking Amazon 100% out of the picture (eliminating all risk of exposure)?  As soon as you introduce the Fire TV stick (or any device registered to a company, whether that is Amazon, Apple, Samsung, or any other manufacturer), you increase your exposure to be sued.  This is true, even if you are using a VPN on the router to which that device is connecting to access the pirated content (because the manufacturer still knows that device is registered to YOU).

Malibu Media Cases and Why To Track Their Monthly Filings

Why track Malibu Media, LLC filing patterns?

Malibu Media, LLC is possibly the most prolific (and in my opinion, the most egregious) copyright troll, having filed 6,000+ identical copyright infringement lawsuits across the US against bittorrent users.  Regardless of whether there is a relationship between the adult film industry and the movie industry or not, Malibu Media cases singlehandedly are destroying hundreds of families with their high settlement amounts.

The difference between Malibu Media cases from years ago and Malibu Media cases today is that attorneys, together with activist bloggers have identified weaknesses in Malibu Media cases which today can allow a defendant to kill a Malibu case without needing to pay their high settlement ransom.  Specifically, recent revelations about the German Guardaley company (and the shell companies they set up) from whom Malibu Media, LLC purchases lists of IP addresses corresponding to defendants sued in Malibu Media cases indicate that Malibu Media, LLC sues defendants who might not actually be committing copyright infringement.

While not necessarily on point, to understand the weaknesses in the Malibu Media cases, we can look to the recent article on “Why the ‘no settlement’ letter defense strategy actually has merit.”  Specifically, scroll down to the part of the article where I explain “why ‘being in the room’ is insufficient to prove copyright infringement.

pcap-file-image

Why Malibu Media cases need to be tracked and shut down.

Even Professor Sag in his “Defense Against The Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling” paper (which exposes Malibu Media’s scheme) notes that certain aspects of Malibu Media cases — namely, that they claim infringement on a list of copyrighted titles — makes both fighting and settling a Malibu case slightly more complicated (1) because they do not ask for settlement for one title, and (2) winning one case alleging copyright infringement for one title does not stop Malibu Media, LLC from filing additional Malibu Media cases for any of the other titles allegedly downloaded.

For these reasons, an attorney knowledgeable specifically about Malibu Media’s operations is important to understanding their actions.  Our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has been fighting against copyright trolls since 2010, literally TWO YEARS before Malibu Media cases even showed up with their first filing (I mention this as a historical fact, and not as a “we’re the greatest, we’re so cool” self-aggrandizement comment).  As the owner of the Cashman Law Firm, I don’t claim to have special knowledge about Malibu Media, LLC or their inner workings, but what I do have is HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.  THEN AND NOW.

Specifically, by understanding where the Malibu Media cases are in their filing cycle, we can determine how their attorneys will react to a fight in the courtroom, and if in the client’s best interests, whether and when to propose a settlement to maximize our savings to the client.  This could be the difference between a walkaway agreement (no settlement), a $5,000 settlement, or a $20,000 settlement (G-d forbid), the kind that settlement factory attorneys end up getting for their clients.

Money Swarm | Malibu-Media-on-a-20K-Per-Month-Budget-image

Why I believe Malibu Media cases are on a $20K/month filing budget.

In that article, I estimated that Malibu Media was under budget with only 204 cases filed in February, 2017.  Based on this history of filings, I expected to see another 20 cases filed to meet what I estimated to be their $20,000/mo budget for February, 2017.  

Something has changed since February, 2017 in the Malibu Media, LLC filings.

Since February, 2017, WE HAVE NOT SEEN EVEN ONE NEW CASE FILED.

This means one of two things — 1) Malibu Media, LLC is dead.  This is highly unlikely.

More likely, 2) Malibu is due to file at least 170 new cases in May, 2017, or 245+ new cases to be filed over the summer.

Here are my notes so that you see the logic behind my thinking:

July = 75 filings x $400 per filing = $30,000
August = 59 filings x $400 per filing = $23,600 (-16 cases)
September = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
October = 109 filings x $400 per filing = $43.600
November = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
December = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
January = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
February = 204 filings x $400 per filing = $81,600
March = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases -20 cases from being under budget in February)
April = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
May = ?

Why do I believe Malibu Media, LLC will file 245+ new cases this summer?

Looking at the pattern of filings over the past year, it appears as if Malibu Media, LLC files a set of cases, then waits a month or so, then files more, then waits, and so on.  Between 10/2016 – 02/2017, there were THREE MONTHS of no filing while they processed the 109 cases that they filed in 10/2016.  Then in February of this year, they filed an additional 204 cases.

If they follow the same THREE MONTH hiatus plan, we should see another month of NO CASES FILED IN MAY, and then 245 new cases filed in June.  [If there was a reason they did not file any cases in June, 2016 (noting that case filings did not start until July), then these cases will be filed in July, 2016.]

Another Perspective

Obviously I am tracking information and making educated guesses based on what Malibu Media, LLC has done in the past.

Looking at their filing patterns from a different perspective, when Malibu Media filed 109 cases in October, 2016, they waited 3 MONTHS before filing the next set of cases.  But when they filed the cases in February, 2017, they filed not 109 cases, but 204 cases (almost double the amount of cases).

Thus, it is possible that it might take DOUBLE THE TIME to get through DOUBLE THE CASES (109 cases vs 204 cases), since they do not appear to have hired new attorneys, and the same attorneys are handling (or shall I say, ‘guarding’) their own respective territories.

According to this logic, we might not see new filings for SIX MONTHS from February, 2017, which would land the new set of cases to be filed in SEPTEMBER, 2017 (just as the kids return to college).

NOTE: If Malibu is waits until the summer to file their next set of cases, and they keep to their average $20,000/mo. filing fee budget, they wouldn’t be filing 204 cases, they would be filing 400+ cases.  That is too much for any of their attorneys to handle at one time.

red-herring-image

My Opinion and the Red Herring.

In my opinion, the relevant piece of data in monitoring Malibu Media, LLC’s filing patterns is not how many Malibu Media cases are filed each month, but how much money they are spending each month on their cases.

Malibu Media, LLC is a company, just like any other company, and their focus is on the bottom line — income brought in versus money spent.  To understand the health (and to track the ultimate demise) of Malibu Media, LLC, by watching the amount of money they pay on average each month, we can see whether they are increasing or decreasing their filing fee budget.

Increasing the budget and filing more cases suggests that their attorneys are being more successful and are bringing in higher dollar settlement amounts (likely through defense attorney troll shills, or settlement factories).

Decreasing their filing fee budget suggests that the ‘copyright trolling’ campaign has become less profitable for them, or that they are tightening their budget.  This is the metric I would like to see in the future.

Eventually, I would like to see them come to the conclusion that filing lawsuits against John Doe Defendants are no longer profitable, and they go back under their bridges and never come back.  Or better yet, I’d love to see a proactive judge such as Judge Wright catch them in their scheme and refer them to the relevant authorities for prosecution and disbarment.

Why the ‘no settlement’ letter defense strategy actually has merit.

This article can easily be taken out of context, but I hope the essence of it will get through to the readers. One month ago, I encouraged John Doe Defendants involved in bittorrent cases to consider having your attorney (myself or any other) write a NO SETTLEMENT LETTER on your behalf indicating to the copyright troll that there is no guilt, and there will be no settlement.

Among the various forms of representation our firm offers, this approach is called the “No Settlement” Representation Option.

However, to my surprise, while I might have a hundred people call our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC each month for their various cases, *NOT ONE* has called to inquire about the “no settlement” settlement letter option.

THE SOURCE OF THE “NO SETTLEMENT” LETTER STRATEGY

It occurred to me this afternoon that the reason for this is that John Doe defendants might not understand WHY this letter would be of use to them. Our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has been defending clients accused of copyright infringement since 2010 when the first bittorrent-based copyright infringement defendants were sued.  We obviously were not the only law firm that took on these clients (there were about 20 of us, some of whom I still speak to regularly and consider my friends and peers), but there is merit in knowing that we have been with these cases since the beginning.  Thus, we do have some authority in understanding the dynamics of the cases.

In March, there was a paper written by Professor Sag and Jake Haskell entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” or “DADA,” if you want to refer to it in shorthand.  In this paper, the scheme of copyright trolling is exposed, specifically discussing Guardaley’s “Black Box” and the actual absence of evidence from the lawsuits.  In that paper, the solution even from these authorities is to have your attorney write a letter to the plaintiff attorney denying guilt and refusing to settle claims against innocent defendants.  While our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC offered what we called an ‘ignore’ route to defendants which accomplished a similar result for our clients (no settlement, flat-fee unlimited representation until a dismissal), as a result of Sag’s paper, we are offering a ‘no settlement letter’ strategy as suggested to call the bluff of the copyright troll.

Now obviously there are a number of concerns a John Doe Defendant might have in employing this strategy, and this is something I’d be happy to speak about over the phone.  Obviously the simple strategy of providing a ‘no guilt, no settlement’ letter is endorsed by our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, other attorneys, our Twitter followers, and bloggers we follow and communicate with regularly.

However, it occurred to me that our community of attorneys, activists, and bloggers often resembles an ‘echo chamber’, where each of us ‘in’ the ‘echo chamber’ knows the facts and innuendos about a certain copyright troll or a certain set of issues, but even with the years of posts that we have written here, there still is a steep learning curve for actual defendants against whom these cases have been filed.

echo-chamber-image

Thus, it occurred to me this afternoon WHY the ‘no guilt, no settlement’ letter strategy and its effectiveness may have eluded defendants accused of copyright infringement, and I wish to remedy that problem, starting with this article.

I know that I cannot fix this imbalance of information between the copyright holders and the John Doe Defendants with one article, but I do know that my TorrentLawyer blog has enough of a readership to at least get the word out on why the strategy of having your lawyer send a letter to the plaintiff attorney denying guilt might be a good idea, depending on your circumstances.

crowd-cheer-image
Pixaline / Pixabay

Why a copyright troll might not want to NAME AND SERVE each defendant.

The copyright troll’s business model is to sue as many defendants as possible, and to solicit as many settlements as possible, all before being forced to name and serve a defendant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m) or dismiss the case in its entirety.  This is also referred to as the “120 day rule” to name and serve or dismiss John Doe Defendants.

To name and serve a defendant means that the plaintiff attorney has committed to fighting that defendant on the merits of their claim, namely, that this defendant downloaded a movie, film, or used cracked software in violation of the copyright holder’s copyright rights.

Why ‘being in the room’ is insufficient to prove copyright infringement.

What is hidden from the John Doe Defendants (and this is part of the ‘copyright troll scheme’) is that plaintiff attorneys rely on evidence provided to them by a German company named Guardaley (or their shell company counterparts). Guardaley provides them a printout of IP addresses which were ‘in the room’ where downloading and uploading of the copyrighted title or software allegedly took place, and the plaintiff attorneys (“copyright troll attorneys”) file lawsuits based on that IP address printout.

What is not said is that the Guardaley printout does not provide evidence that the download actually happened. Rather, this piece of evidence can be found in what is called a “PCAP file,” which helps the court understand whether 1% of the file was downloaded, or whether 100% of the file was downloaded. The existence of this PCAP is not pleaded in the lawsuits purposefully, because in these lawsuits, defendants are sued as John Doe Defendants as soon as they click on a bittorrent file and join the bittorrent swarm.

pcap-file-image

Intent to commit copyright infringement does not mean copyright infringement was committed.

However, just because a defendant intentionally clicked on a bittorrent file — even with the intent of downloading a pirated copy of some film or software — this does not mean that the download actually happened. In other words, just because a defendant intended to watch a copyrighted film from an illegal source does not mean that he committed copyright infringement. There is no ‘intent’ or ‘conspiracy to commit copyright infringement’ built into the copyright laws. In order to commit copyright infringement, the plaintiff attorney needs to prove (among other things) that the movie or software downloaded was ‘substantially similar’ to the copyrighted film or software.

‘Being in the room’ where copyright infringement happened does not mean you committed copyright infringement.

Thus, ‘being in the room’ where copyright infringement is happening does not make the account holder guilty of copyright infringement. Even downloading pieces of the file would likely not rise to the level of ‘substantial similarity’ as required by the copyright laws. The easiest way to think about it is that even if you were in a crowded room where a crime took place, that does not mean that you pulled the trigger and fired the gun that caused the crime, even though you came there with the intention of committing the crime. Okay, firing a gun is very different than stealing a copy of a copyrighted movie, but you get the point.

Even if you watched the movie, why there still might be no evidence of copyright infringement.

Then, what a defendant does not realize is that even if the plaintiff paid the $500 to Guardaley to obtain a copy of the PCAP file (I hear this is the going rate), this does not mean that Guardaley was monitoring the bittorrent swarm when the download was taking place. In other words, you may have downloaded or watched the entire movie, but there might be no trace of evidence that you did it.

Knowing what I know about tracking bittorrent swarms based on what I learned from fighting CEG-TEK DMCA settlement demand letter cases over the years, Guardaley is likely committing a huge fraud of ‘catching’ and suing defendants who did not actually download the film.  Tracking every bittorrent swarm at every moment requires a huge amount of resources, which the copyright holder or the ‘common troll’ entity behind the scenes must pay for.  Paying for servers to track the bittorrent swarm networks is expensive for the copyright enforcement companies.  Cost saving on the tracking of the actual infringement and instead, resorting to a ‘IP addresses list printout’ of those ‘in the room’ (in the bittorrent swarm, but not necessarily downloading) when the downloading allegedly happened is more likely what is going on with these cases.

Crowded Room | Handshakes in a Bittorrent Swarm
geralt / Pixabay

Thus, companies such as Guardaley will sue 1,000 participants of a bittorrent swarm using what is known as “snapshot evidence” (meaning, they’ll claim that all 1,000 internet users were part of a bittorrent swarm at a particular moment of time committed copyright infringement and downloaded the entire film or movie), whereas CEG-TEK — competing for the same business — will only ‘catch’ 380 internet users who actually did the download because they spent the money for the servers to actually track who did the download and who did not.

In other words, there is a high likelihood that even if you did the ‘crime,’ your IP address was swept up as merely being ‘in the room,’ but not as having downloaded enough of the file to constitute copyright infringement. This is why in the above example, Guardaley will have claimed that 620 more John Doe defendants committed copyright infringement than CEG-TEK would have.

In sum, the ‘no representation’ letter strategy is effective for an ‘innocent’ defendant because your plaintiff attorney is likely intentionally bluffing about the evidence.

The point of this article (which was meant to be simple) is that there is a very strong chance that plaintiff attorneys and copyright trolls are bluffing (and even these days lying) when they tell you that they have monitored the bittorrent swarm and they see that you downloaded 100% of the file for which you are sued, as the only piece of evidence that can document such a claim is the PCAP file which Guardaley does not provide, except for a $500 additional fee. Thus, the threat that you will be named and served if you do not settle is a *bluff*, one which you can counter with a letter calling that bluff and denying liability.

I have written about providing such a letter for innocent clients who did not do the download in my “‘No Settlement’ Representation Option Offered to John Doe Defendants” article posted on the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC site, and I encourage would-be clients to read Professor Sag’s DADA paper and consider using this new strategy.


CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

WWE Studios Finance Corp. (“Eliminators”) Charles Rainey to be sanctioned?

What just happened in Nevada with the Eliminators Movie lawsuits?

WWE Studios Finance Corp. Nevada attorney Charles Rainey just sent what appear to be unauthorized subpoenas to CenturyLink subscribers accused of downloading their “Eliminators” movie. The last time an attorney made such a mistake was in 2011, and that attorney (Evan Stone) got sanctioned for the same conduct.

How did we know about the Eliminators movie lawsuit so early in the process?

Last Friday in my RIGHTSENFORCEMENT (NEW MPAA MOVIE COMPANIES GONE COPYRIGHT TROLL) article, I provided a new list of movies which RIGHTSENFORCEMENT listed on their website as “new clients.” I predicted that they would soon be filing lawsuits based on these movies. That same day, my prediction came true (I wasn’t expecting lawsuits for the Eliminators movie for another few months, as this same ‘common troll’ entity is still focusing their efforts on the ME2 Productions (Mechanic:Resurrection movie) lawsuits, the Cook Productions (Mr. Church) lawsuits, and the I.T. Productions (I.T. Movie) lawsuits).

WWE Studios Finance Corp. [now joining the ranks of many shell entities suing on behalf of a ‘common troll‘ entity], just filed suit against a small group (under 100) John Doe Defendants in Connecticut (CT), Hawaii (HI), Pennsylvania (PA), and Nevada (NV).

WHAT IS A ‘COMMON TROLL’ ENTITY?:  A ‘common troll’ entity is one that contacts a movie production company for a failed movie (e.g., a “flopper”), and convinces it to license the rights to sue defendants who view their films without authorization (e.g., via bittorrent or Popcorn Time).  That ‘common troll’ entity then sets up a shell corporation (or, enlists some other limited liability entity) masquerading as the copyright holder itself and sues defendants in federal court for copyright infringement on the copyright holder’s behalf.

WWE Studios Finance Corp. is claiming copyright infringement for the unlawful download of the “Eliminators” movie. Here is a snapshot of that title from the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT copyright troll’s own site (noting its placement among other movies, which I believe will soon be subject of future lawsuits):
wwe-studios-finance-corp-eliminators-imageThe purpose of this article, however, is not to discuss the WWE Studios Finance Corp. movie lawsuits, but to discuss their Nevada attorney, Charles Rainey of Hamrick & Evans, LLP (let’s hope they have some good malpractice insurance based on what I am about to share).

Who is WWE Studios’ plaintiff attorney Charles Rainey?

Charles Rainey is the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll attorney filing all of the WWE Studios Finance Corp. (Eliminators movie) lawsuits on behalf of his ‘common troll‘ (Guardaley / MPAA) client. I was looking at the docket for his WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00899) case, and it occurred to me that Charles Rainey sent subpoenas out to CenturyLink subscribers WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE JUDGE.

What is your proof that this sanctionable conduct occurred?

Here is a copy of the court’s docket — you’ll notice NO AUTHORIZATION from Nevada Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach giving him permission to send the subpoenas, and sending subpoenas without explicit authorization to do so can land the copyright troll attorney with SANCTIONS from the court.

050217-WWE-Studios-Subpoena-Sent-to-CenturyLink-Without-Court-Authorization-image

What support do you have that sending subpoenas to ISPs without court authorization is sanctionable conduct?

If you are an attorney and you were practicing back in 2011 (or if you were following cases even back then), you might remember the last time an attorney did that. Does the name Evan Stone out of Dallas, TX sound familiar to you?

Read about what happened to copyright troll Evan Stone when he did the same thing.

In short, before WWE Studios (Eliminator movie) copyright troll attorney Charles Rainey even asked the court for permission as to whether WWE Studios could send the subpoenas to unmask the identities of the John Doe Defendants implicated in his Nevada cases, “he will have already received identifying information of the CenturyLink subscribers and will have already been communicating with the John Doe Defendants in this case (and possibly others), likely to discuss or extort a settlement from each defendant… all this before the court even gave him permission to ask for the identities of the John Doe Defendants.”

Can you complain to the judge on our behalf as our attorney?

Yes.  Now obviously, Nevada District Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (and Nevada District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey) likely do not yet know that Charles Rainey had the chutzpah (using the language from the Evan Stone sanctions) to subpoena the names of the defendants without their authorization.  But now they will know about it, and if you are a WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does Defendant, you should certainly complain about this because Charles Rainey is not yet entitled to know who you are.

What is your opinion about sanctions, and would $10,000 sanctions be appropriate?

As an attorney, I don’t like seeing any attorney get sanctioned.  However, copyright trolls and their attorneys engage in what is known as an abuse of process, or more easily said, an abuse of the court’s resources.  They pay the court one $400 fee to file the case against multiple defendants, and they cost the judge many months of time adjudicating the case when in reality, they are using the lawsuit as a mechanism to shake down John Doe defendants accused of unlawfully viewing their client’s movies.

When calculating sanctions, such a calculation should be commensurate with the amount of money that attorney has unlawfully collected through his scheme (and I wouldn’t find it objectionable to expand the scope of the sanctions investigation into other settlement amounts received on behalf of the same copyright troll ‘common troll’ entity filed in this same court).

In the case of Evan Stone, he collected tens (possibly hundreds) of settlements at $2,500 per settlement, and that is why I thought $10,000 sanctions against Evan Stone was inappropriately low — it only amounted to FOUR settlements.

Here with this WWE Studios Finance Corp. entity (and more particularly, the ‘common troll’ entity behind the scenes and in the shadows), settlement amounts are significantly higher than in 2011 when Evan Stone filed his lawsuits in the Dallas, TX federal courts.

This same entity filing this “Eliminators” movie lawsuit also is also filing the ME2 Productions (Mechanic:Resurrection movie) lawsuits, the Cook Productions (Mr. Church) lawsuits, the I.T. Productions (I.T. Movie) lawsuits, and has also filed hundreds of others over that past five years.  From this history, we already know that settlement amounts solicited can be as low as $3,500, and as high as $8,000.

Thus, if the court decided to sanction Rainey for this same conduct that the Texas Northern District Court sanctioned Evan Stone in 2011, it should be commensurate with the settlement amounts Charles Rainey is soliciting and bringing in for his ‘common troll’ client.  Plus, we are six years and literally 6,000+ copyright troll cases after the Evan Stone cases were filed, where copyright trolling and the process of obtaining early discovery from the court is well known.  Thus, any attorney who sends subpoenas to ISP [without authorization from the court] forcing them to disclose the identities of their subscribers should know better.


FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: Click here for more general information about WWE Studios Finance Corp. lawsuits (I will be creating the page shortly), their known tactics, and their strategies.  To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your WWE Studios Finance Corp. lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

List of WWE Studios Finance Corp. Lawsuits for the Eliminators Movie By State:

In the Connecticut District Court:

WWE Finance Studio Corporation v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00572)

In the Hawaii District Court:

WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. Does 1 Through 16 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00165)

In the Pennsylvania Eastern District (PAED) Court:

WWE STUDIOS FINANCE CORP. v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01617)

In the Nevada District Court:

WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00899)
WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00897)
WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00896)
WWE STUDIOS FINANCE CORP. v. JOHN AND JANE DOES (Case No. 2:17-cv-00893)

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT (New MPAA Movies Gone Copyright Troll)

RightsEnforcement.com (Carl Crowell and his ilk) have been quiet lately as far as the DMCA notices go, but the movie lawsuits press on. Now they have NEW MOVIE TITLES that they will be suing on in the coming weeks and months.  It is worth mentioning that since I began writing about RIGHTSENFORCEMENT (I have to put their name in caps since it just looks awkward when writing it out), the company got quiet — not because of me or anything I wrote on the topic — but now I understand that they were spending their time continuing the Voltage Pictures business model and obtaining new contracts with new movie companies with the intent of ‘enforcing’ or suing John Doe Defendants who download those films (and as always, recruiting new ISPs to send their DMCA notices, whether by force or by ‘carrot and stick’).

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 1

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT represents a ‘common troll’ entity which enforces the copyright rights of other companies who contract with it.

QUICK BACKGROUND: HOW THE SCHEME WORKS.

How I understand this works (source: Dallas Buyers Club lawsuit against copyright trolls Voltage Pictures, Inc., a.k.a., Dallas Buyers Club, LLC).  A common troll entity (e.g., Voltage Pictures, Guardaley, MPAA, whoever) contacts the production company for some failed movie that did not make expected profits in the theater.  They license the rights to enforce the copyright owned by that movie company.  This “common troll” entity would then set up shell entities masquerading as the movie company.  These shell entities are LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, which means that if there is a lawsuit against them, or if they get hit for damages, the damages are limited to the limited liability company itself, and not the criminals ‘behind the veil’ of these companies.

This shell entity files multiple “John Doe” lawsuits across the US using German Company Guardaley (and it’s US shell company counterparts) to provide “expert evidence” that copyright infringement happened via the bittorrent networks.  They ask the federal judges to unmask the identities of the ISP subscribers who were assigned the IP address which was involved in the bittorrent lawsuit, and they contact that defendant and ask for a multi-thousand dollar settlement for the ‘loss’ they suffered because of their download.

What movies will this ‘common troll’ sue for in the future?

Some of the new movies on the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT Client List are:

  • Larceny (with Dolph Lundgren, “I will break you.”)
  • I Am Wrath (with John Travolta)
  • Vengeance (with Nicolas Cage)
  • USS Indianapolis (with Nicolas Cage)
  • Rage
  • Rumble
  • Undisputed 4
  • A Tale of Love and Darkness

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 2

  • Bedeviled
  • Christmas All Over Again
  • Killer Joe
  • Lady Bloodfight
  • Maximum Conviction
  • Navy Seals: The Battle For New Orleans
  • Playing Cool
  • The Company You Keep

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | wwe-studios-finance-corp-eliminators-movie-lawsuit

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | me2-mechanic-resurrection-lawsuit

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 5 | salt-and-fire | cook-productions-mr.-church

  • The Humbling
  • Salt and Fire
  • Queen of the Desert
  • Close Range

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 6

  • Good Kill
  • Charlie Countryman
  • Sniper: Special Ops
  • Life on the Line
  • Cabin Fever Reboot
  • Return to Sender

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 7

  • Countdown
  • Blunt Force Trauma, and
  • Wild Horses

Are these famous actors or producers involved in the copyright trolling scheme?

Likely not.  It has become apparent that the actors in the movie have absolutely nothing to do with RIGHTSENFORCEMENT, or the copyright trolling that the production company has chosen as their alternate path to making money from the film (their primary method of selling movie tickets flopped).  In fact, the actors are usually the victims of both the piracy and the lawsuit, as they benefit from NEITHER.

Is Carl Crowell (the figurehead of RIGHTSENFORCEMENT) behind these lawsuits?

Again, likely not.  It is also now apparent that Carl Crowell alone (the ‘owner’ of RIGHTSENFORCEMENT and the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website) is likely not the businessman / entrepreneur behind the acquisition of the movie titles.  Rather, he and his RIGHTSENFORCEMENT company are most logically patsy figureheads, as was Keith Lipscomb and his now defunct law firm.  (On a side note, after all the years we thought that Lipscomb was the villain for the Malibu website, I wonder if he feels like a patsy as well — used and abused by the more powerful copyright trolls, or did Lipscomb make out with windfall profits?  It would be interesting to speak to him and have him give his side of the story to ‘spill the guts’ of who these guys behind the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT company and actually are.)

So as much as that was ‘tongue in cheek’ (cliche which has a different meaning if you knew anything about the Malibu lawsuits Lipscomb was filing), realistically Lipscomb is bound by a number of strong contracts where he could probably lose his law license for breach of attorney-client privilege if he disclosed the identity of his ‘client’ — the one who has been filing all of these lawsuits.

If not him, then who? (think, “who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?”)

We don’t need Lipscomb to see who is actually behind these lawsuits.  It is becoming apparent (at least in my observation) that the entity behind Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT organization is none other than the MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (MPAA) and their lobbyists.

I laugh at myself whenever I say this out loud because the idea that such an apparent ‘legitimate’ organization would engage in such banal legal tactics to monetize their copyrights to compensate for having made failed movies (“floppers”) in the theaters makes me just shake my head in disgust.  Then, having learned over the last two years that the same organization is affiliated with OR HAS DIRECTED the pornography lawsuits across the US since 2012 just makes me cringe.  “It is just too horrible.”

Why I believe the MPAA/RIAA are behind the movie lawsuits.

I covered why I actually think the MPAA and RIAA are behind the movie lawsuits in depth here, but I’ll quickly recap.

Look at the evidence.  The RIAA (a similar but very related organization) was involved in so many lawsuits prior to 2010.  They sued and sued, and then all of a sudden in 2010, they went SILENT.  The MPAA also sued, my best understanding is using Voltage Pictures, and a bunch of other companies with The Expendables lawsuits, etc., all using the law firm Dunlap Grubb, & Weaver, LLC to file their lawsuit.  When those mass bittorrent lawsuits failed, it appears to me (based on the fact that the same Guardaley company was involved in both the movie AND porn lawsuits) that the MPAA and RIAA then encouraged the pornography industry to file lawsuits on their behalf to make headway in the court system to change or break copyright.

I know I wrote “break” copyright, but I have had some time to think about it, and while I am still befuddled by the thought that the MPAA would scheme to have the porn companies file lawsuits for their own benefit to change copyright law, I wonder if they did so because they wanted to create change in the courts because they couldn’t get it done in an ineffective lame Congress.

Anyway, this is still a mystery to me, and it is bigger than me, and I am not the one with authority or power to break the story, expose the MPAA, or investigate the MPAA or the RIAA with any credibility other than my best guesses based on what I see come out in the lawsuit filings and disclosures.  It simply must be noted that with the exodus of Lipscomb from the adult film lawsuits and the merging of the RIAA (now embodied in Rightscorp) and the MPAA (with the movie titles) all coming together in Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT entity (which is growing in power and in licenses to movie production companies who have signed on with them), I must assume legitimately that there must be a REASON why these movie companies are obediently ‘falling in line’ and signing up with Crowell’s organization.  That reason cannot be that there are so many greedy movie production companies in Hollywood who have all of a sudden embraced copyright trolling as a legitimate copyright monetization business strategy. Rather, I believe that reason is that THE RIGHTSENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION AND ITS MOVIE COMPANY CONTRACT DOES NOT BELONG TO CARL CROWELL, BUT TO THE MPAA/RIAA ENTITIES.

ME2 Utah Subpoenas from CenturyLink Are Coming Due.

Subpoenas Sent to CenturyLink to expose identities of ME2 Utah Defendants due 4/28.

ME2 Utah cases have been blazing since they were filed early in March, and now the subpoenas for those cases are coming due this week.

Who is the attorney for the ME2 Utah cases?

The ‘copyright troll’ attorney in Utah who filed these cases is Todd Zenger (“Todd E. Zenger”), and he works for Kirton McConkie in Salt Lake City, Utah. Any e-mails coming from “[email protected],” or calls from his “801-328-3600” phone number (or any 801-328-XXXX phone number should cause you to be wary that you have a Utah ME2 copyright troll trying to scare you into settling with him for thousands of dollars.

Are Utah ME2 Productions, Inc. cases any different from those filed in other states?

Really, no.  I have already written much about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases, and the Utah ME2 cases are no different from the cases filed in other states. The following articles should be helpful in understanding the ME2 Utah cases as well:

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. “MECHANIC:RESURRECTION” LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA.

Just like the other cases, the Utah ME2 Productions, Inc. cases are suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the Mechanic: Resurrection movie, starring Jason Statham and Jessica Alba. The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000 (but don’t let that large number scare you, because baked into copyright infringement law is the concept of ‘minimum statutory damages’ as well).

Accused ME2 Utah-based internet users are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (CenturyLink), which informs them 1) they are implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant in this case, and 2) the ISP is bound by a subpoena to share the account holder’s contact information (and relevant information about their IP address’ involvement in the case) on a certain due date unless the subscriber files an objection with the court (referring to a “motion to quash”).

Why is this article relevant now (and for the next week or so)?

The reason why I am writing this article is because starting THIS FRIDAY (and continuing for the next week), the ME2 Utah-based subpoenas sent to CenturyLink demanding that they turn over the identities of the Utah ME2 John Doe Defendants are coming due. Most relevant, the next deadline is this Friday, 4/28.

What should I expect after 4/28 once CenturyLink complies with the subpoenas?

The expectation following this 4/28 deadline is that Todd Zenger will start sending out settlement demand letters to Utah ME2 John Doe Defendants, explaining that they have been sued for $150,000, and that their ISP has identified them as being the downloader. That their ISP identified them as the infringer is actually not true, as the ISP will have only identified that their IP address was ‘in the room’ when bittorrent downloading was happening.

However, Todd Zenger’s cases do not state that each John Doe Defendant is the actual infringer, nor does he provide evidence in the form of a PCAP file that any of the Utah ME2 defendants actually committed copyright infringement or downloaded a large enough piece of the movie to be considered “substantially similar” to the copyrighted film. However, it will have to be up to the judges (and us attorneys) to inform them that Todd Zenger is not in possession of the Guardaley evidence he allegedly claims to have.

Who are the federal judges assigned to the ME2 Utah Cases?

The Utah ME2 cases (thus far) are evenly spread between the following judges.  I wouldn’t be surprised if moving forward, one judge, e.g., Judge Evelyn Furse will take over the other cases to have uniform decisions across the Utah ME2 cases.

Judge David Nuffer:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00198)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00224)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00190)

Judge Paul M. Warner:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00199)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00225)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00189)

Judge Evelyn J Furse:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00179)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00169)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00178)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00158)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00157)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00168)

Judge Jill N. Parrish:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00200)

Judge Dustin B. Pead:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00191)

Judge Ted Stewart:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00223)

What are your options in defending or resolving claims in a ME2 Utah-based case?

If you have read this far, you are likely one of the John Doe Defendants in this case, and thus here are your options on how our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC (or any other competent copyright litigation attorney) can help you in this case.

OPTION 1: FIGHT

In this option, your attorney would fight this case on your behalf. Since the ME2 scam has been exposed, the inherent weaknesses in Todd Zenger’s case are now well known. This option is more expensive than the other options, but it is probably the most satisfying option when you win and ask for attorney fees from ME2 Productions.

OPTION 2: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Settlement negotiations does not mean that you downloaded the movie or that you are guilty of copyright infringement. Rather, it simply means that you want to pay to have the plaintiff attorney dismiss you from the lawsuit. This option can be used by both ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ defendants. While I do not recommend an innocent defendant pay ANYTHING to settle the claims against him, I do not judge defendants when they choose this option.

OPTION 3: “NO SETTLEMENT REPRESENTATION”

This is the discounted “no settlement” representation route that I discussed here. In the span of 2-3 hours, I would consult with the client, send over a letter of representation to the plaintiff attorney (to stop him from contacting the client directly). I would then draft a letter to the plaintiff explaining that my client did not do the download, and that we are not interested in anything other than a walkaway settlement, meaning that my client pays no settlement. The purpose of this representation is to put Todd Zenger on notice that my client is not the infringer he is looking for.

OPTION 4: “IGNORE” ROUTE REPRESENTATION

The ignore route is best described as ‘playing chicken.’ I best described the “ignore” route, and how it differs from the “no settlement representation” route here. The assumption with the “ignore” route is that Todd Zenger is not yet naming and serving defendants in this case, so you would hire our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC to monitor the case for you. We would send over a letter of representation indicating that we are representing you in the case, but we would not engage in settlement negotiations.

The intended client for the ‘ignore’ route is the innocent client that wishes to have a more ‘hands on’ engagement with their case over the “no settlement” representation letter route, where their attorney is actively monitoring the case and having active discussions with the plaintiff attorney. Both ‘guilty’ and ‘non-guilty’ defendants can utilize the “ignore” route, as this option is adjustable based on the circumstances of the client. If Todd Zenger decides to start naming and serving defendants, a ‘guilty’ client would likely have me open up settlement negotiations on his behalf, whereas a non-guilty client would instruct me to not settle and adhere to the ‘ignore’ strategy. Obviously getting named and served while in this strategy would be cause to decide whether to shift strategies to the “fight” or “settle” strategy, which is fine.

OPTION 5: ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES” REPRESENTATION

I discussed the “argue minimum statutory damages” representation option last night in this article. The purpose of this option is to take the settlement negotiations away from a misbehaving plaintiff attorney. Instead of negotiating a settlement (where the plaintiff is asking for too much money), we would file an answer with the court admitting infringement, and we would then make the case for the judge to award minimum statutory damages of $750.

The intended client for the “minimum statutory damages” representation route is a client who did the download and either does not want to go through settlement negotiations, or who wants to take settlement negotiations out of the hands of the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll and leave the damages up to the judge to decide. Obviously since we are admitting guilt in this option, it is appropriate for the client to have done the download to use this strategy.

However you decide to proceed, if I can be of assistance or answer any questions about your ME2 Utah case, please let me know.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

STRATEGY: Have attorney argue for Minimum Statutory Damages ($750+fees)

Asking for $750 Minimum Statutory Damages is not as scary as you might think.

Minimum statutory damages for copyright infringement is $750. Copyright trolls and their attorneys scare accused downloaders with the $150,000 number in EVERY SINGLE SETTLEMENT DEMAND LETTER. But baked into the copyright laws is that ‘minimum statutory damages’ number, which is $750.

If you think about it, if you are caught drunk driving (a dangerous act where you can kill people), in Texas, you can be fined a few hundred to two thousand dollars and spend between three and 180 days in jail. If you steal something or are caught shoplifting (or you are caught purchasing or accepting stolen property), in Texas you can be charged with larceny and would have to pay a fee as low as $50 or as high as a few thousand dollars depending on the cost of the goods stolen.

Minimum Statutory Damages | Strategy to Admit Guilt
succo / Pixabay

When you “steal” copyrighted content by downloading it via bittorrent or streaming it via some ‘tube’ website or using software such as Kodi, you are depriving the copyright holder of the cost of the movie ticket (~$12) for the movie you did not see in the theater, or the cost of the DVD (~$30) that you did not purchase on Amazon.com because instead you pirated the film. These are what are called “ACTUAL DAMAGES“.

STATUTORY DAMAGES are something else. The law says that the copyright holder does not need to prove actual damages, and can rely on damages that the law thinks he is entitled to under the copyright laws. Baked into statutory damages is the concept of “minimum damages” which easily includes the theft of a video or a movie via a bittorrent download.

So when a plaintiff attorney / copyright troll scares you with that $150,000 number, understand that if you simply hung up the phone with that copyright troll and hired our firm to ‘file an answer with the court admitting guilt and arguing for minimum statutory damages’, there is a strong case for your judge to award minimum statutory damages to the plaintiff attorney.

What an “Argue Minimum Statutory Damages” strategy would cost.

But what exactly would the minimum statutory damages look like? Obviously, add $750 for the minimum statutory damages itself.

+$750 minimum statutory damages

Then, copyright laws give the ‘winner’ of the lawsuit the right to collect their attorney fees from the ‘losing’ side. Since we would quickly and actively file an answer on your behalf admitting guilt, the plaintiff attorney would not have had any out of pocket costs except the $400 filing fee (which in most cases is split between 10-15 defendants), so add another $40.

+$40 filing fees and costs split among the ten ‘John Doe” defendants

Then, the plaintiff attorney spent “a few hours” filing the boilerplate complaint (he has done this probably 100+ times already, so it didn’t take him a long time to file your lawsuit) and providing the court the documents he has already done many times already. Thus, estimate another $750-$1500 for the attorney fees to the ‘prevailing party’ (the ‘winner’).

+$1,500 attorney fees to the prevailing party (assuming that much time was even spent on the case).

———————————————————–
Then add everything up.
———————————————————–

+ $750 minimum statutory damages
+ $40 filing fees split among defendants
+ $1,500 attorney fees (if even that much)
———————————————————–
Total Estimated Cost: $2,290 for having your attorney ‘plead guilty’ on your behalf.

What about the fee to your own lawyer? Here is what you pay for:

STEPS YOUR ATTORNEY WOULD TAKE TO ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES”:

Here are the steps we would take on your behalf in order to implement the minimum statutory damages strategy.

1) We send a letter to your plaintiff attorney and file a notice of representation with the court.
2) We open up discussions with the plaintiff attorney. Discuss evidence. If relevant, discuss settlement.
3) If the attorney is being unreasonable in the settlement negotiations, we cut off settlement negotiations and file an answer with the court admitting guilt. In our answer, we make argument for minimum damages.

Who would benefit from an “argue minimum statutory damages” strategy?

Now obviously the “argue minimum statutory damages” strategy is best used with an accused downloader who has actually done the download and does not wish to defend against a copyright infringement lawsuit (e.g., he does not have a ‘clean’ hard drive, and/or the infringing file is still on his hard drive).  This strategy is also best used in the situation where the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll is being greedy, unreasonable, or abusive in the settlement negotiations.  There is no need to argue with an uncooperative copyright troll if you can get a comparable result by simply admitting guilt and arguing for minimum statutory damages.

Is this an effective strategy even if you did not do the download?

NO.  1) There is no reason to settle if you did not do the download.  2) This strategy involves admitting guilt.  The purpose of this strategy is simply to take the settlement negotiations out of the hands of the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll.

If you did NOT do the download, there are other less expensive strategies, such as the “no settlement” representation strategy or the “ignore” route.  Alternatively, your attorney can file a motion to dismiss and dispense of the lawsuit quickly based on the inherent weaknesses of the case.

Why would someone guilty of copyright infringement use the “argue minimum statutory damages” strategy?

Plaintiff attorneys / copyright trolls seem to have their own calculus as to who they ‘let off’ and who they ‘nail’ in a settlement negotiation.  In other words, if they like you (or your Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney has leverage over them), they’ll give you a good settlement deal.  If they don’t like you, or if you fit into a category which copyright trolls believe that you have a vulnerability exposed, they can and often *WILL* take advantage of you (e.g., if you are elderly, or if you are a war veteran, or if they believe you can pay a higher settlement, etc.).

The strategy of having your attorney argue for minimum statutory damages is a good way to take the power away from the copyright troll.  If the plaintiff attorney is taking advantage of your situation, you can take the settlement negotiations away from him.  In essence, it is forcing the copyright troll to accept a lower settlement amount than he would have proposed in a settlement negotiation.

To embarrass a troll.

Arguing for minimum statutory damages is the reason someone who did the bittorrent download would employ this strategy.  However, there is the additional nudge or motivation in doing this strategy — to expose the tactics of the copyright troll.  If a plaintiff attorney is using abusive tactics, or he is hiding his tactics behind a “FRE 408” header on his e-mail, you can use this strategy to expose his conduct to the judge.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE 408), settlement negotiations are not admissible in court, unless they are brought into evidence to show bias, prejudice, or some other valid reason (e.g., abusive conduct or harassment in the context of settlement negotiations).  There is a lot of latitude for an attorney who is filing an answer admitting guilt and asking the court to grant him his wishes to quickly and efficiently terminate the proceedings.  Within this latitude is the ability for the attorney to share with the judge the contents of the settlement negotiations prior to filing the answer in order to help the judge understand that the plaintiff attorney was employing abusive settlement tactics in order to resolve his $12 lost movie ticket / $30 lost DVD sale claim.

Would our firm also argue the other inherent weaknesses of the plaintiff’s case in an “argue minimum statutory damages” strategy?

Honestly, it is not needed.  There are a number of additional strategies that can be employed to protect an accused defendant (especially since the plaintiff attorney likely does not have actual evidence of copyright infringement), but the goal in the “argue minimum statutory damages” strategy is simply to quickly dispose of the lawsuit with the minimal amount of costs to the defendant.

Obviously there *are* inherent weaknesses in the copyright troll’s case which can be addressed in a more comprehensive defense strategy (e.g., by filing a motion to dismiss with the court) and then if that fails, filing an answer admitting guilt and arguing for statutory damages.  However, this is not the purpose of this strategy.  (As to the motion to dismiss because of the other issues inherent to the case, e.g., improper joinder, no evidence, improper pleadings, etc., I will be writing about these weaknesses in coming articles.)

IN SUMMARY, CONSIDER ARGUING FOR MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES (IF YOUR TROLL IS MISBEHAVING).

If your copyright troll is being unreasonable in settlement negotiations, consider having your attorney (us, or whoever you use) file an answer with the court admitting guilt and argue for minimum statutory damages. Even if you were caught doing the download, you don’t need to give in to a ransom settlement. Copyright law has already anticipated your infringement, and there is a strong likelihood that a judge (especially one who sees many ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits from this same plaintiff) knows the scam these copyright holders are running, and they will be sympathetic to a defendant who employs this strategy.  Why?  This is a quick resolution to a copyright troll who is taking advantage of a downloader and asking for more than he should, and judges love ‘judicial economy’.

Obviously if you have any questions about what I have written here, please feel free to SPEAK TO ME and ask me questions about your case. There are many ways to take care of the claims against you without giving in to the settlement demands of the plaintiff copyright troll. Also, each defendant has different circumstances, so this article (or more generally, ANYTHING I write in this blog) is not meant to be legal advice or magical pills for you to get out of this lawsuit scott free. Trust that I have spent literally SEVEN YEARS fighting copyright trolls, and so there are many ways to approach your case. Admitting guilt and making the argument for minimum statutory damages is simply one more tool we have at our disposal to handle a plaintiff attorney who is not ‘playing nice.’

Motions to Quash ISP Subpoena Letters, Malibu Media Lawsuits, Rightscorp DMCA Settlement Notices, and Helping John Does.