Screenshot from Malibu Media, LLC's X-Art.com website.

UNDER THE RADAR, 122 MALIBU MEDIA LLC “SINGLE DOE” CASES FILED

Malibu Media, LLC has been one of the worst offenders in these copyright trolling cases. Instead of waiting for a full download to be complete, it has been reported to me that IMMEDIATELY UPON CLICKING ON THE BITTORRENT LINK (or in other words, as soon as an internet user “joins” the bittorrent swarm, EVEN IF NOT A BYTE OF DATA HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED), ***WHAM!*** Downloaders are tagged and are sued for copyright infringement.

MALIBU MEDIA ‘SITERIPS’

To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC is known to sue based on what is called a “Siterip” (essentially meaning that someone ripped a large set of videos from their http://www.x-art.com paid website, and posted a huge number of them into one bittorrent file). We won’t ask 1) if they’ve known about the Siterips, why they have not filed DMCA takedown notices for those Siterips, and 2) whether they were involved in the “leaking” of the various siterips (in my opinion, it is too convenient to have “Siterip #1… Siterip #2… Siterip #12…”). In sum, clicking on the wrong torrent file link with Malibu Media, LLC as your plaintiff production company can get you sued for 25+ titles, or “hits” as they like to call them.

MALIBU MEDIA ASKING FOR UNUSUALLY HIGH SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS

Now what makes these cases particularly offensive is that unlike the traditional copyright trolls who will only ask for $3,400 and settle for whatever they can get, Malibu Media, LLC will likely ask for at least a $10,000 settlement from each defendant. You see this by looking at the case names below that there appears to be only ONE defendant in each case. The reason for this is that their attorneys will tell the defendant that he’s the only one in the case, and that they’ll amend the complaint, “name” him as a defendant, and serve him with process if he doesn’t settle.

MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS SUE ONLY ONE “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANT

While I am against the concept of suing downloaders for the piracy of a film, I want to note that filing ONE LAWSUIT FOR ONE DEFENDANT is the proper way to do these lawsuits (and the courts will be much more forgiving based on the many filing fees paid to the court, especially since the court will not need to deal with rote procedural issues that have plagued these cases since their inception [e.g., improper jurisdiction, improper joinder]). In sum, in a case such as this one, a defendant must answer for himself the simple questions of 1) can I fight this (the answer is likely yes considering the “snapshot” methods in which they track the IP addresses relating to the downloads, along with the likely-present issues of late copyright filing dates), and 2) how would I like to proceed based on what I know about their evidence against me (based on my own network router setup and/or downloading habits)? X-art films have a very specific style and theme to them, and they attract a very specific genre of married men, one step up from those who enjoy classy soft porn. On top of this, the Keith Lipscomb IP enforcement company representing Malibu Media, LLC as their client does research on most defendants (note their mention below as “Dr. John Doe” in one of their cases to signal to the defendant that they know he has financial resources to pay a large settlement). For these reasons, it is often a simple question of EVIDENCE in determining whether to move forward with what is usually a very good defense, or whether to use that evidence we gather in your favor while attempting to negotiate a deeply discounted settlement on your behalf.

WHO ARE MALIBU MEDIA’S ATTORNEYS IN EACH STATE?

Up front, the local counsel you will read about below — Mary Schultz, Paul Nicoletti, Jon Hoppe, Leemore Kushner, Jason Kotzker, and Patrick Cerillo — are merely paid to file and fight these cases according to the instruction of Keith Lipscomb. They are merely cogs in Lipscomb’s IP enforcement machine, and in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to be talking to them since they likely do not have authority to do anything but gather evidence, argue the cases and move them forward.

MARCH 2013 – 19 NEW CASES

Illinois Central District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01096)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01099)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01100)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01101)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01102)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02058)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02059)

Wisconsin Eastern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00226)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00236)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00238)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00239)

Indiana Northern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media LLC v. Joe Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00085)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00162)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00163)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00164)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00165)

District Of Columbia District Court
Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00268)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00269)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00270)

FEBRUARY 2013 – 103 NEW CASES

New Jersey District Court
Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01179)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.32.191.163 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01176)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.142.2.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01178)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01180)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00214)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-01159)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.35.11.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01104)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.70.130.138 ( 2:13-cv-01106)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01105)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00971)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.54.255.28 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00972)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00973)

Wisconsin Eastern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00217)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00213)

California Southern District Court
Leemore L Kushner of Kushner Law Group

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00433)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00434)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00435)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00436)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00437)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00438)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00440)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00442)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00443)

Florida Middle District Court
M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00467)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00468)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00469)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00470)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00471)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00472)

Florida Southern District Court
M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:13-cv-80178)

Colorado District Court
Jason Aaron Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 63.225.246.31 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00423)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.212.197.251 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00425)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)

Maryland District Court
Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00352)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00353)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00354)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00356)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00357)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00358)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00359)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00363)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00366)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00350)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00351)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00355)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00360)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00361)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00362)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00364)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00365)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00506)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00507)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00508)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00509)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00510)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00511)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00517)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00518)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00512)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00513)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00514)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00515)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00516)

Illinois Central District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01072)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01073)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02043)

Illinois Northern District Court
Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00863)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00878)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00880)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00883)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00884)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00885)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00888)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Dr John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00891)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00913)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00915)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00934)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00935)

Michigan Western District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00158)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00162)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00163)

Indiana Southern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00201)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00203)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00204)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00206)

Indiana Northern District Court
Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00055)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00071)
Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00072)

Colorado District Court
Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.234.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00307)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.250.8 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00308)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.161.234 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00309)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.34.85 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00310)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00311)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.40.151 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00316)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.71.30.155 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00317)
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.245.154.142(Case No. 1:13-cv-00318)

P.S. – For those of us who follow these cases as enthusiasts, did you notice that there was no mention of Chris Fiore in this long list of cases? Perhaps he still has his hands full with the bellwether case.


FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:  Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC 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.

39 thoughts on “UNDER THE RADAR, 122 MALIBU MEDIA LLC “SINGLE DOE” CASES FILED”

  1. It would be horrible if someone skilled were to start indepth searches into those hashes and find the first time they appeared.
    And then tied that information to IP addresses of the uploader of the original file… then find the seedbox being used to keep them active…

    Given how quickly the turn around is, it would truly be devastating to show the courts how unclean the hands really are.

  2. In one of the mass cases, fmdc, the snapshot taken for the first infringement is taken on the day they got the copyright panent and one day after the listed release date of the video. The last infringement date on that same case is 5 month after. A good question can be raised is how the trolls ip tracking company found that first occurance out of all possible torrents online, and why dcma was never issued allowing many more downloads for many more month.
    Now MM is doing one extra step, after they harvest the IP by sharing the torrent file, they start monitoring other activities, most likely illegal invasion of privacy, but to potential Doe could be very damaging..

    1. @POD, the invasion of privacy in monitoring the activities of a suspected defendant is an area I have not yet looked into. I have seen mention into this argument, and I suspect amendments or re-writing of the ECPA and privacy statutes by Congress will clarify and/or modify this issue. If you know anything about the topic, I invite you to e-mail me ([email protected]) what you know and I’d be happy to “learn” about the topic more thoroughly. This could be a useful defense moving forward.

      1. The only info I have on this is what DTD posted on the single cases.

        For example Colorado case 1:13-cv-00307-PAB
        http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/complaint_00307co.pdf

        Malibu Media films
        http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ex_a_7movies_00307co.pdf

        Other works, not owned by them.
        http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ex_c_othersharedmovies_00307co.pdf

        MM first case of infringement timestamps was on 6/30/12 and looks like they started collecting the hits on the other work. From what I can tell, the info for the other material could come from some kind of monitoring company that collected torrent traffic and then sold the info to the Troll, or Trolls company started the monitoring after the first hit.

        Either way, this could raise some privacy issue, as far as I know wiretapping law(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act#Lawsuits) was made for law enforcement.

  3. Rob, you said “While I am against the concept of suing downloaders for the piracy of a film”. This is where we differ. Tactics used by the trolls have been problematic. But theft of intellectual property is theft. Notwithstanding the fact that the Copyright Act should be obeyed as dina d’malchuta dina, it is also zeh neheneh v’zeh chaser.and hasagat gevul. While there are legitimate instances of copying (e.g. fair use), piracy is wrong.

    1. Jay, just because an activity is unlawful does not mean it should be illegal. Piracy is a bad thing. There are mechanisms readily available to fight piracy (some better than others). I speak a lot about DMCA takedown letters. This is merely one approach. Another is simply coding the videos with the subscriber’s account to catch and sue the initial uploader. There are other technological solutions that a production company can implement to solve or at least minimize the piracy problem.

      Back to the legal vs. lawful argument, you seem to think that because something is illegal, that it is also unlawful against all circumstances. The problem with suing individual downloaders is 1) the disproportionate penalty for downloading a cheap video, 2) the disproportionate ability of a defendant to hire and pay for legal counsel, and 3) the high incidence of mis-identification of the ISP subscriber as being the downloader.

      [Further, and I am merely mentioning this for “academic” purposes – nobody has yet had the discussion that perhaps the misappropriation of a film should be tried under contract law (e.g., one who violates the terms of the production company’s TOS in copying a video from the paid website of which the uploader is a member should be sued under CONTRACT law, not copyright law).]

      Bottom line, copyright infringement lawsuits are being applied against the downloader “pretending” that because they used a particuar bittorrent protocol that they were “also the distributor.” BS. Again, most of the lawsuits sue the downloader not as a downloader, but as an UPLOADER/DISTRIBUTOR of the copyrighted film. Grandpa who clicks on a porn link to watch something while grandma is cleaning her teeth should not be sued for copyright infringement.

      1. Rob, if Grandpa is savvy enough to use bittorrent, he knows what he is doing may violate copyright. And while a change in remedies may be warranted from a legislative standpoint, sometimes a lawsuit is the best means to redress a grievance. A DMCA takedown letter may stop future infringement, but it does not redress past infringement.

      2. So grandpa should pay $150,000 for downloading the porn file? How about $10,000? How about $1,000? (Mind you, this is likely for a file that if he was more technically savvy he could have purchased online for $1.99 or he could have purchased the DVD for $39.99). If he was even more technically savvy he could have figured out how to view the billion files readily available online AND UPLOADED BY THE PRODUCTION COMPANIES to the web to entice visiters to buy memberships, and he could have viewed it for free. Grandpa likely clicked on a file 1) he didn’t know was copyrighted, and 2) he wouldn’t have downloaded if he thought he could lose his child’s inheritance by watching it.

        Your assumption is that grandpa should be held LIABLE FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT because he clicked on a bittorrent file. Really?

    2. I forgot to mention your role as a lawyer. As a lawyer, your job is not only to blindly obey the law, but to also interpret it and argue for its interpretation, limitation, or expansion to a particular circumstance. Do good, do justice.

      While those you are affiliated with disagree on my stance regarding the application of copyright laws to the problem of piracy AGREE with my opinion of the role of a lawyer as I have described above.

    3. Haha and not to knock your cred, so to speak, but big law firms like to make big money. They cling to the IP laws like a baby clings to his blankie because they are profitable for the firm. Same deal with copyright trolling. I have no doubt that it is VERY PROFITABLE and that there are many production companies who would be knocking down my door if I decided to take them on as clients and start suing downloaders. I understand that in hard economic times, turning to “IP monetization” and “IP enforcement” can even be a popular meme among law firms. That does not give them the right to use the law as a money-making weapon to misapply the law just because it is profitable. “IP monetization” might be legal as are these copyright trolling lawsuits, but in my opinion, its application in these copyright infringement lawsuits is unlawful.

  4. An issue with bittorrent/site rip lawsuits according to my understanding (any actual pirates can confirm or correct me 🙂 ) is that a user of a bit torrent program need not download every song or movie in the bit torrent.
    Some bittorrent files can include hundreds or thousands of song filesAn infringer who downloads a single song from a bit torrent file is indistinguishable from someone who downloaded them all. Does it really seem right that a teenager downloading a song could be sued for say half a BILLION dollars?

  5. …or in other words, as soon as an internet user “joins” the bittorrent swarm, EVEN IF NOT A BYTE OF DATA HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED), ***WHAM!*** Downloaders are tagged and are sued for copyright infringement.

    Are [you] saying that not even a peer handshake between a suspect IP and Malibu Media’s monitoring software is required but simply a tracker announce? If that is the case then these plaintiffs are asking the court to take the word of a Bittorrent tracker (a third party, probably overseas) concerning the allegedly infringing IP address.

    This could never ultimately pass as evidence unless the judge were a complete idiot, so the conclusion would be that Malibu Media is engaging in extortion.

    Is this what you really mean?

    1. Ralph, I hate to back away from a sum certain answer, but I learned a long time ago never to over-state what I know.

      My “data,” so to speak is based on the stories from my clients of what they did and did not download. Similarly, I have received a wealth of information from competing IP enforcement firms who would like to see Lipscomb & Eisenberg’s IP enforcement entity put out of business. Each one sells the benefits of their own service, and they try to discredit the methods of other firms’ IP address harvesting methods. Some have even offered to be expert witnesses in the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits contrasting their data with Lipscomb’s data (remember, they all compete for the same clients, and many share the same client and track the same torrent files to promote or provide different services to their prospective client).

      In sum, the big difference between the various IP address collection methods is based on how much they have monitored before they include the associated IP address in a lawsuit. Some wait for a snapshot of data transferred to or from the IP address, others wait for a percentage of the download to complete (my opinion is that a complete transfer should be required, but the cases have not yet gone that far other than the recent California Central District ruling requiring a complete transfer). The Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits are said to hit the downloader as soon as he joins the bittorrent swarm, similar to (or because of) the Guardaley IP address tracking methods using in harvesting the IP addresses.

      And no, I don’t know whether Guardaley is behind the Malibu lawsuits or not, and Malibu has not disclosed their IP address tracking methods yet. This would only come out in discovery once a client is named and he chooses to fight back and ask a few questions in his defense. So all I could give you is a wait-and-see answer because we will not know for sure until they divulge this voluntarily on their own, or until a defendant attorney forces them to disclose it.

      1. MM/Lipscomb use “IPP International,” which is at very least connected to Guardaley (there is an opinion that IPP is just Guardaley’s facade).

        1. Wow, how did you uncover that gem? I just did a quick search on your website and it looks like the cat was out of the bag for you and DTD some time ago. I missed the memo and have been referring to Lipscomb’s IP enforcement company using pseudonyms (if I can use the word that way) such as “the company without a name,” etc.

    1. Looks like it, yes. Linking Keith Lipscomb’s IP enforcement company to IPP, Limited is something SJD was able to do, so the credit (and the kudos) goes to her for this connection.

      1. Yes, SJD deserves credit and kudos for locating some “hard” information about the IPP International or Ltd., or as referred to in Germany, IPP LTD (UG). Actually, ALL of you deserve credit and kudos for creating ALL the blogs who are tracking the craziness of this problem. The defense lawyers, like yourself, and the Judges across the nation ALSO deserve credit and kudos for having the backs of the American public, too. The commentators with all their insight and pointed questions about the accusations, as well. How dare they assume the American public is so gullible, easily mislead, or un(der)-educated just because we are not all lawyers. As a collective whole we ARE smarter and better educated then they are and can beat them at their own game.

        We have become a community of Does who are not afraid to fight back, despite the ISP’s willingness to “sell out” to a bunch of sociopath(etic) lawyers and pornographers looking for a quick buck at the expense of the integrity of the entire US legal system.

        If it hadn’t been for the fact that the plaintiffs/lawyers themselves with their peculiar claims, preposterous allegations, incomplete and inaccurate explanations about said infringement, that the entire IT/computing industry has ever seen, some may never even given the notice a second look and disregarded it as spam/scam. Through the plaintiffs/lawyers “other favorite related technology”, the Does simply refer to this as Google, and these wonderful blog sites others have learned and confirmed that the notice was just the beginning of a “barely legal” nationwide scam called “copyright trolling”. Thank you one & all! *we are anti-piracy but more pointedly we are anti-troll*

  6. I’m following the Malibu cases in the Eastern District of Wisconsin closely to see how the ISPs will react. There’s 9 currently, but the clerk’s office has been told that there may be as many as 30 before the month is out.

    In each of the 9 cases..Malibu kept a record of all torrent material (theirs or otherwise) for some length of time. They are seeking $150k for each Malibu film a defendant downloaded (typically 15-25).

  7. just curious as to what responsibility the website, in this case X-Art//Malibu Media LLC has for ensuring/protecting it’s subscribers information, passwords, payment info and most importantly it’s own copyright for it’s own material. for instance, e-commerce sites require an SSL Certificate.

    We get the whole scam and all but given a simple “Google Quest”, as one commenter referred to it as, with the keyword search terms of: protecting website content, issuing DMCA notices, site ripping, etc… and just following along the “Google adventure” here is some interesting information so far:

    utilizing Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notice process (DMCA Takedown) (http://www.ehow.com/how_2272629_make-dmca-down-notice.html) or (http://brainz.org/dmca-takedown-101/) or (http://support.scribd.com/entries/22980-DMCA-copyright-infringement-takedown-notification-template)

    Protecting Your Web Site – (http://www.wiscocomputing.com/articles/protect_web_sites.htm)
    Strategies for Protecting Website Content from Scrapers – (http://www.graphics.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=959)

    Use robots.txt to prevent website from being ripped- (http://www.techiezone.net/tutorials/tips-tricks/use-robots-txt-to-prevent-website-from-being-ripped/)
    HTML Guard-(http://www.htmlguard.com/)
    Ever had your content stolen? Website and Content Protection- (http://www.searchdiscovery.com/blog/scraper-content-protection/)

    What’s their major malfunction? Did they give up the remainder and freedom of their United States education in exchange for “the businessofboobs”?

    1. First of all, kudos to you for protecting your online presence. Not only are you shielding your IP address and not giving out your information, but you are using TOR services which in my opinion is the best protection you can get in addition to using a VPN (see link for details).

      To answer your questions (and I invite others to fill in the details since my reply will be brief), you are correct about the DMCA Takedown and the other issues. The proper remedy for Malibu Media, LLC is to take down the torrent using a DMCA Takedown Notice and then ALL INFRINGEMENT WOULD STOP. However, it appears to me that they like having the endless supply of downloaders because that gives them more and more people to sue.

      As for the other items, I do not know what protections they have in place, or whether they are seeding the content themselves and then turning around and suing people.

      1. these two comments have some interesting thoughts tied to them:

        “Malibu Media, LLC is known to sue based on what is called a “Siterip” (essentially meaning that someone ripped a large set of videos from their http://www.x-art.com paid website, and posted a huge number of them into one bittorrent file). We won’t ask 1) if they’ve known about the Siterips, why they have not filed DMCA take down notices for those Siterips, and 2) whether they were involved in the “leaking” of the various siterips”

        “What responsibility does the website owner, in this case X-Art//Malibu Media LLC have for ensuring/protecting it’s subscribers information, passwords, payment information and most importantly it’s own copyright for it’s own material.”

        For example: “Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) Europe Limited has been fined £250,000 (US$395,775) by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK, following the massive hacking of Sony’s PlayStation Network (PSN) in 2011 that saw million of users’ personal data leaked.” and “An ICO investigation found that the attack could have been prevented if the software had been up to date, while technical developments also meant passwords were not secure.” and this “If you are responsible for so many payment card details and log-in details, then keeping that personal data secure has to be your priority. In this case that just didn’t happen, and when the database was targeted–albeit in a determined criminal attack–the security measures in place were simply not good enough,” David Smith, deputy commissioner and director of data protection, said in the statement.(http://www.zdnet.com/uk/uk-fines-sony-395k-for-2011-playstation-hack-7000010256/)

        Hypothetically, if I were a paid subscriber of said website, specifically X-Art//Malibu Media LLC and realized that there was an entire “siterip” of copyrighted content the first thing that I’d be concerned about as a paid subscriber, would be to question the security and safety of the website itself.

        If website owner, X-Art//Malibu Media LLC, hypothetically had some sort of security breach or “hack” that allowed some alleged unknown person to rip their entire site and upload it to a BitTorrent site but appears to have done nothing to protect the copyrighted material, as a paid subscriber, I’d be very concerned about the security and safety of my personal information, password and payment information.

        I’d be wondering, hypothetically, if they can’t protect their own copyrighted material from being “stolen” and shared world-wide how can they be protecting my personal information, password and payment information (or are they even trying).

        I’d seriously have to, hypothetically, reconsider my subscription for fear that my personal information, password and payment information were stolen, too, and was also being shared world-wide and sold on the black market.

        If it can happen to the Sony PlayStation Network (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/ingame/hackers-stole-personal-data-playstation-network-123618), Microsoft’s X-Box website (http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/xbox-
        entertainment-awards-website-hacked-leaking-info-for-thousands-of-users/) and The U.S. Sentencing Commissions website (http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-re-hacks-us-sentencing-site-into-video-game-asteroids-7000010384/) by the “Hacktivist” group the media has labeled as “Anonymous” who began its “Operation Last Resort” by hacking the U.S. Sentencing Commission website in the name of suicide victim Aaron Swatrz, demanding reform in the U.S. justice system. It’s a fairly justified cause for concern that certain pornographers websites are less secure and can be, hypothetically, “hacked” even easier.

  8. “Security involves both managerial and technical measures to protect against loss and the unauthorized access, destruction, use, or disclosure of the data.(49) Managerial measures include internal organizational measures that limit access to data and ensure that those individuals with access do not utilize the data for unauthorized purposes. Technical security measures to prevent unauthorized access include encryption in the transmission and storage of data; limits on access through use of passwords; and the storage of data on secure servers or computers that are inaccessible by modem. (50)”

    http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/fairinfo.shtm

  9. “We’ll get by with a little from our friends”

    Comments – doePissedOff at 2013-03-13 01:18 CET:
    WARNING TO ALL: If you reside in US and do not use any kind of VPN, you are being tracked by X Art Studio.
    X ART VIDEOS ARE OWNED BY MALIBU MEDIA, A NOTORIOUS COPYRIGHT TROLL THAT IS CURRENT SUING THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
    ALL X ART TORRENTS ARE TRACKED BY TROLLS(AND MOST LIKELY UPLOADED AND SHARED BY THEM) AND DATA IS COLLECTED BY AN NOTORIOUS TROLL MICHAEL K LIPSCOMB, AN ATTORNEY OUT OF MIAMI.
    PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DOWNLOAD ANY VIDEOS FROM THAT STUDIO, GOOGLE MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS.

    (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wVN-AvLXr4sJ:thepiratebay.se/torrent/8244985/+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (This is Google’s cache of http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8244985/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 23, 2013 05:14:06 GMT.) ***NOT INTENDED FOR VIEWERS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD***

    Google Search Results – (https://www.google.com/search?q=x-rt+malibu+media+do+not+download&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&gs_rn=7&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=x-art%20malibu%20media%20do%20not%20download&cp=83&gs_id=m&xhr=t&q=DO%20NOT%20ATTEMPT%20TO%20DOWNLOAD%20ANY%20VIDEOS%20FROM%20THAT%20STUDIO%2C%20GOOGLE%20MALIBU%20MEDIA%20LAWSUIT&es_nrs=true&pf=p&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=DO+NOT+ATTEMPT+TO+DOWNLOAD+ANY+VIDEOS+FROM+THAT+STUDIO,+GOOGLE+MALIBU+MEDIA+LAWSUIT&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.eWU&fp=aa7899e64e1d28d6&biw=1920&bih=845)

  10. Simple question- how are these URL take-down requests relevant if the torrent files are not labeled as Malibu Media LLC but are instead labeled as X-Art?

    http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/reporters/12448/X-Art/

    Most Recent Request: Sep 29, 2012
    First Available Request: Sep 29, 2012
    http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=595322
    September 29, 2012
    Sender Information:
    Malibu Media LLC
    Sent by:
    X-Art
    Chris Lahay 2,028

    http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/7139/Malibu-Media-LLC/

    Most Recent Request: Mar 29, 2013
    First Available Request: Apr 21, 2012

    Are we missing something?

  11. Brigham & Colette Field - Lipscomb - Lipscomb, Baker & Eisenberg P.L- Malibu Media LLC & Streisand effect says:

    does Lipscomb think the Courts & community have been distracted by Steele’s/Prenda & goons ?

    http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Malibu+Media%2C+LLC+

    Cases filed matching “Malibu Media, LLC ”
    Display as Search Results
    Cases 1 – 20 of 701

    “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters”. ~Albert Einstein

  12. Pingback: Did Canadian Downloaders Just Get New Rules? | ThePirateBay.gq

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *