Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases receive scrutiny from proactive federal judge.

Florida Manny Film cases receive scrutiny from a proactive federal judge.

3/17 UPDATE: Judge Matthewman filed the identical “order to show cause” as described in yesterday’s “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article. (Thanks to SJD @fightcopytrolls’ Twitter post [and link] for tipping me off to this trend.)

What this means is that as of this afternoon, the judge has begun to scrutinize the other Manny Film, LLC cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court (this time, Case No. 9:15-cv-80298). This one is due April 1st, 2015. I would not be surprised if the judge continues to go down the list of “Manny Film” cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court and kills each one, one “order to show cause” at a time.

It is also important to note that in my estimation, the Manny Film LLC lawsuits are “cut-and-paste” lawsuits copied from the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits filed across the United States.  Unfortunately for Keith Lipscomb (the mastermind behind each of the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, and now, the mastermind behind each and every Manny Film LLC lawsuit soon-to-be-filed across the U.S. District Courts), these ‘orders to show cause’ pose an existential threat to not only the Florida-based federal cases, but also to the other Manny Film LLC cases filed in the other federal district courts (upon which these Florida federal cases [when considered by the other federal judges] will be PERSUASIVE).

EDUCATIONAL NOTE: Even if all of the Manny Film LLC cases go away, the “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article is still helpful to discuss the concept that “an IP address (even one tracked to a particular defendant’s address using “solid” geolocation software) is INSUFFICIENT to identify and sue the account holder as the defendant in a bittorrent copyright infringement lawsuit.” Using the geolocation data alone as their source of “evidence” to support their claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff cannot properly state that the defendant 1) lives in the district for venue purposes, and 2) the plaintiff arguably even “fails to state a claim” against the accused defendant (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) language) because such geolocation software “evidence” does not prove (or sufficiently state) that the accused defendant is the downloader.


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.

    shalta boook now cta

    Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)

    Manny Black Eye

    It appears to me as if the Manny Film geolocatoin-based bittorrent piracy lawsuits in Southern Florida have just received their first black eye.

    The Federal District Court in Florida has been grappling these past few years with the question of whether geolocation software is sufficient to identify the accused downloader. In short, federal venue rules (according to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(a)) state (in the context of a bittorrent piracy lawsuit) that in order for a copyright holder to file a lawsuit against a John Doe Defendant, the copyright holder must assert that the accused John Doe Defendant a) lives in the federal district in which the lawsuit is filed, and b) that a substantial part of the downloading and/or uploading happened in the federal district. The purpose for this is so that the defendant is sued in the right court.

    However, in following the “bouncing ball” of the legal argument at play, the Florida federal court has realized that the plaintiff and all of its complicated geolocation software cannot prove the identity of any defendant. Not even one.

    The Manny Film plaintiff can prove an IP address was connected to a bittorrent swarm that was downloading and distributing an unlicensed copy of the copyrighted film. They can prove that the IP address can be traced to a location (e.g., the accused downloader’s house). However, there is a logical gap between knowing the location where the download happened, and knowing that the accused defendant [most frequently, the account holder] was the downloader.

    HERE’S THE KICKER… if the geolocation software cannot assert who the downloader is, how can the Manny Film LLC copyright holder assert 1) that the accused downloader was the one who was using the computer to download the copyrighted film (they have not placed him at the keyboard at the time of the download), and 2) if the Manny Film LLC copyright holder cannot bring any proof through their geolocation software — their only source of evidence — to determine who the accused downloader is, how can they competently state for the purposes of satisfying the venue requirement that the the accused downloader (whoever he or she might be) lives in the state in which the lawsuit is filed?

    “Judge, I don’t know who the downloader is, but if I did know, he would live in your district!” – Copyright Troll

    This brings me back to this nuanced argument where I was trying to frame it in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Here is an e-mail that I wrote on November 8th, 2012 (remember, our older articles are still relevant even today):

    I don’t know how to put this more plainly, and I HATE a “silver-bullet” argument, but I fail to see the weakness in a [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)] motion for failure to state a claim where the plaintiffs only know a) that an IP address downloaded the stuff, and b) that the named defendant is the account holder. It’s a fine point [which in my mind can be hammered home in the courts] but I understand the argument to be that assuming everything in the plaintiff’s complaint to be true, there is nothing that implicates the named defendant to be the person who did the download. In other words, there is no conclusive link [perhaps I need to do more research as to how strong the link needs to be to survive a 12(b)(6) motion] between the real defendant as referenced in the complaint [or who this person should be], and the named defendant [the ISP account holder].

    Two analogies — 1) someone makes an incriminating phone call; there is no proof that the person who pays the phone bill (subscriber) made the call; 2) someone’s car does damage — [barring the negligence claim, which other attorneys here have done a wonderful job of killing] is the owner liable for torts that are committed with his car if the plaintiff cannot prove that he was in the car when it caused the damage?

    In short, an IP address is NOT a person, and proving that an IP address did the download does not prove that the subscriber was the one who did the download. 

    So, turning back to the Manny Film LLC (Case No. 9:15-cv-80290) case in the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman references various Malibu Media LLC films lawsuit orders, and in turn orders the Manny Film LLC plaintiff to answer the same questions which killed the Malibu Media v. John Doe (Case No. 14-cv-20213) case and related cases.  In the Malibu Media, LLC 14-CV-20213 case, (just for completeness,) Judge Ungaro stated “there is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district.”

    The plaintiff has until March 31st, 2015 to do so, or else his Manny Film LLC cases filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida will all be in jeopardy (remember, a ruling in one case in a particular district is BINDING on other cases in that district).

    [HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE, AND INTERESTING FACT:) LITTLE DID I KNOW BACK IN 2015 THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS FILING THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS WERE THE SAME ATTORNEYS FILING THE MALIBU MEDIA PORN-BASED LAWSUITS.

    COMMON THREAD: GUARDALEY. GUARDALEY WAS NOT ONLY THE FORENSIC COMPANY BEHIND THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS, BUT IT IS NOW COMING OUT THAT THEY WERE ALSO BEHIND OF THE MAINSTREAM MOVIE LAWSUITS FILED ACROSS THE U.S., LIKELY — EVEN THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS I WROTE ABOUT HERE.]


    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.

    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.

      shalta book now cta

      Also see: Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.” (3/13/2015)

      OTHER AFFECTED MANNY FILM LLC CASES:

      In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (FLSD)
      Plaintiff Attorney: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PLLC

      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60454)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.175.83 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60455)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.236.20 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60456)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.147.5 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20923)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.2.226 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80306)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80307)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20924)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80301)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80302)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.177.255 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80303)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.122.227 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20920)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.203.201 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20921)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.226.21 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60444)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.99.53 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60445)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.229.140.101 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60446)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60447)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20905)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80298)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60448)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20907)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80297)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60453)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60438)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60440)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60441)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60442)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.56.69 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20894)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.157.43 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20895)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20896)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20899)

      In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (FLMD)
      Plaintiff Attorney: Daniel F. Tamaroff & David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff

      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00262)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No.3:15-cv-00263 )
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00265)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00266)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00366)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00368)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00370)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00371)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00373)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00374)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00377)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00378)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00380)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00381)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00382)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00264)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00365)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00367)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00369)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00372)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00375)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00379)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00506)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00507)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00508)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00509)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00510)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00495)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00496)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00497)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00498)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00499)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00500)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00501)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00502)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-00145)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00503)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00504)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00505)

      In the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (NJD)
      Plaintiff Jordan Rushie sometimes misspelled on the court record as, “Jordan Rusie of Flynn Wirkus Young PC”

      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01497)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01498)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01529)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01530)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01531)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01533)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01534)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01539)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01564)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01565)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01482)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01483)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01484)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01487)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01488)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01495)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01503)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01504)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01517)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01518)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01520)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01521)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01522)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01523)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01528)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01532)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01535)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01536)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01537)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01538)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01540)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01541)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01542)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01489)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01490)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01545)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01552)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01553)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01554)
      Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01557)

      In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED)
      Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC

      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01157)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01156)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01158)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01159)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01163)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01164)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01165)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01166)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01167)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01168)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01170)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01171)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01172)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01173)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01174)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01175)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01176)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01178)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01179)
      Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01180)

      In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (OHND)
      Plaintiff Attorney: Yousef Faroniya

      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00465)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00466)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00467)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00463)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00464)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00461)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00462)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00451)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00460)
      Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00444)

      Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.

      An article about Manny Film LLC lawsuits shifts towards Defense Attorney Tamaroff who once represented defendants but became a copyright troll.

      Manny Copyright Troll

      PERSONAL NOTE: I started writing this article about the Manny Pacquiao film lawsuits, and the more I read about the cases, the more upset I got. The gist of the article was originally going to be that the same plaintiff “copyright troll” attorneys who have been filing cases against John Doe Defendants for their Malibu Media LLC client are the same attorneys for the many Manny Film LLC cases filed across the U.S.  Thus, we will be able to predict when representing clients what they will be doing with these lawsuits.

      However, there is a real story here with the Manny Film LLC lawsuits, and that story is how the copyright trolls have succeeded in luring those who I considered my peers (fellow defense attorneys) to switch sides to the plaintiff “copyright troll” side of these abusive lawsuits and start suing the very same group of people they once built their reputation swearing to protect. That’s the real story.

      Imagine you are downloading the “Top Ten Pirated Movies” from TorrentFreak… Exodus: Gods and Kings… The Hobbit… Fifty Shades of Grey… the newest Hunger Games… and you say, “oh yeah, let me pull that crappy looking movie that is also here, Manny (2014). Maybe it will be the new Rocky.”

      How upset would you be after you wasted 88 minutes of your life that you will never get back, and you realize that critics HATED the film? How much more upset would you be when you receive a subpoena notice in the mail from your ISP that you have been sued in federal court for the piracy of …not Fifty Shades of Grey… not the Hobbit or Hunger Games… but for that Manny Pacquiao film?!? How much more upset would you be when you find out that the copyright holder / corporate entity for that Manny Pacquiao film, “Manny Film LLC,” has hired Lipscomb & Eisenberg, the law firm behind ALL of the copyright troll attorneys who have been filing the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits all across the U.S.?

      Then, how would you feel if you found out that the local attorneys hired by Lipscomb generally don’t play fair when discovery is requested, or when a valid defense is asserted? And when you learn that all of the Malibu Media dirty little secrets that their digital forensics are flawed (just as Manny Film LLC’s forensics are probably equally as flawed), how would you feel then when they block your attempts at discovering the truth of their operation?  Then, when you decided to make a reasonable offer to settle the claims against you, how would you feel when the plaintiff attorneys reject your reasonable offer, and instead they offer you an INCOME-BASED SETTLEMENT — a settlement NOT based on the fair market value of the movie you downloaded, but rather a settlement based on your neighborhood’s median income based on public information and property values in your zip code?

      Yep, I could imagine you’d be a bit upset.

      Let’s make this a bit more personal.  As of writing this article, it appears as if over 150 cases have been filed so far in four (4) states — New Jersey, Ohio, and notably, Florida and Pennsylvania.  The plaintiff attorneys in the Manny Film LLC  cases are the same attorneys that you will find for the Malibu Media lawsuits, and thus we already have an idea of what to expect from each character:

      Yousef Faroniya is handling the Ohio lawsuits. He’s the one who doesn’t like speaking to people over the phone.

      Keith Lipscomb himself is the attorney handling the Florida lawsuits (although I suspect he’s the kingpin behind all of the lawsuits filed in every state).

      Jordan Rushie is handling the New Jersey lawsuits (I half expected him to take the PA lawsuits as well since PA is his backyard, but Lipscomb’s local counsel Chris Fiore [who successfully filed many cases against John Doe Defendants and is best known for Malibu Media’s first “win” in the PA courts under what are known as the Malibu Media Bellwether cases] already was there as a copyright troll for Keith Lipscomb). The interesting part about Jordan is that he’s a “switch-hitter.” One day, he’ll represent a defendant, and the next day, he’ll represent a copyright troll. Perhaps he likes boxing, or maybe with the dissociation of his partnership with Leo Mulvihill at the Fishtown lawyers, he’s looking to either make a name for himself, and teaming up with the largest of the copyright trolls is a way to get everyone’s attention.

      What bothers me about Jordan Rushie playing plaintiff is that I suspect that he is an apprentice of Marc Randazza (I expect Marc has mentored him quite well since they started working together in 2012). Thus, anyone who knew the then-innocent Jordan Rushie from before the partnership (you know, the guy who posted on twitter comments and even made a YouTube video about his leather briefcase, and asking the Twitter world which bag looked most professional so that he can look good when he shows up in court) will likely see a very different and more seasoned Jordan Rushie with these lawsuits.

      Since I mentioned Marc’s name, Marc Randazza was the plaintiff attorney for the Liberty Media Holdings, LLC (most notably, Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. John Does 1-441 where he broke the mold of how far a copyright troll is willing to push a lawsuit, where while most copyright trolls only huff and bluff about naming and serving defendants, Marc didn’t even threaten to do so — he just did it. His settlements were also significantly higher than the average and included questionable stipulated settlements. Jordan Rushie in 2012 became his local counsel, and no doubt, the schooling Marc hopefully has given him will make Jordan a formidable attorney to anyone who downloaded that Manny movie.

      Lastly, I don’t know if I read this correctly, but I think (UPDATE: I did, and I am very upset about this) I also saw that David Tamaroff and Daniel Tamaroff of their Tamaroff & Tamaroff Law Firm were the plaintiff attorneys for all of the Florida Middle District cases. This is not only upsetting — this is a betrayal, as David and his brother Daniel have spent so much money, time, and effort trying to build their practice on the DEFENSE side of things. Why they would ruin their reputation and start representing the copyright troll side of the lawsuits is beyond me. Don’t they realize that copyright trolling is a slippery slope, and eventually it leads to the copyright troll losing his law license?!? All I could say to them is, “Tread carefully. Trolling is a slippery slope, especially with the company of folks you’ve aligned yourselves with.”

      There you go. The Manny film. Quite honestly, who cares even a little bit about the film. The people behind the Manny film obviously have crooked morals, as they have chosen Lipscomb and the Malibu Media gang to use their copyrighted film to extort money from what will be countless internet users. I wonder how many of those who will be the accused downloaders even watched the film that they downloaded, and if so, I wonder whether they recall the experience, and would they do it again if they knew what was going to happen to them next. AT LEAST when speaking to Malibu Media defendants, I sometimes get a guilty chuckle from the accused downloaders saying, “yeah, those were good videos.”

      [HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE, AND INTERESTING FACT:) IN 2015, YOU CAN SEE THAT I SUSPECTED THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS FILING THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS WERE THE SAME ATTORNEYS FILING THE MALIBU MEDIA PORN-BASED LAWSUITS, BUT BACK THEN, I COULDN’T PUT MY FINGER ON IT.

      COMMON THREAD: GUARDALEY. GUARDALEY WAS NOT ONLY THE FORENSIC COMPANY BEHIND THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS, BUT IT IS NOW COMING OUT THAT THEY WERE ALSO BEHIND OF THE MAINSTREAM MOVIE LAWSUITS FILED ACROSS THE U.S., LIKELY — EVEN THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS I WROTE ABOUT HERE.]


      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.

      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.

        shalta boook now cta

        Filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (NJD)
        Plaintiff Jordan Rushie sometimes misspelled on the court record as, “Jordan Rusie of Flynn Wirkus Young PC”

        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01497)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01498)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01529)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01530)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01531)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01533)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01534)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01539)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01564)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01565)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01482)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01483)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01484)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01487)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01488)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01495)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01503)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01504)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01517)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01518)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01520)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01521)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01522)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01523)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01528)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01532)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01535)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01536)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01537)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01538)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01540)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01541)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01542)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01489)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01490)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01545)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01552)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01553)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01554)
        Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01557)

        Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED)
        Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC

        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01157)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01156)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01158)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01159)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01163)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01164)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01165)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01166)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01167)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01168)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01170)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01171)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01172)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01173)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01174)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01175)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01176)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01178)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01179)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01180)

        Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (OHND)
        Plaintiff Attorney: Yousef Faroniya

        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00465)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00466)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00467)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00463)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00464)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00461)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00462)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00451)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00460)
        Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00444)

        Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (FLMD)
        Plaintiff Attorney: Daniel F. Tamaroff & David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff

        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00262)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No.3:15-cv-00263 )
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00265)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00266)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00366)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00368)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00370)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00371)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00373)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00374)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00377)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00378)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00380)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00381)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00382)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00264)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00365)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00367)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00369)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00372)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00375)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00379)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00506)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00507)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00508)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00509)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00510)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00495)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00496)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00497)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00498)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00499)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00500)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00501)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00502)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-00145)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00503)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00504)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00505)

        Filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida (FLSD)
        Plaintiff Attorney: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PLLC

        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60454)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.175.83 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60455)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.236.20 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60456)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.147.5 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20923)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.2.226 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80306)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80307)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20924)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80301)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80302)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.177.255 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80303)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.122.227 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20920)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.203.201 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20921)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.226.21 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60444)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.99.53 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60445)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.229.140.101 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60446)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60447)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20905)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80298)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60448)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20907)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80297)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60453)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60438)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60440)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60441)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60442)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.56.69 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20894)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.157.43 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20895)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20896)
        Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20899)

        Canada begins receiving CEG-TEK DMCA settlement letters.

        3/16/16 UPDATE: I have heard that CEG-TEK has retained an attorney who is filing the Dallas Buyers Club / Voltage Pictures IP address-based lawsuits in Canada to sue on behalf of their clients (it appears it may be James Zibarras).  Apparently they are doing it as a proof-of-concept to teach that Canada’s limited statutory damages ($5,000 CAN maximum) is per studio. CEG-TEK also claims that there were six months of warning letters (no settlement requested) before they started sending the settlement request letters.  Can anyone in Canada confirm or deny this?

        “There is an untapped market of internet users in Canada who could be accused of copyright infringement and forced to pay thousands of dollars in settlement fees… or is there not?” -Copyright Trolls.

        Canada until recently was a country which took steps to curb copyright trolling. They limited damages for copyright infringement to a maximum of $5,000 CAN (as opposed to $150,000 here in the U.S.). They set provisions where [with exceptions,] the plaintiff attorney in a lawsuit would need to pay their own attorney fees (as opposed to U.S. Copyright Law which allows a “prevailing party” to collect attorney fees from the non-prevailing party), and things were pretty good for the downloaders and pretty bad for the copyright holders. Who would ever sue in Canada?

        Then it was explained to me that certain ISPs were sending what sounded like our “DMCA copyright infringement settlement letters” that we have seen from companies such as CEG-TEK. This evening, Techdirt wrote an article on the topic entitled, “More Copyright Trolls Rushing In To Take Advantage Of Canadian Copyright Notice System Loopholes.”

        So apparently what was done to protect the Canadian internet users from copyright trolls has for the moment been undone. “Carte blanche, carpe diem, go get em tiger!” one might think. But I suspect this is only a temporary loophole. In an honest world, those who protected the internet users will continue to protect them, and attorneys will continue to defend against those who are accused of copyright infringement in Canada.

        When I heard about what was going on this afternoon, I sighed, “O Canada!” Originally spelling it “Oh Canada,” I quickly found on Wikipedia under the “O Canada!” entry that there is actually an interesting distinction between the English version of the national anthem and the French version. The English version seemed passive (as I understand many mistake Canadians to be).  In my opinion based on my own family in Canada, the real character of Canada could be better found in the French version of Ô Canada! Where the English says, “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee,” the French version says “[We] will protect our homes and our rights. The French version also says, “As is thy arm ready to wield the sword, so also is it ready to carry the cross.”

        In short, Canadians won’t stand for the copyright trolls, and I suspect this will be only a temporary problem which will be remedied by the legislature as quickly as a copyright troll might pop his head out from under the Pont de Québec and say “boo!”

        A Translation of this article into French from a valued Contributor (just for fun): 

        Le Canada jusqu’à récemment, était un pays qui a pris des mesures pour freiner les “copyright trolls” ou “pêcheurs à la traîne de droits d’auteurs”. Le Canada a limité les dommages pour violation de copyright à un maximum de 5000 $ CAN (par opposition à $ 150 000, ici aux USA). Au Canada, un demandeur victorieux doit le plus souvent payer ses propres frais d’avocat dans un procès (par opposition aux États-Unis ou la législaion permet à une “partie gagnante” de collecter ses frais d’avocat auprès de la partie perdante), et les choses étaient assez favorables aux téléchargeurs et assez mauvaises pour les détenteurs de droits d’auteur. Qui aurait jamais pensé poursuivre au Canada?

        Ensuite, on m’a expliqué que certains FAI envoyaient ce qui ressemblait à nos “DMCA Copyright Violation Letter” comme celles que nous avons vues de la part de sociétés telles que CEG-TEK. Ce soir, Techdirt a écrit un article sur le sujet intitulé More Copyright Trolls Rushing In To Take Advantage Of Canadian Copyright Notice System Loopholes.”

        Donc apparemment ce qui avait été fait pour protéger les internautes canadiens de copyright trolls est devenu chose du passé. “Carte blanche, carpe diem, go get ‘em tiger!”  On pourrait le penser. Mais je soupçonne que tout ceci est seulement temporaire. Dans un monde honnête, ceux qui protégeait les utilisateurs d’Internet vont continuer à les protéger, et les avocats continueront de défendre ceux qui sont accusés de violations de droits d’auteurs au Canada.

        Cet après-midi, quand j’ai entendu parler de ce qui se passait, j’ai soupiré, «Ô Canada!» Originellement épelé “Oh Canada” j’ai rapidement trouvé sur Wikipedia l’article correspondant sous le titre “O Canada!” Article Wikipedia qui montre qu’il y a effectivement une distinction intéressante entre la version anglaise et la version française de l’hymne. La version anglaise semblait passive (les Canadiens sont parfois perçus comme passifs, à tort). À mon avis et basé sur ma propre famille au Canada, le vrai caractère du Canada pourrait être mieux trouvé dans la version française du Ô Canada! Là où les Anglophones disent: «O Canada, nous nous tenons sur nos gardes pour toi,” la version française indique ” Et ta valeur, de foi trempée, Protègera nos foyers et nos droits”. La version française dit aussi: “Car ton bras sait porter l’épée, Il sait porter la croix”.

        Bref, les Canadiens ne toléreront pas les copyright trolls, et je soupçonne que ceci est seulement un problème temporaire qui sera corrigée par le législateur aussi rapidement qu’un copyright troll pourrait montrer sa tête sous le Pont de Québec et de faire ” boo! “


        UPDATED COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT GROUP (CEG-TEK) ARTICLES (from this blog):
        Canada begins receiving CEG-TEK DMCA settlement letters. (3/12/2015)
        How time limits / purged records stop a copyright holder from learning a downloader’s identity. (12/18/2014)
        CEG-TEK’s growing list of participating ISPs, and their NEW alliance with COX Communications. (11/12/2014)
        The Giganews Problem (11/12/2014)
        CEG-TEK is now your friendly “photo” copyright troll. (6/13/2013)
        CEG-TEK’s new “you didn’t settle” letters sent from Marvin Cable. (3/22/2013)
        CEG-TEK’s DMCA Settlement Letters – What are my chances of being sued if I ignore? (2/22/2013)
        Why CEG-TEK’s DMCA settlement system will FAIL. (2/22/2013)

        [2017 UPDATE: Carl Crowell has created a new entity called RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT which has reverse-engineered CEG-TEK’s proprietary DMCA copyright infringement notice system.  Many of you have visited CEG-TEK links thinking that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was CEG-TEK, but really they are an ‘evil twin’ competitor.  Since the two entities operate almost the same way, and since I am getting hits from our site’s analytics that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is also sending copyright violation notices to Canadian ISP subscribers as well, this article is relevant.]


        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.

          shalta book now cta

          Need to rehash some bittorrent concepts because they are just as relevant today as they were five years ago.

          Every few years it is important to rehash some older bittorrent concepts which are still relevant to today’s copyright infringement lawsuits.

          In July, 2010, this blog was started to address the at-the-time unknown problem of copyright trolling.  For years, myself and my staff wrote articles explaining the business model of copyright trolling, which at the time was an adaptation of patent trolling (where “patent trolls” would file [often frivolous] lawsuits against alleged infringers who refused to pay what appeared to be a “shakedown” of the patent holders [e.g., “pay us or else you will end up having to pay even more to defend the claims against you in a federal court”], even when the patent being asserted against the would-be infringer had absolutely nothing to do with the product the targeted company was producing).

          There were common threads between patent trolls and copyright trolls, and as the cases developed, there were common themes of how a copyright troll must act to make his model of extorting the public (the bittorrent internet users) profitable.  At the time, that included questions of 1) where and how can a copyright enforcement company or lawyer sue a group of defendants (personal jurisdiction), 2) how to link non-related downloaders into a cohesive set of defendants into a cohesive set of “John Doe Defendants,” (joinder, and my controversial strategy to force a copyright troll to sue the entire bittorrent swarm when a defendant is named and served) and 3) how to avoid risking the potential settlements from hundreds or thousands of accused bittorrent users by moving forward and “naming and serving” one or more defendants.  There were also time limits they faced based on a) how long the ISPs retained the records of which IP address was leased to which account holder / subscriber, b) statute of limitations on how long a copyright holder has to file a lawsuit, and c) how long a copyright troll attorney may keep a case alive before a judge imposes the time limits described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP Rule 4m, a.k.a. the “120 Day Rule”).

          Then, over the years, there arose a confusion under the discussions of “net neutrality” asking questions such as whether an internet service provider (ISP) was governed under the cable act, and if so, under what title.  The reason for this was that there were allegations that various ISPs were outright sharing the contact information of its subscribers without valid court orders to do so, thus violating the privacy rights of its subscribers.

          In sum, there were a lot of issues, and we tackled each one over the course of almost five years.  The goal was to educate the bittorrent user and the accused downloader about the issues so that they understand how to act, react, and in many cases, fight against a group of attorneys with questionable ethics.

          The problem is that these articles — the ones that have been so helpful to tens of thousands of accused defendants — these articles have been buried by the search engines because they are simply now aging and many articles are now many years old.  An accused defendant can no longer search for a “copyright troll” on Google and find any of my older articles.  [And, enterprising attorneys (and good for them) have put up websites containing SEO-based content full of keywords in hackneyed sentences, but devoid of useful content (e.g., the “contact our law firm, we can help you with your copyright troll lawsuit issue” type of website), while what I consider to be the “useful” content (not only mine, but content written by other attorneys in their blogs, and proactive users [really, trailblazers such as “Sophisticated Jane Doe” of FightCopyrightTrolls and “DieTrollDie”] in their respective blogs) is no longer accessible by typing the name of the particular copyright troll, issue, or case that has been recently filed.

          What I will be doing to remedy this as far as this blog is concerned — and I apologize up front to the thousands of you who get updated on each and every article that I or a staff member of mine writes — is that I need to rehash some of the “older” content on the educational topics that I have already covered in the blog ad nauseam.  The reason for this is that the older content explaining the legal concepts in terms of the bittorrent lawsuits (and now in terms of the DMCA letters being sent to subscribers through the ISPs) is just as relevant today as it was five years ago.  There has been little-to-no judicial or legal oversight of the copyright trolls from the attorney generals of each state and from the lawmakers (both federal and in each state), and the problem and issues surrounding “copyright trolling” is just as relevant today as it was almost five years ago.

          For these reasons, I need to violate my own preference not to repeat information or content that has already been described or hashed-out in previous articles (my opinion is that one article describing a topic is enough, and writing multiple articles containing the same topic “waters down” or “cheapens” the content of a website).  The reason I now feel the need to rehash some of the older topics is to re-teach those who have not yet been victimized by the copyright trolls, as my older articles are no longer found, even by those looking for that particular topic.

          ALSO.  Copyright trolls are now enjoying a seed of legitimacy by the courts, where once upon a time us defense attorneys were “winning” the cases by arguing concepts such as “an IP address does not equal a person,” or “my client had an open wireless router, it could have been anyone who downloaded this video,” the arguments themselves have also aged and are now increasingly being ignored by the courts, even though the arguments remain “an elephant in the room,” meaning, just as valid today as they were yesterday.  On the flip-side, faulty and failed arguments (e.g., “are you negligent if you let someone else use your internet connection to commit copyright infringement” [Answer: NO!]) are being reasserted by the copyright trolls, and to my utter disbelief, they are not immediately being dismissed by the judges as being a faulty argument.

          Copyright trolling has not changed in the past five years, and the successful arguments defending a case do not deserve to be ignored just because they have been used successfully by defendants in older lawsuits which too are aging.  Ignoring good case law is contrary to law, as successful arguments in one jurisdiction are binding on all other judges in that federal district, and are persuasive on cases in the federal districts in other cases.  Yet, I see more and more lawlessness in judges who ignore the case law from not only other jurisdictions, but from their own jurisdiction as well (creating a “split” in the court), and they are denying a John Doe defendant’s ability to assert what was a successful argument in another court (even one binding upon them in their own jurisdiction).

          In sum, judges are allowing plaintiff copyright holders to sue larger number of defendants each week, even though nothing has changed making this new trend permissible (in my opinion, whether 200 defendants were sued by a plaintiff attorney in one lawsuit or in ten cases [having 20 defendants in each case] filed in the same week still means that 200 defendants were sued; it does not matter that the plaintiff made the cases “appear” to be smaller, especially if they are implicating the same bittorrent swarm in each of the ten cases).

          Remember, the underlying copyright troll business model of “shakedown, extort thousands of dollars from each defendant, but avoid moving forward against anyone [but pretend that you are prepared to move to trial]” is still the same as it was five years ago.  It should not matter whether the content of the lawsuit is a Hollywood movie or an adult film.

          [2017 UPDATE: Carl Crowell has created a new entity called RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT which has reverse-engineered CEG-TEK’s proprietary DMCA copyright infringement notice system.  Many of you have visited CEG-TEK links thinking that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was CEG-TEK, but really they are an ‘evil twin’ competitor.  Since the two entities operate almost the same way, e.g., sending DMCA copyright infringement notices to the subscriber directly via the ISP, this article is also relevant to RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT.]


          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.

            shalta book now cta