SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. SOFTWARE LAWSUITS — “THEY’RE BACK!”
I didn’t want to let this one slide. Remember the Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits (where Siemens sued a number of engineers who used their NX software without a license)? Well, in July, 2018, they have filed their newest copyright Infringement lawsuit (this is the FIFTH TIME they are suing), this time against 107 John Doe Defendants (here in our own Texas Southern District Court, no less).
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (4:18-cv-02344), filed July, 2018
Over time, the lawsuit progressed, and eventually Siemens dismissed the lawsuit once they realized who they wanted to name and serve in their own lawsuits, and they filed individual copyright infringement lawsuits against companies they discovered were using their software without a license.
WAVE 2
In Wave 2, Siemens filed a similar lawsuit, this time against 100 new defendants. They surprised a number of defendants with settlement numbers of $50,000+ (eventually, we learned that they were settling licenses to their software, and they actually cost that much). This second wave lawsuit “on the books” looked to be a failure because they missed a FRCP Rule 4(m) deadline to name and serve defendants. As a result, they dismissed the entire lawsuit, however, I know that they continued after the dismissal to contact accused defendants (or their attorneys) with the intention of having those accused defendants [now dismissed] purchase a license to cover their use of the Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX software.
WAVES 3-4 (2017 – mid-2018)
In Waves 3-4, Siemens continued to target engineers in their lawsuits. The purpose of these lawsuits was to “legitimize” those who were using their NX software “for profit.” They were more reasonable this time on the settlement amounts (no settlements, just purchase of software licenses), but they allowed the defendant some leeway in determining what software title would best benefit the user, and whether Mach 3 was needed, or whether a lower-cost alternative was an option. Siemens Industry Software Inc. also started to discuss settlement negotiations themselves (e.g., offering money to settle the claims), however, this never materialized.
WAVE 5 (late 2018)
Now in Wave 5, I do not yet know whether these 107 John Doe Defendants are from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these are from an entirely new pool of accused infringers. However, at least the lawsuit itself (its intentions, and what to expect) are less of a mystery, as we were able to settle a number of claims in their previous lawsuits through the purchase of a software license.
2020 UPDATE:
WAVES 6-7 (2019):
In Wave 6-7 (2019), Siemens Industry Software Inc. changed their strategy, attempting to streamline the settlement process. In previous cases, those that used the software for personal reasons (e.g., academic, training, 3D printing, designing private home uses, etc.) were considered “tinkerers.” In previous lawsuits, Siemens did not require this group of individuals to obtain a software license.
IN WAVES 6 AND 7, *THIS CHANGED*. Siemens Industry Software Inc. asked most defendants to buy software to legitimize their use. The software did not need to be the same $30,000 NX software they used prior to being sued, but lesser versions with fewer features, or altogether other software packages [at a steep discount] were presented as options.
WAVE 8 (2020):
Now we are in Wave 8 (2020). In this wave, there are two lawsuits; one has 150 John Doe Defendants, and the other has only 10 John Doe Defendants. I do not yet know whether these 150 John Doe Defendants are from the same pool as the earlier lawsuits were filed, or whether these are from an entirely new pool of accused infringers. I suspect that the 150 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00798) case are all new defendants, and that 10 defendants in the (4:20-cv-00801) case are old defendants who did not settle the claims against them.
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.
Any “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants. Tracking a subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.
A Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.
A subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading the copyright holder’s movie or copyrighted work.
The Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.
The federal judge approves the subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.). These ISPs in receipt of the subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney. They send a notice to the account holder that a subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).
The ISP forwards the Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.
You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the Copyright Holder Corporate Entity v. Does lawsuit. Here, you learn that you can supposedly stop the ISP from handing out your information to the plaintiff attorney by filing an objection with the court, a.k.a. a “Motion to Quash.” At this point, you are still anonymous.
The ISP complies with the Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.
Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the subpoena. They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else). You are still anonymous.
At this point, the life of the subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it). At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity. YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).
Your anonymity expires once the plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their client’s copyrighted movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint. At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous. At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.
NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.
The purpose of this article is to specifically discuss the prospect of a Malibu Media Anonymous Settlement. A Malibu Media lawsuit targets users based on bittorrent activities tracked over a long period of time. Malibu Media copyright infringement lawsuits are filed with a federal court, Malibu Media subpoenas are sent to ISP subscribers, and after realizing that filing a motion to quash may or may not be the best option, deciding whether to negotiate a settlement or to fight becomes the main consideration.
Malibu Media settlements themselves (not even considering a Malibu Media anonymous settlement, as we will discuss below) are very expensive — not because they ask for a lot of money for the bittorrent download of one X-art adult film, but because they ask for the settlement of EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE MALIBU MEDIA MOVIES YOU MAY HAVE DOWNLOADED OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS. Thus, instead of asking for a settlement of, say, $3,500 for the download of one copyrighted video (as other copyright holders do), they’ll ask for a settlement of ALL 50 MOVIES they claim you downloaded over the last three (3) years. This article will go into the various pitfalls a defendant may face when being lured into a Malibu Media anonymous settlement.
Malibu Media’s list of “movies infringed” is often INCOMPLETE (and for a reason).
If you choose to fight and defend the claims against you, Malibu Media subpoena lawsuits have ‘slick tricks’ built into their lawsuits. They file each lawsuit alleging copyright infringement of only one (1) video, and they list (for example,) the fifty (50) videos they claim you downloaded over the years. However, they hold back information from the court and they do not list the newest X-Art videos you have downloaded in the recent months. Thus, if the lawsuit was filed in July, 2017 they’ll only list downloads you participated in until February, 2017. This leaves all of the Malibu Media downloads you participated in between February 2017 – July 2017 off of the lawsuit.
Why would they do this? Because they know that when you start fighting your case, you might dispute a number of their claims. You might even go line-by-line and claim that they did not follow the copyright laws in protecting their rights (e.g., Malibu Media has consistently fudged the ‘publication’ requirement, as I have fought with them on this topic in the past). Even if you tried to negotiate a Malibu Media anonymous settlement, they still anticipated a way to trick you (more on this “John Doe, subscriber having IP address XYZ” issue below). However, whether you are right or wrong, they always keep “extra ammunition” of other Malibu Media, LLC (X-Art) titles you downloaded as a threat against you fighting them on the merits. For example, they might say “If you argue that this list is not accurate, we actually have many more titles we believe you have downloaded — we can list these too if you would like.”
Obviously it is more complicated than this, but point being, I have seen that Malibu Media LLC lawsuits always keeps some set of information ‘off of the table,’ and they reserve this information to gain additional leverage when an inexperienced attorney tries to fight them on the line-by-line details of their case (which, by the way, is often flawed or contains copy-and-paste mistakes from other lawsuits). This creates a dangerous situation for the accused defendant who gets lured by his attorney into a Malibu Media anonymous settlement.
Malibu Media anticipated anonymous settlements and built in a way to re-sue defendants who settled (or, re-approach them and ask for more money).
Now as far as negotiating a Malibu Media anonymous settlement, Malibu Media has been ‘slick’ here too. Their lawsuits do not implicate you, a “John Doe” defendant, who has had many IP addresses over the past few years. Rather, they implicate only “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244,” a John Doe defendant who has been assigned a specific IP address on one day.
SPOILER: The Malibu Media anonymous settlement settling a John Doe case (no IP address specified) is different from a Malibu Media anonymous settlement settling a John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address XYZ case.
IP addresses are assigned to internet users when their router connects their computer to the internet. That IP address does not belong to that internet user; rather, it is “leased” to that internet user for a limited time, usually 24 hours, 48 hours, or until they reboot their modem or otherwise obtain a new IP address. Thus, the IP address you have today might not be the same IP address you had yesterday, and so on. Now IP addresses are pulled from a limited pool of addresses, so a particular internet service provider (“ISP”) might assign the same IP address to a customer for a few days in a row, but that IP address does not belong to that internet user. If it did, it would be called a “static IP address” which is significantly more expensive than the residential “dynamic IP addresses” leased to residential ISP customers.
Why is this relevant to you, the person behind the John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244 title? Because IF you settled anonymously, you would be settling as John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244, and not as the John Doe Defendant having had many IP addresses leased to him. Thus, Malibu Media, LLC could easily take your $12,000 settlement payment, say thank you, and then sue you again under a different “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING ELSE]” for this same set of movies allegedly downloaded. If you settled anonymously, your attorney would have ‘unwittingly’ opened you up to this problem, because John Doe subscriber assigned IP address X is a different fictitious legal entity than John Doe subscriber assigned IP address Y. This sounds like semantics, but buyer beware. Doing this wrong can open you up to being solicited for another settlement for downloads that were done by “another John Doe subscriber.”
In sum, beware of the settlement factory attorney who tries to convince you to settle the claims against you “anonymously.” In a Malibu Media, LLC case, doing so is simply reckless.
Malibu Media anonymous settlement “price gouging.”
Further, negotiating a Malibu Media anonymous settlement gives the Malibu Media copyright troll attorneys an opportunity to price gouge their settlement prices. Why? Because an attorney who comes to them asking them to settle anonymously (without disclosing to Malibu Media the identity of the defendant) prompts the Malibu Media attorney to inquire why that defendant wants to settle anonymously. “What does he have to hide?,” they ask.
Immediately upon learning that the accused defendant wants to settle anonymously, they recognize that the defense attorney has lost all leverage in negotiating the settlement price, and they’ll “spike” the cost of the settlement. “Anonymous settlements come at a price,” they may say.
geralt / Pixabay
Attorneys Advocating “Anonymous Settlements” are Deceiving You.
Thus, it is important to understand the mechanics of a settlement before jumping to ask for an anonymous settlement. What most accused Malibu Media defendants do not realize is that the settlements ARE ALREADY ANONYMOUS [with minimal tweaking] without the defendant having to ask for it. A diligent attorney will negotiate a confidentiality clause into the settlement agreement (or strengthen one that is already in their boilerplate settlement agreement) to prevent their attorneys from disclosing the identity of the defendant with anyone.
This means that your attorney can (and should) put your name in the settlement agreement itself. This avoids the entire John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING] issue, because it is actually the real person (not the fictitious John Doe legal entity having a particular IP address) who is settling.
Rather than taking the effort to actually negotiate the terms of the agreement, your settlement factory attorney will try to convince you that you won’t suffer if you try to settle anonymously.
[This not only alleviates them of the need to negotiate the terms of the agreement, but it also allows them to use their “turn key” boilerplate e-mails, which the plaintiff attorneys (who have already agreed to a pre-arranged inflated settlement price) already know and recognize, so that they can ‘spike’ the settlement amount, gouge the settling defendant, and charge higher prices. I won’t go into the dishonest attorney issue, kickbacks, etc., as I have written about these issues before.]
Once an accused Malibu Media defendant realizes that it is okay to allow his attorney to put his name in the settlement agreement, at that point, the Malibu Media settlement agreement itself covers 1) ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT regarding 2) ALL OF MALIBU MEDIA’S TITLES, and based on the wording of the CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE in the agreement the settlement truly becomes a “Malibu Media anonymous settlement.”
Let’s look into this one level deeper, just to be sure that we have also solved the other ‘slick tricks’ Malibu Media lawsuits have built into their cases.
1) “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT”
Because the settlement agreement containing the name of the accused defendant (and not the so-called ‘anonymous’ fictitious John Doe entity), the settlement will cover “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.” This means that the settlement will cover even those downloads that Malibu Media, LLC purposefully “left out” from the list of infringements filed with the lawsuit. Further, the Malibu Media settlement agreement WILL EVEN THOSE DOWNLOADS MADE BY A “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” HAVING AN IP ADDRESS WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” IMPLICATED AS THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE.
In other words, by negotiating the terms of a Malibu Media settlement, but having the confidentiality clause protect the client’s identity, the settlement agreement having the client’s real name on it will not only be a true Malibu Media anonymous settlement, but it will also cover any other fictitious “John Doe” entity that could have downloaded any of Malibu Media movies, ever.
2) “ALL OF MALIBU MEDIA’S TITLES”
Malibu Media settlement agreements used to be very specific as to which specific Malibu Media titles were being settled, and the settlement used to cover ONLY THOSE TITLES and no other titles allegedly downloaded. This was back when the Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-1000 cases were still being filed.
Immediately we recognized that this limitation of the scope of the agreement to ONLY THOSE KNOWN TITLES DOWNLOADED exposed the client to multiple lawsuits for 1) Malibu Media movie titles that Malibu Media ‘slickly’ left out of their list, or 2) Malibu Media titles which their Guardaley investigators missed. Thus today, when we negotiate a Malibu Media settlement, the settlement necessarily includes ALL PAST ACTS of copyright infringement FOR ALL OF MALIBU MEDIA’s MOVIES.
In sum, when dealing with a copyright troll such as Malibu Media, LLC, and you see that they do something innocuous such as changing the lawsuit names from “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe” to “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 214.42.955.8,” realize that THEY HAVE DONE THIS FOR A REASON.
What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?
[2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened. The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
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.
There is a “new” copyright troll filing lawsuits with a fervor across the US named “Venice PI, LLC” (more on the word “new”; more on “across the US”). The Venice PI lawsuits all claim $150,000 copyright infringement damages for the illegal download of the “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie starring Bruce Willis. ISPs are sending notices to their subscribers informing them that a Venice PI subpoena requesting their identity has been provided to them, and that they are under an order signed by a federal judge to comply, unless the subscriber files a “motion to quash” the subpoena.
ISPs sending the subpoena notices to its subscribers informing them about the Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuit include CenturyLink, Comcast Xfinity, Hawaii Telecom, Optimum Online, Verizon Fios, and Time Warner Cable, depending on where you live.
As of this evening, I see lawsuits filed as early as 6/28/2017 and as recent as 7/18/2017. Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuits are being filed in Texas, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington.
…Where have we seen those list of states before?!?
Already, without even looking, I can already see based on where the lawsuits are filed that this is yet one more “common troll” set of lawsuits masterminded by Carl Crowell and his RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity. I bet you if I looked up the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, I’d see the “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie listed there. Let’s look. …Yup. Bottom right, LSD style.
Personally, for a Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuit, I would prefer something less noisy, but you’re not reading this for my aesthetic preferences.
Point being, we are dealing with Carl Crowell and his local counsel in the various states. This means that we know not only what the lawsuits will look like (as far as which judge will allow what), but we know the plaintiff attorney who has sent the subpoenas, and their proclivities. This means that we know which attorneys are squeamish in naming and serving defendants, which are comfortable taking the lawsuit straight into discovery, and which are “quick on the trigger,” (think, the train whistle blows before the train has left the station) meaning, which attorneys will get him or herself into trouble with a judge by not following the rules, and as a result, names and serves every John Doe Defendant.
This historical knowledge of who has done what is one reason to hire an attorney, but knowing which way to approach the lawsuit based on the proclivities of the attorney filing the lawsuit is another reason you hire an attorney. In short, we all know that the options are FIGHT, NO-SETTLE REPRESENTATION, SETTLE (without describing each option, as I’ve done this before), and we all know that for a defendant who did not do the download, I recommend one set of options, and for someone who did do the download, I recommend another set of options. Don’t be fooled — it’s not black and white. [SPEAK TO ME if you want my opinion on your particular case.]
Now for those who want to settle, we already have an idea of what Venice PI settlement amounts each attorney will likely ask for (their asking prices), and based on the other lawsuits filed by these attorney, we have a good idea of what settlement amounts Venice PI, LLC will accept, if you decided to settle in the first place. Again, there is the no settlement representation, where you have me keep an open line of communication with the plaintiff attorney to demonstrate to him/her why you did not do the download, and there is also a “no settlement letter” which I write for innocent clients to stop the troll scheme cold.
RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE VENICE PI SUBPOENA CASES:
VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02203)
VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the various North Carolina District Courts
Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Eastern District Court: Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00337, Case No.5:17-cv-00333) … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00334) … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00340, Case No. 5:17-cv-00339, Case No. 4:17-cv-00089)
Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Middle District Court: … v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00611) … v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00610)
Venice PI subpoena cases in the North Carolina Western District Court: … v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00409, Case No. 1:17-cv-00170)
VENICE PI ISP subpoena ordered in the New York District Courts Venice PI, LLC v. Doe et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076, 1:17-cv-04249, 1:17-cv-04904)
VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court … v. Doe-73.96.114.240 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01002) … v. Doe-71.59.242.118 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01001)
VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00284, Case No. 2:17-cv-00285, Case No. 1:17-cv-02274, Case No. 1:17-cv-02328)
VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01664)
VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Hawaii District Court … v. Doe 1; et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00335)
VENICE PI ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court Venice PI LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-01076, Case No. 2:17-cv-01075, Case No. 2:17-cv-01074, Case No. 2:17-cv-00988, Case No. 2:17-cv-00990, Case No. 2:17-cv-00991)
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.
RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT still obtaining new movie company copyrights to “enforce.”
Yesterday, while researching the new Headhunter, LLC North Carolina bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases, I checked back on Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website looking for movies which will be lawsuits to look to see whether “A Family Man (2016)” belonged to Crowell’s “common troll” entity, and I was surprised to see that a whole slew of new movies are now listed on their “client” list. I suspect that these are movies which will be lawsuits in the near future.
What does this mean to an internet user who has downloaded or streamed this movie using bittorrent, Popcorntime, and/or some other “free” streaming service?
What this means is that they are hard at work contacting production companies / copyright holders for newer movies (a.k.a., “floppers) which have not done so well in the theaters. They convince these companies to license the rights to “enforce” that movie company’s copyrights (think, sue in a “copyright troll” lawsuit looking for settlements). Then they have their local counsel file “John Doe” lawsuits in select federal courts (where the judges are friendly to them, or where the lawsuits are otherwise profitable).
What will happen to me if I have been caught downloading one of these films?
Honestly, at the moment, likely nothing, at least not yet. There are two ways that Carl Crowell and his team of local attorneys across the US have been enforcing their client’s copyrights.
By sending a DMCA notice directly to the accused downloader through the ISP. Here, the DMCA notice directs the accused downloader to visit the Rightsenforcement.com website, and pay a settlement for each title allegedly downloaded or streamed using bittorrent, Popcorntime, and (yes, I have heard about this too, but I do not yet understand the mechanics of it), KODI on an Amazon Fire TV Stick.
By filing a copyright infringement lawsuit for $150,000 statutory damages against a set of “John Doe” defendants who were each accused of uploading and/or downloading a particular movie using bittorrent (or an app like Popcorntime which still uses bittorrent to stream movies to its users).
What is the relevance that this list of movies is changing?
The fact that the list of movies is changing means that there are now new copyright holder production companies who have “signed on” to the business model of copyright trolling. Politics and policy aside, this means that the copyrights on these movies (and the infringement, or the illegal downloading, uploading, duplication, and/or streaming of these movies without a license) will be the subject of future lawsuits.
If you look lower down on the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM client list, you will see titles such as “Dallas Buyers Club,” “Mr. Church,” “The Cobbler,” “Cell,” “Fathers and Daughters,” “I.T.,” “Mechanic: Resurrection,” “Septembers of Shiraz,” “Survivor,” “Automata,” “London Has Fallen,” “Criminal,” “Eliminators,” and more recently, “Undisputed 4,” and “A Family Man.” Each of these movies have been (and continue to be) the subjects of copyright infringement lawsuits across the federal courts in the U.S.
Expect these new movies to be subjects of coming lawsuits as well.
