North Carolina Headhunter Subpoenas Are Due On 8/5.

gary-fischman-hunter-killer-productions

North Carolina Headhunter Subpoena-based Cases

In June, 2017, our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC had its first glimpse of the North Carolina Headhunter, LLC subpoenas.  Seeing their connection to Carl Crowell’s RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT company, we immediately created a Headhunter Productions FAQ page which addressed the NC Headhunter subpoenas.  The ‘copyright troll’ attorney who filed the NC Headhunter cases is Kathleen Lynch (“Kathleen Maher Lynch”), of Lynch Van Sickle, PLLC in Cary, North Carolina.  If this is the first time you are seeing her law firm’s name and you do not recognize a copyright troll, you are not looking carefully.

Now the name “Kathleen Lynch” might not mean anything to you yet, but if you look at her “Lynch Van Sickle, PLLC” law firm, this might jog your memory of R. Matthew Van Sickle (a.k.a. Ross Matthew Van Sickle) of the I.T. Productions North Carolina lawsuits.  The new law firm name is slightly different (Van Sickle Law, PC [then] vs. Lynch Van Sickle, PLLC [now]), but the ugly troll rears his head.  In other words, looking at Van Sickle’s involvement in this new copyright troll, we must suspect that we are dealing with a RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT copyright troll, and… [checking Carl Crowell’s RightsEnforcement website] vwallah!

A Family Man, Headhunter, LLC ISP subpoena lawsuit | Notice of Subpoena For Records

NC Headhunter Subpoena Cases – This is Wave 1 (July, 2017)

Even though the Headhunter, LLC copyright troll is new and pink, we already understand the strategies of the common troll entity behind the scenes.  Understanding that Matt Van Sickle is Kathleen Lynch’s partner in these lawsuits, now we have an idea of how these cases will unfold because we know the proclivities of the copyright troll lawyers behind the scenes.

We are suggesting that those accused of being a John Doe Defendant in any of the NC Headhunter cases to read the Headhunter Productions Subpoena FAQ, which we posted on our law firm’s website.

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Headhunter, LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you canset up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Headhunter, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

Why do we believe a common troll entity is behind the new Headhunter, LLC cases?

[RECAP: Seeing Matt Van Sickle’s name, I immediately realized that we were likely dealing with a common troll entity.  It took 5 seconds to visit Carl Crowell’s RightsEnforcement.com website and see that the “A Family Man” movie was explicitly listed as one of their clients.  This confirmed my suspicion that we were dealing with yet one more common troll entity set of lawsuits.]

I understand that a common troll entity licenses the rights from movie production companies to “enforce” the copyrights for that company.  Here, they approached the production company who filmed and copyrighted the “A Family Man (2016)” movie, and they licensed the rights to enforce (think, sue) the copyrights owned by this production company.  Hence the Headhunter settlement extortion scheme lawsuits were born.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Where are we in the timeline of the Headhunter, LLC cases?

The first wave of Headhunter, LLC cases were filed in June, 2017.  North Carolina federal judges appear to have rubber-stamped these new lawsuits, just as they have done with past bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases.

Headhunter attorney Kathleen Maher Lynch (armed with orders from the NC federal judges) sent subpoenas to AT&T U-verse subscribers, and AT&T subpoena notices (called “Notice of Subpoena for Records”) were sent to the ISP’s subscribers who were implicated in the NC Headhunter lawsuits.  These subpoena notices were all sent by AT&T’s “GLOBAL LEGAL DEMAND CENTER.”

NEXT: NC HEADHUNTER, LLC SUBPOENAS DUE ON AUGUST 5TH, 2017.

*The first wave of NC Headhunter, LLC subpoenas ALL appear to be DUE IN AUGUST, 8/5.*

This means that unless an accused defendant wishes to file a motion to quash the subpoena, AT&T is under a duty to hand over the names of the subscribers accused of being John Doe Defendants in these North Carolina Headhunter, LLC cases.

However, it must be noted that the 8/5 deadline is merely the deadline that AT&T U-verse has given their subscribers.  Chances are that they will provide the names of the subscribers implicated in the North Carolina Headhunter, LLC subpoenas at some future date (as listed on the subpoena itself).

To see the actual deadline by when your AT&T U-verse ISP must hand out your information to the NC Headhunter, LLC attorney, check the subpoena itself included in the packet you received from your ISP.

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Headhunter, LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you canset up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Headhunter, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

RESOURCES:

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR HEADHUNTER, LLC “A FAMILY MAN” LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA (FAQ).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

What are your options in defending or resolving claims in a Headhunter, LLC North Carolina-based case?

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

OPTION 1: FIGHT

In this option, your attorney would fight this case on your behalf. Since the Headhunter, LLC scam has been exposed through the past lawsuits of their parent entities, the inherent weaknesses in Kathleen Lynch’s case are now well known. This option is more expensive than the other options, but it is probably the most satisfying option when you win and ask for attorney fees from Headhunter, LLC.

OPTION 2: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

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

OPTION 3: “NO SETTLEMENT REPRESENTATION”

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

OPTION 4: “IGNORE” ROUTE REPRESENTATION

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

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

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

OPTION 5: ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES” REPRESENTATION

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

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

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

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Headhunter, LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you canset up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Headhunter, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

LIST OF RECENT NORTH CAROLINA HEADHUNTER, LLC AT&T SUBPOENA LAWSUITS

Below is the list of NC Headhunter lawsuits filed between 6/16-6/30:

Filed within the North Carolina Eastern District Court:
Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00310)
Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00029)
Headhunter, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00318)
Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00296)
Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00325)

Filed within the North Carolina Middle District Court:
HEADHUNTER, LLC v. DOES 1-8 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00545)

Filed within the North Carolina Western District Court:
Headhunter, LLC v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-00342)

WHERE ELSE IS HEADHUNTER, LLC FILING THEIR LAWSUITS (OUTSIDE OF N.C.)?

NY:
Headhunter LLC v. Doe-69.124.0.132 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04155)
Headhunter LLC v. Doe-173.56.227.169 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05314)

OR:
Headhunter, LLC v Doe-71.236.186.17 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00901)
Headhunter, LLC v. Doe-50.53.158.186 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00900)

PA:
HEADHUNTER, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-11 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02986)
HEADHUNTER, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-10 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02985)

VA:
Headhunter, LLC v. Doe-73.191.98.246 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00793), and

WA:
Headhunter, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00987)

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Headhunter, LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you canset up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Headhunter, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment 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.

    Utah ME2 subpoenas are coming due again (7/14).

    UT ME2 Subpoena | Utah ME2 lawsuit subpoenas due

    Utah ME2 Subpoena-based Cases

    In March, 2017, our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC had its first interactions with the Utah ME2 subpoenas.  We created a ME2 Productions FAQ page which addressed the UT ME2 subpoenas.  The ‘copyright troll’ attorney who filed the UT ME2 cases is Todd Zenger (“Todd E. Zenger”), and he works for Kirton McConkie in Salt Lake City, Utah. Any e-mails coming from “[email protected],” or calls from his “801-328-3600” phone number (or any 801-328-XXXX phone number should cause you to be wary that you have a UT ME2 copyright troll trying to scare you into settling with him for thousands of dollars.

    UT ME2 Productions | Utah ME2 subpoena lawsuits
    Screenshot from Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, with Mechanic:Resurrection outlined.

    UT ME2 Subpoena Cases – Wave 1 (March, 2017)

    We wrote about our first impressions of Todd Zenger and the Utah ME2 cases here:

    UTAH ME2 SUBPOENAS FROM CENTURYLINK ARE COMING DUE,” written on April 24th, 2017.

    We also directed those accused of being a John Doe Defendant in any of the UT ME2 cases to read the ME2 Productions Subpoena FAQ, which we posted on our law firm’s website.

    UT ME2 Subpoena Cases – Wave 2 (July, 2017)

    The second wave of cases are now upon us.  All filed in June, 2017, Todd Zenger followed the instructions of the common troll entity (which I understand licenses the rights from movie production companies to “enforce” the copyrights for that company), and filed the second wave of lawsuits in June, 2017.  Utah federal judges rubber-stamped these new lawsuits, just as they did the first set of them.

    Todd Zenger sent subpoenas to CenturyLink subscribers (just as he did with the first wave of cases), and CenturyLink subpoena notices were sent to the ISP’s subscribers who were implicated in the UT ME2 lawsuits.

    UT ME2 SUBPOENAS DUE TOMORROW

    *These second wave of UT ME2 subpoenas ALL appear to be DUE TOMORROW, 7/14.*

    This means that unless an accused defendant wishes to file a motion to quash the subpoena, CenturyLink is under a duty to hand over the names of the subscribers accused of being John Doe Defendants in these Utah ME2 cases.

    However, it must be noted that the 7/14 deadline is merely the deadline that CenturyLink has given their subscribers.  Chances are that they will provide the names of the subscribers implicated in the Utah ME2 subpoenas at some future date (as listed on the subpoena itself).

    To see the actual deadline by when your CenturyLink ISP must hand out your information to the UT ME2 attorney, check the subpoena itself included in the packet you received from your ISP.

    RESOURCES:

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

    ME2 UTAH SUBPOENAS FROM CENTURYLINK ARE COMING DUE,” written on April 24th, 2017.

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

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

    OPTION 1: FIGHT

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

    OPTION 2: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

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

    OPTION 3: “NO SETTLEMENT REPRESENTATION”

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

    OPTION 4: “IGNORE” ROUTE REPRESENTATION

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

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

    OPTION 5: ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES” REPRESENTATION

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

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

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

    LIST OF RECENT “WAVE 2” UTAH ME2 CENTURYLINK SUBPOENA LAWSUITS

    Below is the list of UT ME2 lawsuits filed between 6/5-6/21:

    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00526)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00525)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00523)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00547)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00576)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00625)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-36 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00624)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00626)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00662)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00663)
    ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00664)


    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.

      Advice to Attorneys – How to handle Rightscorp DMCA letters.

      Rightscorp DMCA lettersrightscorp-dmca-letters Rightscorp DMCA letters

      Rightscorp DMCA letters are sent daily to hundreds, maybe thousands of internet users. In my “All I Know About Rightscorp in One Page” master article, I got into a discussion about the awkwardness of hiring a Rightscorp settlement attorney because of the disproportionate fees paid to our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC to facilitate and handle the settlement versus the sometime miniscule actual settlement payment that ends up being paid to Rightscorp.  Because that discussion took too much space on that article, I cut it and pasted it here.

      Rightscorp DMCA lettersrightscorp-dmca-letters Rightscorp DMCA letters

      Rightscorp vs. CEG-TEK Settlement Amounts

      When representing a client in a CEG-TEK DMCA settlement demand notice (Rightscorp DMCA letters), clients would come with 3-20 notices (and at $300/claim, the settlement asking price was $900-$6,000 before settlement negotiations).  Thus, representing a client and having the client pay our fees made sense.

      Not so with a Rightscorp DMCA letters, with the same type of downloader who received those same 3-20 notices at CEG-TEK.  At a promoted $20/claim [if the accused downloader foregoes using an attorney to negotiate the claims against them], the settlement asking price appears to be only $60-$400.   The later request for “additional titles downloaded” and whatever else is to follow after the settlement is paid is not immediately apparent to them.  

      Thus, when representing a Rightscorp client dealing with one of their Rightscorp DMCA letters, our fee appears to be disproportionately large to what appears to be only a $20 problem.

      Why to hire a Rightscorp settlement attorney for even ONE (1) Rightscorp DMCA notice.

      In Rightscorp DMCA letters, they have recently adopted the practice of attempting to lure the accused downloader with a lower settlement amount ($20/instance of infringement vs. $75/infringed title) if he foregoes retaining an attorney.  However, that $20 is deceptive, because it is “per instance of infringement,” along with all of the other reasons Rightscorp is likely not your friend (click here and scroll to see what Rightscorp has done in the past to see how friendly they really are).

      In the end, even for a Rightscorp client who received only one of their Rightscorp DMCA letters [ONE settlement demand letter] (where there is no negotiation), the end cost — even at $75/title — ends up being significantly less, especially with settlement negotiations, although it is difficult for me to prove this.  In sum, I wrote this article because the potential client who received even one (1) of the Rightscorp DMCA letters should be aware of the reasons why they are hiring our firm.

      [DISCLAIMER: ***Just To Be Clear*** When I use the phrase “Rightscorp settlement attorney,” in no way do I imply that our law firm has any affiliation with Rightscorp, nor do we represent their interests in any capacity.  The term “Rightscorp settlement attorney” was simply a convenient way to put this article in front of someone who receives Rightscorp DMCA letters for songs downloaded via bittorrent, and they are trying various search engine keywords to learn which attorney can facilitate an anonymous settlement.  “Rightscorp settlement attorney” seemed to capture the essence of the audience we intended to write for, namely, internet users who want to settle claims of copyright infringement from the Rightscorp DMCA letters they received.]

      Why you are not hiring an attorney:

      First, benefits a client receives… but these are NOT why they are hiring our firm.  For a Rightscorp defendant who received one (1) of their Rightscorp DMCA letters, you are NOT hiring a Rightscorp settlement attorney to:

      1) negotiate the settlement amount (paying an attorney sometimes to negotiate a $75 settlement to possibly $65 or $50 is silly);

      2) to settle anonymously (technically, you do not need an attorney to accomplish this goal, as you can purchase a VPN subscription and pay your settlement using a credit card obtained without your name on it).

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Why you ARE hiring an attorney (even for one (1) of their Rightscorp DMCA letters):

      Obviously when we can negotiate the settlement price, we do.  And, the settlement negotiations are negotiated anonymously, and are paid anonymously, meaning that Rightscorp will never learn your identity or that you settled the claims against you.  That way, they will never be able to contact your ISP to shut down your account claiming you are an infringer, and they will never be able to vindictively harm you after a settlement or ask you for more money.  However, these are not the reasons you hired our law firm to handle the Rightscorp DMCA letters you received.

      You ARE hiring a Rightscorp settlement attorney to facilitate and handle the settlement in a way that does not admit guilt on your behalf (when needed, we will negotiate the terms of the agreement to suit your circumstances). More importantly, we settle the claims against you in a way that puts Rightscorp, and their BMG Music, Sony Records, and the other music copyright holder clients ON NOTICE that the settlement we processed on your behalf was done by our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC.

      What is the benefit of putting everyone ON NOTICE that you are represented by an attorney?

      Putting everyone ON NOTICE means that all future communications will need to come directly through our firm, and not to you.  Should these companies’ lawyers contact you directly, this would be a breach of the ethics rules which could cost them their law licenses.

      Preventing other “games” played against those who settle.

      Most importantly, by having a Rightscorp settlement attorney such as myself settle the Rightscorp claims on your behalf, this prevents any further “games” or activities that may occur (e.g., asking for additional settlement money for other titles allegedly downloaded, robocalling, or contacting the ISPs to shut down the internet accounts of those who paid a settlement to Rightscorp).

      Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

      Why $75/song is comparatively better than the alternatives (even the $20/infringement if you forego using an attorney).

      In sum, representing a Rightscorp client still takes time, but the fact that the accused downloader is only paying a $75 settlement amount (or some minuscule dollar amount compared to the thousands of dollars which are paid in the movie lawsuits and DMCA settlement demand notices), this should be a happy fact.  Why happy?  Be happy that you were not sued, that you are not dealing with a CEG-TEK or RIGHTSENFORCEMENT ($300/movie title) scenario, and that you were merely caught downloading just a few songs, where the settlement amount will be $75/song.

      I don’t know where to put this in the article, so if you have read to the end (here), you get my personal opinion.  Personally, I think it is slimy for Rightscorp to charge you $75 per song if you use an attorney.  However, based on what they have done in the past, I half expected them to try to devise a way to lure and trap defendants into their settlement scheme, and having me contact them is definitely on behalf of a client is definitely a monkey-wrench in their plan.  If you wish to contact me about your Rightscorp issue, please click here for instructions on how to contact me.  If you would like to jump directly to scheduling a phone appointment for us to speak about your matter (I do not charge for these, but these are not sales calls and my time is limited), please click here.

      Are the UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas Targeting Ethnic Groups?

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit

      UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas sent

      I don’t take pleasure in writing this, but there is a new copyright troll on the block named UN4 Productions, Inc. (a Millennium Films company). For the past two weeks, UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas have been going out to internet users informing them that they have been implicated as being a John Doe defendant in the UN4 Productions lawsuit (a.k.a. the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit). Each lawsuit claims copyright infringement damages of $150,000 for the illegal download or streaming of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie using bittorrent, or some other streaming device.

      The name Boyka generally means “One Who Terrifies in Battle,” fitting for a gory fighting movie. Boyka: Undisputed 4 focuses on the story of Yuri Boyka, a mixed martial arts fighter.

      Boyka: Undisputed 4 Video Trailer (click here)

      Why the Boyka: Undisputed 4 ISP subpoenas mirror what we have seen

      As soon as I looked into this new copyright troll, I realized that this is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” copyright troll. The UN4 Productions ISP subpoena that you just received in the mail is coming from the same copyright enforcement entity (think Carl Crowell, or rightsenforcement.com) who just finished sending you bittorrent lawsuits for the ME2 Productions movie lawsuits, the Cook Productionsmovie lawsuits, the I.T. Productions movie lawsuits, LHF Productions movie lawsuits (think, London Has Fallen), and so many others.

      Are the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits targeting a particular ethnic group??

      The difference here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that this pirated movie has been dressed up as an ethnic movie (the previews I saw had arabic subtitles). Think, ME2 Productions, Inc. with no shirt, ripped bloody muscles, adrenaline-pumping punches all in line with the three previous Undisputed 4 movies [Undisputed (2002), Undisputed II: Last Man Standing (2006), and Undisputed III: Redemption (2010]).

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit
      antfrank / Pixabay

      “tracking an ethnic-based movie based on a specific nationality”

      Again, just in case you did not get my innuendo. The twisted offense here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that the  UN4 Productions copyright trolls have developed a new way of catching people — by tracking an ethnic-based pirated movie based on a specific nationality.  They spread a fishnet, monitor the downloads, and vwallah!  They catch bittorrent downloaders with ethnic names. When that defendant claims “it isn’t me who did the download!” the plaintiff attorney just chuckles at Youssef, Oleksiy, Omar, or whichever ethnic name just happened to be the same ethnic group or nationality for whom the movie was made.

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit

      How you can understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases

      First of all, at some point this evening, I will be writing a FAQ page so that you can understand what is going on with your Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit.  I will be posting that link here.

      To keep things simple, when you think of the UN4 Productions ISP subpoena you just received, or when you think about the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit, just think to yourself, “this is ME2 Productions in disguise. Same rules apply.” With the UN4 Productions lawsuit, the plaintiff attorney lawyers are exactly the same lawyers as with the ME2 Productions, Cook Productions, LHF Productions lawsuits we’ve been seeing for months now.

      Thus, you must come to the logical conclusion that the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit is simply another Carl Crowell (RightsEnforcement.com) common troll lawsuit with the same attorney characters we have seen before. We can infer that behind the scenes, the common troll entity (with MPAA’s blessing) approached the real production company of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie, and offered to license the rights to monetize the copyright rights on behalf of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 copyright holder (this means, sue defendants, extort multi-thousand dollar settlements from each John Doe Defendant, name some, dismiss some).

      How we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases.

      In sum, because we know the copyright enforcement entity behind the scenes of this lawsuit (think, APMC, or Anti-Piracy Management Company), and because we know the proclivities of the plaintiff attorneys (who names and serves, who settles, etc.) coupled with the federal judges who are assigned the various cases in each federal district court, we can predict with some relative certainty what will happen in each case.

      Whether that means filing a motion to quash an ISP subpoena, whether that means we will recommend that we defend your case, or whether we settle the claims against you or simply convince the plaintiff attorneys that it was not you who did the download (no settlement representation), there are a number of options we could take to represent our clients in these cases.

      Here are the cases:

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court
      [Most cases assigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel]
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01419, Case No. 1:17-cv-01477, Case No. 1:17-cv-01577, Case No. 1:17-cv-01253, Case No. 1:17-cv-01299)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoena ordered in the Hawaii District Court
      … v. Doe 1 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00282)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court
      UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-22 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04865)
      … v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04868)
      … v. DOES 1-21 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04866)
      … v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04863)
      … v. DOES 1-23 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04861)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 3:17-cv-00473, Case No. 1:17-cv-00257, Case No. 1:17-cv-00228, Case No. 1:17-cv-02037, Case No. 1:17-cv-02070, Case No. 1:17-cv-01710)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the New York Eastern & Southern District Courts
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
      … v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
      … v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Eastern District Court
      UN4 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00278, Case No. 5:17-cv-00286, Case No. 5:17-cv-00317, Case No. 5:17-cv-00232, Case No. 7:17-cv-00109)
      UN4 Productions, Inc v. John Doe 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00238)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Middle District Court
      … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00502)
      … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00528)
      … v. DOES 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00444)
      … v. DOE 1, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00453)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Western District Court
      … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-00295, Case No. 3:17-cv-00297, Case No. 3:17-cv-00315, Case No. 3:17-cv-00329, Case No. 3:17-cv-00282, Case No. 3:17-cv-00284)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Ohio Northern & Southern District Courts
      … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-01190)
      … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-01185)
      … v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00388)
      … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00492)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court
      … v. Doe-76.27.210.76 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00721)
      … v. Doe-71.238.54.166 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00722)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
      … v. JOHN DOES 1-9 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02481)
      … v. JOHN DOES 1-15 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02768)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court
      … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
      … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01788)
      … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court
      [Most cases assigned to Judge Robert S. Lasnik]
      … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00892, Case No. 2:17-cv-00786, Case No. 2:17-cv-00785)

      Skip to content