Category Archives: Copyright Troll Attorneys

New York ME2 Productions Settlement Letters Sent by Bryan DeMatteo

Bryan N DeMatteo is the New York attorney sending settlement demand letters to accused John Doe Defendants in the New York ME2 Productions, Inc. bittorrent lawsuits (a.k.a. the New York Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits).  These settlement letters from the ME2 Production attorney are asking for a settlement of $5,600, which in my opinion is absurd.

As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, I am competent to speak about Bryan DeMatteo’s lawsuits because I was representing bittorrent clients in 2012 when the case law was first paved.

Let me be clear about this.  I am competent to speak about the New York lawsuits because I have been licensed as a New York Attorney for the last 10 years.  I also have history here, because I was representing clients in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits of 2012 when all of the good case law was created.

This good case law slowly destroyed every time an innocent defendant listens to a “settlement factory” attorney (usually out-of-state) who convinces them to settle, even though they didn’t do it.  Every voluntary dismissal on paper from an innocent defendant who settled gives Bryan DeMatteo’s cases credibility in the eyes of the judges because it makes judges believe that he has correctly sued the “right” defendant.

SIDE NOTE:  I am aware that some attorney has called me a “Western out of state defense attorney,” but don’t be fooled — I am born and raised in New York, and New York was the first state in which I first became a licensed attorney.  New York is known to be one of the hardest state bars to pass.  Let me speak clearly just so there is no confusion — I AM AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TEN YEARS LATER, STILL IN GOOD STANDING — I am not some out of state defense attorney who is looking to get admitted (“pro hac”) to the US District Court one case at a time.  And, just so it is said, I have nothing wrong with out-of-state attorneys who get admitted “pro hac” on a case-by-case basis to represent one client for one case, as long as they represent their clients COMPETENTLY.

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

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASE RESOURCES

The TorrentLawyer blog has become a giant with over 200+ articles on the various cases in which our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has worked on.  If you have come to this page, you likely received a settlement demand letter from Bryan N. DeMatteo asking for $5,600 (or, whatever he is asking for at the moment; some attorneys are asking for $7,500, and others are asking for $2,500).  Either way, you missed the deadline to file a motion to quash (which is fine), and your ISP handed over your information to the plaintiff attorney.  Now you are facing another deadline — DeMatteo’s deadline — which is probably some date coming immediately, as in tomorrow.

You want to know your options, and *this article* is more of an advanced article describing a historical view of the case law which has been achieved in the New York Southern and Eastern District Courts (in 2012), versus the 2017 cases in which Bryan DeMatteo is seeking to “undo” the achievements we have achieved in the fight against copyright trolling, and why things at the moment are in his favor based on the circumstances.

To learn about the New York ME2 Productions lawsuits, read these cases in this order:

  1. “Just The Facts” — a short to-the-point article about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases and what you can do about them,
  2. “An In-Depth FAQ about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases” to understand everything you need to know about who is suing you,
  3. The article about your plaintiff attorney, Bryan N DeMatteo (read it to learn about the plaintiff, not the history of the second circuit), and
  4. The timeline of Anonymity in these bittorrent lawsuits — as a John Doe, you are still anonymous from the court (even though Bryan DeMatteo is sending you settlement demand letters).

Then, if you need to speak to me or have questions:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

How is Bryan N DeMatteo trying to legitimize his ME2 Productions (Mechanic: Resurrection movie) cases?

Earlier this morning, I wrote that “Bryan DeMatteo is facing an uphill battle to legitimize his “movie” bittorrent cases.”  In order to clarify what he is doing, please allow me to elaborate.  Bryan N DeMatteo is seeking to undo some of the progress we made in 2012 in the Digital Sin, Inc. cases.  Digital Sin, Inc. was a bittorrent-based copyright infringement set of lawsuits against internet users who went onto bittorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay and KickAssTorrents (“KAT”) to download adult films.  Because Bryan N DeMatteo’s cases deal with “movies” rather than “adult films,” it appears to me as if he is seeking to separate out movie companies (as legitimate) from the adult film companies (as illegitimate) who sued hundreds of downloaders for EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

2012 Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo and his 2017 New York ME2 Productions cases

The difference between the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases and the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases is that most defendants did NOT settle.

The difference between the Digital Sin, Inc. and other adult film lawsuits that plagued the federal courts in 2012 and the 2017 “movie” lawsuits is that back then, most defendants did NOT pay settlements.  They either fought their cases, or they hired an attorney such as myself in what I referred to as an “ignore” route representation, where I would open up the line of communication between my client and the “copyright troll” attorney to convince that attorney that my client wasn’t the one who did the download (and thus would not be settling).

With hundreds of potential defendants in one lawsuit (e.g., Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-240), this made it appear as if almost nobody was settling the claims against them.  New York judges viewed these cases with suspicion, and correctly diagnosed them with the inherent faults and flaws that even today’s bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases suffer from.  Namely, improper joinder, insufficient evidence to prove copyright infringement, etc.

However, in the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases, a high percentage of defendants ARE settling the claims against them (even if they did not do the download).

Today the cases no longer have 200+ defendants in each case (and in 2012, this was considered “small” because there were cases across the US that had 2,000+ John Doe Defendants filed in ONE lawsuit).  Today, cases average between 1-20 “John Doe” defendants.  Bryan N. DeMatteo lists the various defendants by their accused IP address, even though I remember seeing case law stating that “an IP address is not a person.

So, as far as I am concerned, Bryan DeMatteo is calling the ME2 Productions, Inc. John Doe Defendants by another name, but don’t be deceived, they are still John Doe Defendants and have the same legal status as an unnamed defendant with a “John Doe” placeholder.

New York ME2 Productions settlement demand letters sent by Bryan DeMatteo
JESHOOTS / Pixabay

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

The Consequence of More Defendants Settling Cases is Legitimacy Given to Movie Download Lawsuits, UNDOING our work in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases.

The CONSEQUENCE of today’s smaller cases combined with the fact that plaintiff attorneys are happy to name and serve defendants is that the number of accused defendants who settle are higher (likely because “settlement factory” attorneys push defendants into settling when they should not settle).

As a result, instead of having a small handful of defendants who settle in a large case with hundreds of defendants, the HIGHER PERCENTAGE of defendants settling the claims against them (just to avoid being dragged though discovery) makes it look to the federal judge like the plaintiff’s movie cases are valid when in fact they suffer from EXACTLY THE SAME DEFECTS as the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases suffered from.

In Summary, Bryan DeMatteo’s bittorrent lawsuits *will* succeed if there is a PERCEPTION by the court that he is succeeding.

In sum, the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. downloaders used bittorrent to download the adult films.  Similarly, the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. accused downloaders used Popcorn Time software or Showbox software [which uses bittorrent to stream the copyrighted movies to the viewers, often unbeknownst to the downloader].  Either way you look at it, the lawsuits from 2012 and 2017 are identical and should be subject to the same restrictions and new case law achieved in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits.

However, if there is a PERCEPTION by the New York Judges that a high percentage of defendants are settling the claims against them, then this will make them believe that Bryan DeMatteo has done something different from the previous defendants.  Namely, a higher settlement rate suggests that the DeMatteo has sued the right defendants.  This is an unacceptable outcome, but one which I believe we are looking at for the time being given the circumstances of bittorrent lawsuits in their current form.

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

Who are the New York Southern & Eastern District Judges Presiding Over the ME2 Productions, Inc. Lawsuits?

The New York District Judges presiding over the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits include Judge Brian Cogan, Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Judge Denise Cote, Judge Edgardo Ramos, Judge Frederic Block, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, Judge Louis Stanton, Judge Margo Brodie, and Judge Paul Gardephe.  If you search for most of their names (with the exception of Judge Ramos, who oversaw the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits for my clients in 2012 — Jason Kotzker was the NY “copyright troll” attorney at the time, for those of you who have followed the blog over the years), almost NONE of the names will show up as having anything to do with the bittorrent cases.

In short, so far, DeMatteo has gotten lucky (except for NYSD Judge Ramos re: Case No. 1:17-cv-02284, which I expect to be dismissed immediately after Bryan DeMatteo reads this article [you’re welcome]), as none of the federal judges were involved in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. case consolidations.  However, the results from the Digital Sin, Inc. case is “law” (or more accurately, “case law”), which is BINDING on even these federal judges when they adjudicate the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits.

CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


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.

New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

New York Copyright Troll Bryan DeMatteo and The Split Second Circuit

Bryan DeMatteo is the attorney suing John Doe Defendants in the 2017 bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York.  These New York bittorrent lawsuits involve “copyright trolls” such as ME2 Productions, Inc. (NY) (a.k.a. the Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits), UN4 Productions, Inc. (NY) (the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits), Venice PI, LLC (NY) (the Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuits), and more recently, Headhunter LLC (NY) (the “A Family Man” movie lawsuits).

As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, My Thoughts on Bryan DeMatteo and His Lawsuits.

Bryan DeMatteo runs DeMatteo Law, PLLC from the 5th Floor of 830 3rd Avenue in New York City (Midtown).  I have dealt with him before, and he is anything but an “empty shell” attorney that I poke fun at on this blog.  It was suggested that his cases are “just like any other bittorrent case” which is true as far as who his clients are, but Bryan fights his case differently from other plaintiff attorneys I have faced before.  In short, be careful when hiring counsel to oppose this attorney, because he separates apart his lawsuits into different kinds of copyright infringement, and any “settlement factory” attorney will be caught off guard by this.

I became an attorney over ten years ago in New York, and I have been practicing law and representing New York clients for ten years.

While our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC was formed in Texas in 2010, our law firm continues to represent New York clients.  [Why?  Because New York is where I was born, and where I grew up playing stickball on the streets of Brooklyn.  It is where I went to law school, and where I have all my roots as a New York licensed attorney.]

Bryan DeMatteo and the New York “Movie” Bittorrent Lawsuits

For the recent “movie” cases, Carl Crowell has an attorney who I have dealt with before — Bryan DeMatteo.

Bryan DeMatteo (also a patent attorney) is now suing defendants in the US District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.  Bryan DeMatteo is suing for the same four copyright holders I have discussed before in other articles:

Bryan DeMatteo Cases - A Family Man, Headhunter LLC | Mechanic: Resurrection ME2 Productions | Once Upon a Time in Venice, Venice PI | Boyka: Undisputed 4, UN4 Productions

What do I need to know about New York Attorney Bryan DeMatteo?

In representing a New York client, there are a few things to understand about Bryan N. DeMatteo of DeMatteo Law, PLLC:

1) Be sure to understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology.  He does.

Bryan DeMatteo believes in the validity of these bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits, which separates him from what I refer to as the “empty shell” local counsel plaintiff attorneys who I have seen read scripts provided to them by their copyright holder clients. In speaking to him (obviously it is best to have an attorney speak to him on your behalf), be sure you understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology, because he does. Show your incompetence, and he’ll likely plow right over your ignorance.

2) Bryan DeMatteo is on a mission to rectify a split in the NY Southern District Court.

Second. Bryan DeMatteo is faced with a SPLIT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT which he is fighting an uphill battle to rectify.

This split happened in 2012, when our law firm (Cashman Law Firm, PLLC) was representing clients against Mike Meier (the plaintiff attorney at the time) in the Digital Sin[s] v. John Does 1-234 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08170) case.  This case [into which all other NY bittorrent cases were combined] caused the controversy Bryan DeMatteo is looking to rectify.

Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo
Remember the Digital Sin, Inc. (NY) cases from 2012?

While the details of the split are not relevant, in 2012, many things happened.

1) We were successful in having the judges consolidate and freeze all of the smaller bittorrent cases in New York into one case.

See:
2012 Article #1, “New York Judge consolidates and freezes SMALLER BITTORRENT CASES for plaintiff attorney.
2012 Article #2, “More of Mike Meier NY bittorrent cases consolidated.
2012 Article #3, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? New York’s split Southern District Court

2) Because the New York bittorrent cases were facing joinder problems (which the judges recognized as a valid problem in most of the New York bittorrent cases at the time), the John Doe Defendants in the New York bittorrent cases were severed and dismissed.

However, as a response to the dismissal, the plaintiff attorney would turn around and sue those same defendants as new John Doe Defendants in a second bittorrent case.  This angered the judges.

“Lest plaintiff’s counsel think he can simply put cases against the severed and dismissed John Doe defendants into the wheel for assignment to yet another judge, I remind him of Local Civil Rule 1.6(a) [which requires the plaintiff attorney to bring the existence of potentially related cases to the attention of the Court].”

In sum, we were successful in forcing the plaintiff attorney to disclose whether these John Does were sued before, and in which cases they were sued.

3) Judges suggested that the New York plaintiff attorney pay 244 filing fees for 244 defendants x $350 each, rather than allowing him to pay one $350 fee [the fee in 2012 to file a lawsuit] to sue them all.

“They are dismissed because the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee that is statutorily required to bring these 244 separate lawsuits.” (p.4)

This would have amounted to $85,400 in filing fees if Digital Sin, Inc. wanted to go after the dismissed defendants from this case.

Needless to say, every one of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients in the case were dismissed, and they were never filed against again. Since then, the three-year statute of limitations has run, and the plaintiff has lost the opportunity to sue my clients. Congratulations once again on hard earned, good results.

Jump to 2017, Effects of 2012 on Bryan DeMatteo's NY Bittorrent Cases
geralt / Pixabay

Since 2012, FIVE YEARS have passed, and now we have Bryan DeMatteo to contend with.

To bring you up to speed, it has been five (5) years since the Southern District of New York fiasco happened. While the rulings happened to Mike Meier and his Digital Sin, Inc. client, the “law” created by these cases is still binding on Bryan DeMatteo, and his New York ME2 Productions, Inc., New York UN4 Productions, Inc., New York Venice PI, LLC and New York Headhunter LLC lawsuits. He knows this, and thus his job in proving the validity of his cases is a complicated job.

In Sum: Unintended Consequences from 2012 => Bryan DeMatteo.

Unfortunately, as exciting as was was when our New York Southern District Court went “belly-up” for copyright trolls, the unintended consequence of our activities from five years ago is that now we have Bryan DeMatteo who has taken on these cases with “something to prove.”

In sum, New York bittorrent lawsuits are not a place for the weak minded, nor are they a place for someone not intricately familiar with the innuendos of copyright infringement. For cases against Bryan DeMatteo, it is best to have someone who knows the New York courts, who knows many of the New York federal judges, and who has had experience in fighting bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases in New York. Obviously I am one of them, and I have been fighting these cases since they were first filed in 2010.

I want to point out that as a result of this case (and other events that surrounded this case), Mike Meier is no longer filing bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York, and until recently (as Sophisticated Jane Doe properly put it), “Trolls are not welcome in the Southern District of New York anymore.

CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


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.

Bryan DeMatteo New York Southern & Eastern District Cases:

New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

New York Headhunter LLC Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-173.56.227.169 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05314)
New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-69.124.0.132 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04155)
New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-72.80.132.46 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05895)

New York UN4 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-108.29.50.167 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03698)
New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)
New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.89.251.15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04400)
New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.88.64.129 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04887)

New York Venice PI Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY):

New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.187.92.79 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04904)
New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.44.143.124 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04249)
New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-66.108.113.178 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05594)
New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-68.173.101.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076)

Gary Fischman sues 120 Texas Defendants – Venice PI, Headhunter, UN4

Venice PI & Headhunter lawsuits come to Texas.

Literally one month ago, I wrote about the appearance of the UN4 Productions lawsuits suing accused downloaders of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie in Texas.  Apparently, Gary Fischman, the plaintiff attorney for the various RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) subpoena based movie infringement lawsuits has earned the right to sue now for the Venice PI, LLC and Headhunter, LLC movie production companies.

Which movies are affiliated with these Texas lawsuits:

  • Venice PI, LLC is suing for the unlawful download or viewing of the “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie,

    venice-pi-subpoena-once-upon-a-time-in-venice-movie-lawsuit Venice PI
    Venice PI, LLC (“Once Upon a Time in Venice”) movie lawsuits
  • Headhunter, LLC is suing for the unlawful download of “A Family Man” movie (not to be confused with Nicholas Cage’s “Family Man” movie from a number of years ago.)

    Headhunter LLC ("A Family Man") movie lawsuits
    Headhunter LLC (“A Family Man”) movie lawsuits
  • UN4 Productions, Inc. is suing for the unlawful download of the “Boyka: Undisputed 4” movie.

    UN4 Productions Boyka: Undisputed 4
    UN4 Productions (“Boyka: Undisputed 4”) movie lawsuits

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

List of Texas cases filed by Gary Fischman in the last month:

HEADHUNTER (17 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS):
Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02352)

UN4 PRODUCTIONS (51 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS)
UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)
UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02115)

VENICE PI (55 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02285)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02395)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02203)
Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02244)

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

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR LAWSUIT:

To those 120+ Defendants who are implicated by Gary Fischman as “John Doe” defendants in this lawsuit: Understand that the Texas federal judges will likely allow Gary Fischman to send a subpoena to the Comcast & AT&T ISPs to obtain the identities of those accused of downloading the various movies.

1) Read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about your particular lawsuit.

First, read about your particular movie lawsuit (see FAQs on the lawsuits here):

NOTE: Do not be fooled — each of these movies have become lawsuits because of Carl Crowell and his “common trollRIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) entity, of which Gary Fischman appears to be his Texas local counsel.  We understand that Crowell (or one of his attorneys) have contacted each of the movie production companies and have secured a license to sue for copyright infringement on their behalf.  Thus, the various FAQ pages will be similar, because it is the same entity that is behind the scenes of each of these movie lawsuits.

2) Learn about what an “objection with the court” or a “motion to quash” is, and whether you want to file one.

The letters from the ISPs will tell you that you have 30 days to file an objection with the court (which is referring to a motion to quash) before they are forced to hand over your information to Gary Fischman.

Do not get trapped in an emotional rush to file a “motion to quash” just because you learned that a motion to quash filing could stop your ISP from being required to hand over your information to the plaintiff (such a filing has actually been UNSUCCESSFUL, read why).

NOTE: The link I provided you above is from an article I wrote in *2010*, and now we are in 2017.  This should give us some credibility, if we did not already have some in your eyes that we have an idea of what is going on in these cases.  The motion to quash issue was figured out by us attorneys SEVEN YEARS AGO, and yet there are still new law school graduates and other attorneys who still try to sell “motion to quash” packages, claiming they will “expose the fraud” of these cases for the same amount of money you could have settled for and guaranteed an exit from the lawsuit (just to be clear, a settlement is NOT the least expensive option in handling cases such as these).  A motion to quash is NOT THE PLACE TO FIGHT YOUR LAWSUIT, and judges will get upset if you misuse this tool.  A motion to quash is a tool to determine 1) whether the subpoena is valid, and 2) whether the federal court has PERSONAL JURISDICTION over the accused defendant.

Read about motions to quash here, understand the likely response if you file a motion to quash, and understand the likely question a federal judge will ask if you file a motion to quash. For those of you who do not want to switch to another article, the short answer is that a motion to quash is a good tool to stop the ISP from handing out your information if the federal court does not have PERSONAL JURISDICTION over you (e.g., if you live in one state, but are sued in another state). However, if you (an unnamed “John Doe” defendant) file a motion to quash, understand that the likely response from the plaintiff attorney is to oppose your motion to quash. The plaintiff attorney will likely state that you do not have STANDING to file the motion to quash because you are not a named defendant in this case. [Plus, the subpoena was not issued to you, but to your ISP, and thus you are not a recipient of this subpoena and it should be the ISP who should file the motion to quash, not you.]  In short, don’t jump into a motion to quash frenzy just because you learn that the legal mechanism to stop a subpoena recipient from complying with the subpoena is called a motion to quash.

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

3) Learn about anonymity – how long you remain anonymous after receiving the subpoena from the ISP, and at what point your anonymity ends.

Second. Be aware of your anonymity, and use it to your advantage. Understand each stage of the lawsuit, and know at what point you lose that anonymity. The reason this is relevant to you is because there is a finite amount of time in which you remain a “John Doe” defendant. During this time, Gary Fischman might learn who you are, but your information is in no way made public, and your involvement as a potential defendant in this lawsuit is not made public until you are named and served as a defendant.

This is relevant because during this time, you can hire an attorney to converse with the plaintiff attorney on your behalf, and everything is done anonymously, meaning that your contact information never shows up on the court’s docket, on your record, in Google searches, or anywhere else. This is relevant because once you lose your anonymity, the fact that you were accused in a federal court of stealing a copyrighted movie becomes public knowledge for anyone who does a look-up of your name, including potential employers.

A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that the due date on the ISP subpoena is the date you lose your anonymity.
Wrong.
The date you lose your anonymity is the date your plaintiff attorney realizes that he will not be getting a settlement from you and he decides to change your status from a “John Doe” defendant to a “named defendant (your name as the defendant)”.

4) Learn about settlement factories, settlement options, and *when NOT to settle*.

Lastly, be aware that there are a number of settlement factories out there who will convince you that settling is the “cheapest” method of getting out of this case. This is simply not true. The fact of whether you actually downloaded the movie is possibly the most relevant piece of information in determining whether to settle. If you did not do it, then hiring an attorney to convince the plaintiff attorney not to name and serve you because you did not do the download could be the smartest thing you could do in any of these cases. Question your attorneys and ask what percentage of cases they settle, and what percentage of cases they do not settle.

What if you DID do the download (or you DID watch the movie)?

If you have done the download for which you were sued (or if you have watched the movie), the second most relevant is what else you have downloaded, watched illegally, or what else is in your bittorrent software’s download folder. The reason for this is because some bittorent clients “announce” to the bittorrent network which movies, music, e-books, and software you have downloaded, and which are actively in your “Download” folder available to be uploaded.

With this information, the plaintiff attorneys search which files are available from your IP address, and they assemble a list of files you have downloaded. If you are an avid downloader, (while this information cannot be used to prove you downloaded THIS movie,) this evidence of “other titles downloaded” will affect how a plaintiff attorney such as Gary Fischman sees you as a potential target of this lawsuit. It will affect your chances of being named and served, and it will affect the leverage you have in settlement negotiations. This is where a good lawyer is probably a good idea, especially one with leverage in settlement negotiations — one who is willing to step into court if the settlement negotiations go awry, even if it is simply to admit guilt and argue minimum $750 statutory damages from the court.

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

In Summary:

In the end, having your attorney know the personality of your plaintiff attorney is possibly one of the most important items to consider when hiring an attorney. Specifically with Gary Fischman, he has the mind of an engineer, and he treats his cases as such. Understanding how he thinks in considering each defendant is important in obtaining the best result, whether that is not settling the case, negotiating a settlement, or fighting the claims against you in litigation.


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the various Texas-filed cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your 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 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.

Venice PI LLC (not so “new” copyright troll) filing in select Carl Crowell local counsel courts.

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.

venice-pi-subpoena-once-upon-a-time-in-venice-movie-lawsuit Venice PI

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.

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

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.

In short, there is a lot of repeat here because this lawsuit contains a lot of repeat from what we’ve seen in the past with the ME2 Productions (Mechanic:Resurrection) movie lawsuits, the UN4 Productions (Undisputed 4) movie lawsuits, the Headhunter LLC (A Family Man) movie lawsuits, the WWE Studios (Eliminator) movie lawsuits, the Cook Productions (Mr. Church) movie lawsuits, etc.  Rinse, repeat, rinse repeat.

For those interested in learning more about the Venice PI LLC lawsuits, see the two links below:

Venice Pi (‘Once Upon a Time in Venice’) Movie Lawsuit Page,” written on 7/19/2017, and
All I know about the Venice Pi, LLC (‘Once Upon a Time in Venice’) Movie Lawsuits (FAQ),” written on 7/18/2017.

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

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)


FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, 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.

…OR, SKIP TO THE APPOINTMENT…

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

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT – New Movie Titles (July 2017 Update)

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 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.

To learn more about RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT and everything I know about them to date, click here.

New RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com Movies

NOTE: The last time I wrote about RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT and Carl Crowell’s new production company clients was in the “RIGHTSENFORCEMENT, New Movie Lawsuits” Article, written on 4/28/2017.

Here is a list of the new movies I’ve “spied” on their website:

july-rightsenforcement-new-movie-copyright-trolls-1

  • This Beautiful Fantastic
  • Black Butterfly
  • Rupture
  • In Dubious Battle
  • HopeLost
  • Beyond the Sun
  • Arctic Justice (Thunder Squad)
  • All Road Lead to Rome

july-rightsenforcement-new-movie-copyright-trolls-2

july-rightsenforcement-new-movie-copyright-trolls-3

july-rightsenforcement-new-movie-copyright-trolls-4

  • Playing it Cool
  • The Company You Keep
  • The Destination
  • Secret Scripture
  • Once Upon a Time in Venice,

…AND OTHER MOVIE TITLES I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

North Carolina Headhunter Subpoenas Are Due On 8/5.

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).

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 “tzenger@kmclaw.com,” 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.

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

What just happened in Nevada with the Eliminators Movie lawsuits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is WWE Studios’ plaintiff attorney Charles Rainey?

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

What is your proof that this sanctionable conduct occurred?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

In the Connecticut District Court:

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

In the Hawaii District Court:

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

In the Pennsylvania Eastern District (PAED) Court:

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

In the Nevada District Court:

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

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

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

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT (New MPAA Movies Gone Copyright Troll)

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

JULY, 2017 –UPDATE– : Carl Crowell’s Rights Enforcement client list is growing.  New RightsEnforcement Movie Clients for Future Copyright Lawsuits as of July, 2017 have now been posted here.

Also, to learn more about RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT and everything I know about them to date, click here.

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 1

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

QUICK BACKGROUND: HOW THE SCHEME WORKS.

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

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

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

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

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

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 2

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

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

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | me2-mechanic-resurrection-lawsuit

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

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

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 6

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

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com | Screenshot 7

  • Countdown
  • Blunt Force Trauma, and
  • Wild Horses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ME2 Utah Subpoenas from CenturyLink Are Coming Due.

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

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

Who is the attorney for the ME2 Utah cases?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPTION 1: FIGHT

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

OPTION 2: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

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

OPTION 3: “NO SETTLEMENT REPRESENTATION”

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

OPTION 4: “IGNORE” ROUTE REPRESENTATION

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

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

OPTION 5: ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES” REPRESENTATION

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

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

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

*UPDATE (APRIL, 2017)* ME2 PRODUCTIONS INC. (FAQ) PAGE NOW UP.

*UPDATE (JULY, 2017)* SECOND WAVE OF LAWSUIT SUBPOENAS sent to CenturyLink ISP subscribers, and are due on 7/14/2017.


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.