Category Archives: Copyright Trolls

Siemens PLM defendants, we can still speak AFTER your OCTOBER 5TH deadline.

To those engineers implicated in the recent Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (4:18-cv-02344) lawsuit:

I want to simply apologize for not being able to immediately speak to each of you.  You are all asking for appointments for the same October 5th, 2018 deadline provided to you on your Charter Communications ISP subpoena letter.  Please be patient.

Choosing “the convenient path” before October 5th.

No doubt, there are likely 10+ attorneys actively paying to advertise for your business. However, none of them are located here in Houston, Texas where the lawsuit is, where the courthouse is — where your plaintiff attorneys are. Thus, they will be actively soliciting your business to acquire you as a client for the purposes of satisfying the volume business they have set up around these lawsuits. I understand that it is convenient to jump and hire the first attorney who will have you as a client, but choosing the convenient path is exactly why you have been sued in the first place.

If you have read what I have written on the previous four waves of lawsuits (this is the 5th time they have filed lawsuits with 100+ defendants), you already know that I have successfully represented many clients against Siemens PLM and I have had clients that have both legitimized their prior illegal use by purchasing a license to their proprietary software. I have also had many clients who have had me explain that their use (although unlawful) was for personal use (off of the court docket, without their names being exposed) — they paid no settlement, they purchased no license, and they were dismissed from the lawsuit and no longer worry about being sued for their past acts of infringement.

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

The “cooperative” approach vs. the litigious approach.

There are two ways to approach a Siemens PLM software piracy lawsuit — 1) fight each claim on the merits of the copyright infringement claims against each defendant, or 2) (our approach) cooperate with the Siemens attorney’s attempts to sort through each of the 107 defendants to help them determine who needs a license for their past use, and who does not. Siemens is NOT a copyright troll (contrary to popular belief and their use of mass John Doe copyright lawsuits), and so having your attorney treat them like copyright trolls will cause you problems in your lawsuit. If you look at a timeline of their cases (which I have picked a representative set of cases over the years), you see that Siemens PLM pursues former John Doe Defendants, even after lawsuits are dismissed, so applying what I have taught over the years on this website and approaching their case with what I have described as the “ignore” route (as other attorneys might) is not the recommended path to resolving the claims in this lawsuit.

The way out of this lawsuit is simply the long way out. Hire an attorney (myself of someone like me), have him represent you just as I have suggested, and have him represent you through the entire lifecycle of this lawsuit. It will be over in a few months. Just let the attorney do exactly what he has (what I have) done in the past.

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

What about my October 5th, 2018 deadline? Can I file a motion to quash the subpoena?

As for your October 5th, 2018 deadline to file a motion to quash with the court to stop them from handing out your information, again, do not be fooled here. You likely do NOT live in Texas and so a motion to quash *IS* a viable option, however, it is not the recommended option. If you hire an attorney (myself or any other attorney) to file a motion to quash because you do not live in Texas, you will likely win the motion to quash and you will [most likely] be SEVERED AND DISMISSED from the lawsuit. However, be VERY AWARE that the immediate next act would be that the plaintiff attorney [from his computer using the PACER / e-filing system available across each of the federal courts in the US] would file the identical lawsuit against you personally, this time Siemens v. YOU, without the padding or anonymity that a John Doe placeholder status provides you, and without the padding that you might have sharing the liability of the lawsuit among 106 other similarly situated defendants.

In other words, don’t fall for sales tactics. Stay as private as possible (you can always contest the personal jurisdiction later and move the lawsuit into your own state if you are ever sued personally in this lawsuit). Up front, this is the 5th time Siemens PLM has sued, and I have never needed to do this nor have I had a client named and served in one of their cases. As I said, the approach is COLLABORATIVE with Siemens PLM, not litigious.

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

Retaining me as your attorney before Oct. 5th is a PREFERENCE, not a requirement.

In sum, while I always PREFER to have you be a client before your October 5th, 2018 deadline before your Charter ISP hands over your information, with the Siemens PLM cases, *this is not required.*

As I have written many times, Siemens (now with their James Quail attorney) handles these cases methodically and SLOWLY. It could take weeks before they even get to your John Doe entity. For this reason, (and now understanding that you will not be filing a motion to quash before 10/5), please be patient and take my appointments on https://www.torrentlawyer.com/calendar/ as they become available. There is no rush to have me represent everybody by October 5th, nor is this even possible.

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

A quick note about limited time slots and limited availability to speak to you, at least initially.

Lastly, I assume if you have reached this article, you understand that I do not take every client that I speak to, and that there are limited time slots available (here is why). I simply run my practice in a methodical way, taking clients as I can, and one at a time. I also spend most of my time HANDLING CLIENT CASES rather than marketing for new clients.  I am simply not interested in gobbling as many clients as I can, and if you need to hire an attorney today, I will not be your attorney.

I have done the Siemens PLM cases from start-to-finish FOUR TIMES NOW. Watch my calendar for availabilities (as new ones open up), and grab them when they become available. Assuming you have read the articles on my site and are “on board” with my collaborative approach (meaning, cooperating with Siemens PLM and helping them sort through each of the 107 defendants, not blindly fighting them tooth-and-nail like any other copyright infringement or “copyright troll” lawsuit), I will happily take you as a client. This is true even if we end up speaking after your Charter ISP hands over your information to the Siemens attorneys.

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

I understand this lawsuit has generated much concern for you. Please understand that I have done this before. Read what I have written about the different “categories” of defendants (based on their usage) that I have hashed out over the years. Stay calm, and understand that this will be a long but drama-free process. I look forward to speaking to you and serving you as your attorney.


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.

Why the US Court of Appeals’ ruling that “an IP address is not enough to identify a defendant” will not deter the copyright trolls.

Unless this case will stop forcing the ISPs to reveal account holders’ identities, this ruling is useless.

Everybody is cheering about the news in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (this is a higher court) “Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Thomas Gonzales,” a lawsuit filed against Gonzalez (originally a Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe-24.21.136.125 (Case No. 3:15-cv-00866) case filed in the Oregon District Court) for the download of the Adam Sandler movie, “The Cobbler.”  In this appeal, the Court of Appeals just ruled that an IP address is not enough to identify the subscriber as being the downloader.

However, my opinion is that unless federal judges will apply this ruling to prevent a copyright holder from forcing the ISP to release the identity of the account holder (which I believe they will NOT), this ruling will be useless.

Cobbler Nevada Appeals Case still does not solve the ISP subpoena issue.
3dman_eu / Pixabay

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

Judges rubber-stamp copyright infringement lawsuits.

For YEARS, I saw literally hundreds of cases fly past the judges who rubber stamped expedited discovery motions forcing the Internet Service Providers (ISPs, e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Verizon) to hand over the names and addresses of the subscriber — why?  Because the assumption was that the account holder was most likely the downloader.

Cobbler Nevada, LLC was only one of MANY copyright holders employing this tactic — sue a “John Doe” downloader having an accused IP address, convince the judge to allow the plaintiff attorney to send a subpoena to the ISP to unmask the identity of the account holder.

Copyright troll attorneys do not state in the complaint that the ACCOUNT HOLDER is the DOWNLOADER.

I remember rummaging through one case after another asking, “Did ANY copyright holder PLEAD that the subscriber was the infringer?”  The fact that the answer was NO made my face contort into a Picasso-styled painting.

Copyright holders like Cobbler Nevada, LLC filed copyright infringement lawsuits which spoke all about the ‘theft’ that occurred when someone connected to a bittorrent network and downloaded a pirated copy of their movie.  They spoke about the harm, and how terrible piracy was for their business.  However, they never wrote that the account holder (the subscriber) was the downloader.  So kudos to the judge for finally making this part of the permanent case law which we will certainly use when defending a client accused of copyright infringement… But wait.

WILL this ruling stop judges from approving expedited discovery? Will this ruling stop judges from issuing that MOST DESTRUCTIVE ORDER which permits the copyright troll to send a subpoena to force the ISP to hand out the name and address of the account holder? I suggest the answer is NO.

Expedited Discovery and ISP subpoenas allow a shakedown scheme to occur.
Perlinator / Pixabay

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

Cobbler Nevada ruling misses the fact that by the time we file a motion to dismiss, it is already TOO LATE.

Looking at Cobbler Nevada‘s pleadings for a moment, failing to identify the account holder as being the infringer (the “pirate” / bittorrent downloader) suggests that a defense attorney such as myself could file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim.

Our argument based on this ruling is that the plaintiff attorney never said in his pleading that the account holder is the one who downloaded the copyrighted film.

By that time, however, the ISP already handed over the name and address of my client, and the plaintiff attorney has already amended the complaint against my client forever memorializing the fact that my client was accused of copyright infringement.

The damage has already been done.

[Further, realistically, if my client downloaded the copyrighted video, we would never have gotten the chance to plead that the plaintiff attorney did not properly state anywhere in the complaint that my client was the downloader.  Why?  Because by the time the ISP handed over my client’s information to a copyright troll like Cobbler Nevada, my client hired me, told me that he did the download, and we settled the claims against him (before his name was forever memorialized on the court’s docket as being the accused defendant).]

Innocent account holders are victims in copyright infringement lawsuits.

But what happens if my client did NOT do the download?  The ISP would have handed over my client’s information to Cobbler Nevada LLC’s plaintiff attorney, I would have sent over a letter of representation to the plaintiff attorney informing him that my client did not do the download and thus we are not settling (I refer to this as the “ignore” route representation, [not because we are ignoring anything, but because we are not paying a settlement if my client did not do the download, and thus there is nothing to do except to explain to the plaintiff attorney that my client — the account holder — was not the downloader]).

The plaintiff attorney will still try to shake down my client and solicit a settlement, regardless of whether he did the download or not.

With some copyright holders (e.g., Malibu Media, LLC and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC), the plaintiff attorney is not even the attorney of the copyright holder (the “copyright troll”), but rather, a local counsel hired to file the documents in a particular federal court.  The local counsel for these specific copyright holders might not even have autonomy to release an innocent account holder without a settlement.  Regardless of guilt, the local counsel might even be under instructions to “name and serve an account holder who is not settling, regardless of whether or not they did the download.”

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

The plaintiff attorney will NAME AND SERVE the innocent account holder (starting the pattern of abuse).

The plaintiff attorney’s logic for naming and serving the subscriber, even if the subscriber is not the downloader is twofold. 

Firstly, once the plaintiff attorney names and serves the account holder, 1) they hope the account holder will hire a settlement factory attorney (a defense attorney who pre-arranges inflated settlement prices with copyright trolls to settle all cases at a premium (so-called “anonymous” settlements) and pay to settle the claims against him, regardless of whether the account holder did the download or not

Thus, the plaintiff attorney will “score” a multi-thousand-dollar settlement from an innocent account holder defendant (sometimes $2,500, sometimes $10,000+). 

An innocent account holder is a victim of the legal system even if he is dismissed.

However, even if the innocent account holder defendant hires an attorney such as myself (or someone like me) and we do NOT settle the claims against my client [because my client — the account holder — did NOT do the download], that plaintiff attorney still reasons that the case will never go to trial.  They figure that they could drag the innocent defendant through the legal system, force him to hire an attorney, force the attorney to file an answer in the case denying the claims, showing up to one or more case management hearings, and force the defense attorney and his innocent client to cooperate while he abuses the legal system (forcing them to submit to searches and temporary seizures of their computers and electronic devices, and forcing the defendant to answer questions under oath.  IF THEN (after discovery) the plaintiff attorney determines that the account holder is not the downloader, he can dismiss the lawsuit against the defendant.

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

Even a dismissal leaves an the account holder violated.

Receiving such a dismissal might sound good as you read this, but remember, the account holder was not the downloader.  His information was shared with a set of attorneys who are doing nothing other than drooling for a settlement

There is an involuntary set of threats thrown against the defendant that he must settle or his name will be exposed to the world as being an accused downloader (guilty or not).  That innocent account holder then has to decide whether to settle the claims against him (pay even though he did not do the download) or defend the claims against him in litigation. 

He then has to pay a defense attorney to represent him. 

Then he has to endure the legal process (which is all new to him, even though the plaintiff attorney has done this hundreds of times to other innocent account holders). 

Then he has to show up at the plaintiff attorney’s office, enter a room with a court reporter, and be put under oath (risking being found guilty of perjury if he makes a misstatement).  The innocent account holder’s testimony is then FORCED FROM HIM (he cannot “plead the fifth amendment” not to testify, because this is a CIVIL case, and the fifth amendment applies only in CRIMINAL cases). 

His computer and cell phones are then searched by someone who is looking to find something “illegal” on his computer. 

Then even after a deposition where the innocent account holder answers truthfully, the plaintiff attorney STILL threatens him that if he does not settle, he will still need to defend himself all the way to trial. 

Then the plaintiff attorney dismisses the innocent account holder (“without prejudice,” meaning that he can be subject to this lawsuit AGAIN).  Yet, with the dismissal, the identity of the innocent account holder is forever linked with the lawsuit, which is forever searchable on Google when a prospective employer (or even his children or grandchildren) search for his name. 

I don’t know about you, but I would still feel violated even if I was found “not guilty” or if I was dismissed by the plaintiff attorney after a deposition.

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

The innocent account holder paid his defense attorney $17,222!

Putting all of this emotion trauma aside, in the Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Thomas Gonzales case, the innocent account holder (Gonzales) PAID HIS ATTORNEY LEGAL FEES OF $17,222 (whereas Cobbler Nevada, LLC likely asked for a settlement of $4,500, and an attorney could have settled the claims against him at the time for $1,750-$2,000).  Gonzales chose to “fight,” and as a result, he paid his attorney $17,000+ …and he was INNOCENT all along.

Cobbler Nevada solution - deny expedited discovery.
qimono / Pixabay

The only solution is to prevent copyright holders from obtaining the account holder’s identity.

So the only way to truly apply this US Court of Appeals ruling is to have judges begin to DENY EXPEDITED DISCOVERY unless the plaintiff attorney explicitly states in the complaint that the account holder is the infringer.  However, in truth, a plaintiff attorney can state this, and plead (in the alternative) that he is not the infringer, or he could lie in his pleadings.  There is no practical consequence in law for falsely accusing a defendant of a civil claim and then later dismissing the claim when he realizes that the innocent account holder did not do the “crime” for which he was accused. Thus, the only way to properly use this ruling is to DENY EXPEDITED DISCOVERIES. DO NOT LET THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS SEND SUBPOENAS TO THE ISPs TO FORCE THEM TO HAND OVER THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER.  Because once this happens, even if that account holder could later hire an attorney to file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, the whole “settlement extortion scheme” has already taken place and that innocent account holder’s name is already memorialized on the docket as being the accused defendant (guilty or not).

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about what you have read and how it applies to your particular lawsuit, 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 send a Text/SMS to 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number)].

WHY COPYRIGHT TROLL NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM COPYRIGHT LAWS.

Who is the “Real Party in Interest” in the Strike Three Holdings movie lawsuits?

Last night, I set out to explain the differences between the recent Strike Three Holdings ISP subpoena lawsuits and the Malibu Media lawsuits, but the similarities ended up haunting me.  Seeing yet again the makings of another copyright holder who is playing what is starting to look like a “corporate shell game,” I am again weighed down in wondering whether Strike 3 Holdings movie lawsuits (think, “Tushy.com [NSFW],” “Blacked.com [NSFW],” and “Vixen.com [NSFW]”) is really the old wolf — Malibu Media LLC — in sheep’s clothing.

What bothers me about each of these movie (or here, “adult film”) cases is the slick non-transparency between who the copyright holder is, who is actually the party filing the lawsuit (legally, the “real party in interest,”) and who the interested parties are in the lawsuit.

Attorney “Kidneys”

From a lawyer’s perspective (my own attorney “kidneys”), it really bothers me that lawyers LIE to judges and courts now when they file lawsuits. Maybe this has always been the case, and what do I know — I’ve only been a lawyer active in my field for ten years now — but law school took SO MANY STEPS to teach us to be moral and ethical.

In order to be eligible to take the New York bar exam, we not only had to pass a [frankly, invasive] character and fitness review, but we needed to pass an ethics exam (the MPRE).  In that ethics exam, almost every answer to the exam was, “be ethical, turn that lawyer in to the authorities.”  This is what caused me to delve quite early into the legal malpractice field.

Our Legal System is BROKEN by attorneys who represent unethical clients.

But our legal system breaks when a small few attorneys allow their clients to engage in deception, distortion, and outright lies, as I suspect is already happening with the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits. 

Looking at the selection of each of the new lawyers that have been chosen to file cases, I can already see the outcome and how each of the cases will play out based on that particular lawyer’s proclivities and skillset.

Some of these lawyers are “new guys,” or “fresh meat” (as I jokingly call them) — not because I can take advantage of their ignorance of the law (or at least the ignorance of how copyright law is applied differently in each of the federal courts across the US), but because I know that they are local counsel to a centralized (and likely criminal) enterprise.

Thus, they will act as “empty shells” who follow the dictates of their client masters… as we have seen before, possibly at the peril of their own law licenses.

SIDE NOTE: Kudos to those local counsel who chose the ethical path, eventually.

Unrelated but relevant, I must note that a number of former “copyright troll” attorneys who have been local counsel to other attorneys are no longer “in the game,” so to speak.  They no longer file copyright infringement lawsuits for their masters, and they stood up and said “no” when their copyright troll clients asked them to take part in activities that would have cost them their law licenses.  I do take pride in commending these attorneys in taking a stand against their morally corrupt clients, and in a few cases, I know personally of a few attorneys who backed out of being local counsel and who likely saved their law licenses as a result.

Because many of these local counsel at one point were “fresh meat,” they took the copyright monetization (NPE) client [I’ll describe the “NPE” term later] thinking that this would bring in needed revenue to their law firm.  They thought they would learn a lot, and they rationalized that they were on the “right side of the law.”  This continued until they realized that they were representing a corrupted client, and then they were in too deep to drop them as a client.

Eventually, the copyright monetization (NPE) client turned on them (think, “honor among thieves,“)  and told them to do something unethical.  Risking loss of what became their entire law firm’s focus, they were forced to continue on their path hoping that they would never be caught by the state bar.  Eventually, in one particular case, their client stopped paying them their own commissions and they were left working for a client who was cheating them.

I have spoken attorneys such as these on a number of occasions (many of these attorneys are the subject of past articles), and I hope to have contributed to their decision to leave their masters as a battered wife would leave her husband.

I am also happy to share that I have been screamed at by a number of attorneys who direct lawsuits (most notably, John Steele of Prenda Law Inc., now disbarred, and who is pictured at the top of this article) “for speaking to and advising his local counsel” as to their rights when their own client (Steele) put them in a precarious position.

In sum (and this was supposed to be a side note), not all local counsel are bad people.  However, at the moment while they are still suing defendants, they know I believe they are on the wrong side of the law, and here is why.

Why the law requires the ENFORCEMENT OF TRANSPARENCY in copyright infringement / bittorrent-based lawsuits.

The point of this article is that the law requires transparency and disclosure when filing lawsuits, and judges tend to rely on the filings of the plaintiff attorneys (in an honest world, those representing the copyright holder).  However, when copyright monetization entities (e.g., RightsEnforcement, etc.) step as a buffer entity in between the copyright holder and the defendant, this creates a disparity in favor of the local “empty shell” attorney filing identical documents (serially, or over-and-over) on behalf of his “boss” (the attorney who is running the copyright troll lawsuit campaigns for each of his copyright holder clients). As a result, the individual accused John Doe Defendant is harmed by this disparity by being thrown into trying to defend against an elaborate copyright enforcement scheme which could ultimately cost him his entire life savings.

DISCLOSURE can lead to an equal playing field.

I feel strongly that a copyright monetization company should openly and honestly disclose exactly who they are, what benefit the actual copyright holder is getting from the lawsuit, and who else has an interest in the outcome of the litigation.  At least then, the judge could understand who else this monetization company is representing, and he could “tame” them and their tactics so that the accused downloaders (the “victims” of what will end up being a settlement extortion scheme) will at least have an equal playing field in order to defend themselves and the claims against them.

I don’t wear the pope hat.

And while writing this, I don’t want you to think that I am wearing the pope hat.  I started my law career on the wrong side of the law.  As a brand new attorney, I worked for an entity who ended up representing “Intellectual Ventures,” a prolific patent troll.  I observed the shell companies they used and the games they played to purchase patents (or at least the rights to enforce them), only to turn from a harmless company to a patent troll with sharp teeth.

Needless to say, Intellectual Ventures turned “evil” (so to speak), and started enforcing their patents to “force” (I want to use the word extort) companies almost-remotely-maybe-infringing that patent into accepting a license so that Intellectual Ventures could take a mafia-share royalty off of each of that company’s profits.  So long as Intellectual Ventures (under their RPX Corp entity) received “tribute payments” in the form of a “membership fee” for entrance into their patent troll organization, they would not be sued by the patent holder (or the “NPE” patent troll conglomerate organization who held the patents).

In short, I learned how to defend against copyright trolls by working on behalf a powerful patent troll [and if you want to read the articles I wrote on that topic and the RPX Corp (what Intellectual Ventures became), please feel free to visit my articles from 2008 on the topic].  I wasn’t very active at the time in blogging, but the articles are still interesting to read.

Why NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) STATUS should be applied to copyright trolls.

What is relevant to my experiences with Intellectual Ventures (and later, RPX Corp) was the concept of a “Non-Practicing Entity,” or an “NPE.”  In patent litigation, a non-practicing entity is a corporate entity who enforces patents which it did not create.  Shortly after patent trolls and NPEs made a killing in the federal courts, the rules changed to make these kinds of lawsuits unprofitable.

I believe that the same “Non-Practicing Entity (NPE)” status should be applied in the federal courts to copyright holders as well.

AND HERE IS WHY.

My point: The copyright law gives copyright holders rights to enforce their copyrights.  The purpose of these rights are to benefit the copyright holders (to reward their creativity, their ingenuity, and their contribution to the arts).  When a slime and base organization comes in and purchases those copyright rights to benefit financially from the rights due the copyright holders, the law should not allow those entities to benefit as if they are the copyright holders.

WHY COPYRIGHT TROLL NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM COPYRIGHT LAWS.

Copyright Troll NPEs never contributed anything to the arts.  They do not benefit society.  They do not benefit the copyright holders (who are often cheated by them or only receive a small piece of what could be theirs under the copyright laws).  They do not benefit the actors, writers, or artists who created the copyrighted work.  Rather, NPEs make their attorneys wealthy and they target and destroy the lives and the savings of thousands of households each year, separating the working class from their hard earned savings.

So I ask you — should NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) STATUS be applied to bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits who are deceptively managed by these NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) conglomerates who only serves to monetize the copyrights of others for their own benefit?

How similar are Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media lawsuits?

Malibu Media lawsuits paved the way for Strike 3 Holdings subpoenas.

In March of this year I suggested that the movie and music industry (MPAA / RIAA) used the porn industry to make way for the legitimacy of bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases we see legitimized today in a growing number of federal courts. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is the most recent beneficiary of the path forged by Malibu Media LLC with their John Doe lawsuits filed against accused downloaders of their “Tushy.com [NSFW],” “Vixen.com [NSFW],” and “Blacked.com [NSFW]” popular adult themed videos and websites.

It is my opinion that Strike 3 Holdings LLC owes what will be their success to the Malibu Media LLC lawsuits. Malibu Media LLC, once seen as a roach of a company preying on its customers through its 6,000+ lawsuits filed nationwide now enjoys free reign in the federal courts, as will Strike 3 Holdings and the judges who blush at the adult themes they carry.

I expect that judges will rubber-stamp and approve Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoenas just as they have been approving Malibu Media subpoena requests, knowing that they too will proceed on the merits of the lawsuit if their accused defendant does not settle the claims against him.

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

Will the judges be as cooperative with Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits, and my idea about why.

[My personal wonder when sitting in court and looking at a judge keep a straight face when discussing the Malibu Media / X-Art.com cases is whether they themselves have watched these videos. The clerks and the court reporters are typically louder about them, but the judge that signs the order allowing discovery of defendants — is he doing so because he believes even pornographic films deserve copyright protection? Or is he hiding the fact that he has seen these videos himself? I further wonder whether the judges who adjudicate the “Tushy or Vixen” adult film movie lawsuits will be able to do so with similar stoic silence, as “Tushy” “Blacked” and “Vixen” videos have a viewership that makes Colette Pelissier’s Malibu Media / X-Art brand look like K-Mart in the shadow of Target.]

Strike-3-Holdings-Blacked-Tushy-Vixen

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about either Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases or Malibu Media, LLC 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 Strike 3 Holdings or Malibu Media case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number)].

Did you possibly connect Malibu Media and Strike 3 Holdings as being the same entity?

I wouldn’t be the first to suspect that perhaps the same people behind the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits are the same as the people who are behind the upcoming Strike 3 Holdings LLC Tushy lawsuits, especially with the common thread between each of them being the Guardaley company each of them use to track the bittorrent networks to find victims for their next John Doe lawsuit.

Also unlike the recent movie lawsuits BUT EXACTLY LIKE MALIBU MEDIA CASES, it appears as if Strike Three Holdings cases sue for the copyright infringement of one adult film movie, however, when an accused defendant attempts to settle the claims against him, he is also asked to settle a list of titles he also downloaded.

While I could be wrong, although the two are similar in style and flare both in marketing techniques, lawsuit “troll” tactics, I understand from basic research that the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits and the coming “Tushy” Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are owned, operated, and run by very different people.  However, I wouldn’t be surprised for an instant to learn that Strike Three Holdings lawsuits learned EXACTLY how to run their lawsuits by mirroring the Malibu Media lawsuits. To be more direct, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Colette Pelissier and Brigham Field personally taught, mentored, and is possibly directly benefiting from Strike Three Holdings’ settlement tactics.

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

Perhaps an investigation of where each is incorporated can shed some light.

While the people behind the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits are real estate brokers who live in lavish, overpriced homes (in which they have been observed illegally filming their content in violation of the local laws), Strike 3 Holdings LLC trademark registrations all point to a 2140 S. Dupont Hwy, Camden, Deleware address (right next to the Rite Aid, the Venetian Jewelers store, an Este Pharma skin care clinic, and two business development companies — Parasec Inc., SeoSamba, and Patton Vision).

However… no Strike 3 Holdings, LLC business presence or trace thereof.

Maybe not.

You know, after writing this, it occurred to me that the tax-sheltered Deleware address Strike 3 Holdings is using is FAKE, or that their lawyer, Anna Marie Vradenburgh of Thousand Oaks, CA rented them a mailbox on the corner of S. Dupont Highway and E. Camden Wyoming Ave. so that they can claim that their corporate entity is located in Deleware.

You might also notice that Strike Three Holdings LLC’s lawyer is in California and Malibu Media, LLC is in… California (not Deleware).  Why would a Deleware company hire an obscure California attorney to file their corporate papers and trademark filings for them, unless perhaps the Deleware address is a fake?  [Look at the Google Map and ask yourself if you see Strike 3 Holdings, LLC].

*UPDATE* Lawsuits now filed in DC

In sum, the Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits are just beginning to warm up. And, while there are similarities between the adult film brands claimed in the Malibu Media lawsuits and the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits, they appear to be different entities headed by different people (although you must admit that similarities are suspect). Hopefully they act differently too in the lawsuits as to how they treat their own attorneys and their cases.

Strike 3 Holdings have even now started filing single John Doe lawsuits as well.

*New Cases* filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia:
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 1:17-cv-02338, Case No. 1:17-cv-02344, 1:17-cv-02345, 1:17-cv-02346, 1:17-cv-02347, 1:17-cv-02342)

What I don’t like about each of these movie (or here, “adult film”) cases is the slick non-transparency between who the copyright holder is, who is actually the party filing the lawsuit, and who the interested parties are in the lawsuit.  Honestly, historically, the “patent troll” problem was solved by making the distinction between inventors and NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES (NPEs). I wonder if NPE status should also be applied to copyright trolls as well.

BLOG POSTS:

Article(s) Written on the Strike 3 Holdings cases:
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Blacked, Tushy, Vixen”) Adult Film Lawsuit FAQ,” on 11/5/2017
Everything you need to know in one page about your Strike 3 Holdings Movie Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” on 11/5/2017
Just the Facts — Strike 3 Holdings, LLC,” on 11/5/2017
Should Copyright Trolls Be Considered Non-Practicing Entity (“NPE”)?,” on 11/15/2017