Richard Symmes

(WAWD) R & D Film 1, LLC files suit against 315 Defendants using local counsel Richard Symmes

by
The Divide - New Copyright Trolls

The first time I wrote about R & D Film 1, LLC was in July, 2012 (see,”‘The Divide’ — Copyrighted Bait, New Copyright Trolls“).  In that article, R&D Film 1, LLC was suing John Doe Defendants for the alleged download of their “C-RATED” movie, “The Divide” (my version of the image is above indicating that a copyright troll was overseeing the production of the film). After six months of collecting settlements from accused defendants, it appears as if they are at it again suing new defendants, and this time, they are doing it using local counsel Richard Symmes.

If you don’t remember my post about Richard Symmes (see, “More and More Trolls“).  Richard is the one who filed six (6) lawsuits against a total of 330 defendants on behalf of Kintop Pictures, Inc. The funny about the Kintop Pictures cases is that without explanation, Symmes dismissed ALL OF THE CASES. We at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC thought his law firm had grown a conscience and that they came to the understanding that suing individual defendants for the download of their client’s flick was immoral. I guess we were the ones who were naive. Here are his new lawsuits:

CASES FILED BY RICHARD SYMMES IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON:
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-46 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00050)
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-45 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00051)
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-41 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00052)
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00053)
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-51 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00054)
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00055)
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-44 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00056)
R & D Film 1 LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00057)

In total, on January 8th, 2013, Richard Symmes sued a total of 315 John Doe Defendants, all apparently living in Washington.

What annoys me about the R & D Film 1, LLC lawsuits is that they have been suing defendants for SIX MONTHS NOW for the SAME MOVIE. In each of their new lawsuits, they specifically state the specific title of bittorrent file was allegedly downloaded. If they have had SIX MONTHS to ponder the so-called “piracy” of the films, don’t you think they had enough time to send at least one DMCA “takedown” notice to the bittorrent website(s) who are hosting these same torrent files? Or, do you think that they are LOVING this “sue my customer” strategy? Quite frankly, a judge should have them show proof that they have taken steps to police their copyrights by filing the DMCA “takedown” letters with the websites hosting the torrents containing the pirated content, and if they cannot offer this proof, in my opinion, the judge should dismiss the case.

“By the way, if you are downloading “The Divide” on bittorrent and you can see those seeding the files to you in your bittorrent swarm, tell R & D Film 1, LLC that I say hello.”

—
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

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

    shalta boook now cta

    Canal Street Films… MORE AND MORE TROLLS…

    by

    MOVIE PRODUCTION COMPANY RELEASING B-RATED FILMS

    I would think that when someone creates and copyrights a film, the purpose of creating that film is to attract viewers to purchase tickets to view that film either in the theaters, or by selling DVDs of that film.  If part of their strategy is to hire new copyright trolls to sue downloaders rather than to sell movie tickets, there is a problem in their model.

    It boggles my mind that more and more, I am seeing B-rated film companies release garbage films that nobody would watch, and instead of promoting their film to attract viewers, somehow those films are “leaked” onto the internet, only to see the production companies then sue internet users for $150K for each internet user who downloaded their films.

    INNOCENT INFRINGEMENT LOOKING FOR A YOUNG MR. ROGERS?

    Earlier this week, my kids were watching Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood on PBS, where Fred Rogers was quite a bit older than I remember him being when I was younger. To show them the “Mr. Rogers” I remembered, I searched around and found an older version where his hair was black and he was quite a bit younger.   The video was obviously copyrighted, but it was also uploaded and online for all to see.  Was I wrong for playing this video for my kids?  Or, should I have contacted the Rogers’ Foundation and acquired a license to purchase a copy of this video [noting that there is likely nowhere to purchase this black-and-white video]?

    COPYRIGHT LAWS NEED TO BE UPDATED

    My point is that the copyright laws as they apply to individuals needs to be changed.  Production companies should make quality videos THAT SELL TICKETS (and DVDs) rather than trying to cash in on the end user that happened to view that video online without permission.  

    As I mention in my policy letter to lawmakers, if a production company really wanted to police their own copyrights, they are already given a legal remedy, and that remedy is to file a DMCA takedown notice with the website owner — and the unlicensed (“pirated”) video is quickly and effectively taken down by the website owner, or else the website owner can be found liable for copyright infringement himself.

    DMCA TAKEDOWN LETTERS

    If the Rogers Foundation wanted to stop me and my kids from viewing a 1968 version of Mr. Rogers, then they could have easily sent a one-page takedown request to YouTube.com where that and many other similar videos are hosted.  There is no reason for them to come after me, my kids, or any of the other thousand viewers, unless stopping “piracy” for copyright trolls is not the their real intent.

    NEW COPYRIGHT TROLLS / CANAL STREET FILMS

    Back to the lawsuits and the new copyright trolls I am discussing in this article.  One new copyright troll is Canal Street Films, Inc. (link) who is suing 117 John Doe Defendants in two lawsuits in Washington for the download of their “Scary or Die (2012)” horror film.  The attorney suing for Canal Street Films is David Allen Lowe of Lowe Gram Jones, PLLC (link). The Canal Street Films lawsuits include:

    CASE FILED BY DAVID LOWE IN THE WASHINGTON EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
    Canal Street Films Inc v. Does 1 – 13  (Case No. 2:13-cv-03001)

    CASE FILED BY DAVID LOWE IN THE WASHINGTON WESTERN DISTRICT COURT:
    Canal Street Films, Inc. v. Does 1-104 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00007)

    010613 Scary or Die

    NEW COPYRIGHT TROLLS / KINTOP PICTURES

    Also suing in the Washington Western District Court are new copyright trolls Kintop Pictures, Inc. and their attorney, Richard J. Symmes of the Frontier Law Group.  It appears that each Kintop Pictures lawsuit was for the download of the title, “Tucker & Dale v. Evil (2010)” film (link).  

    The strange thing about these six Kintop Pictures cases is that they were all filed at the same time in December 2012. With ZERO explanation, just a few days ago, the Kintop Pictures were correspondingly ALL DISMISSED.  

    I wonder if Kintop Pictures or their attorney grew a conscience, or whether they just needed to get their copyright paperwork in order before they reared their ugly head and started suing defendants again.  

    Nevertheless, because Kintop Pictures sued internet users directly using the “bittorrent swarm joinder theory,” I am listing their cases in this site.

    CASES FILED BY RICHARD SYMMES IN THE WASHINGTON WESTERN DISTRICT COURT:

    Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-78 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02162) [DISMISSED]
    Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02159) [DISMISSED]
    Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-37 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02161) [DISMISSED]
    Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-40 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02163) [DISMISSED]
    Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-79 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02164) [DISMISSED]
    Kintop Pictures v. Does 1-70 (Case No. 2:12-cv-02165) [DISMISSED]

    PAUL LESKO / PHE INC. / PURZEL VIDEO GMBH

    Then in the Missouri Eastern District Court, Paul Lesko is still at it filing copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of his new clients, PHE, Inc. and Purzel Video GMBH, both for the download of pornography titles.  The lawsuits are:

    CASES FILED BY PAUL LESKO IN THE MISSOURI EASTERN DISTRICT COURT:
    Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-91 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02292)
    PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-96                      (Case No. 4:12-cv-02296)

    PAUL LESKO FIASCO WITH HIS ALMA MATER

    On a side note, I hear that there was some controversy as to whether Lesko was pressured by the president of his alma mater to stop representing porn companies in copyright infringement actions, but apparently the attempts fell on deaf ears.  

    On 12/11/2012, Lesko filed a lawsuit in the Missouri Eastern District Court on behalf of his new client, “Purzel Video GMBH” for the download of their porn video, “Chubby Teens 1.”  

    Then on 12/12/2012, he filed another lawsuit on behalf of PHE, Inc. (the “Adam & Eve” adult sex toy company) for the download of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer XXX: A Parody.”  

    I wrote about PHE, Inc. here in my “Nice try, PHE, Inc. – a failed copyright troll” article.  In short, Lesko is still at it despite his alma mater’s attempts to stop him.

    NEW COPYRIGHT TROLLS / STUDIO WEST PRODUCTIONS INC.

    Lastly, in my own neck of the woods, I saw two cases filed against 400+ defendants by new copyright troll Studio West Productions, Inc.  The lawsuit is for the download of the film, “In the Name of the King: Two Worlds (2011)” (link).

    Even though the copyright troll attorney is John W. Raggio of the Raggio Law Firm, P.C. in Dallas (5 hours away from the court), after some research, it occurred to me that Raggio is merely local counsel to Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC (now, Dunlap Weaver, PLLC).  

    I am frankly surprised that they are still suing defendants, as they are one of the older copyright trolls out there, but they lost most of their litigation power when their attorney Nicholas Kurtz and a number of their paralegals left the firm after an internal shake-up early last year.

    CASES FILED BY JOHN RAGGIO (A.K.A. DUNLAP WEAVER, PLLC) IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
    Studio West Productions Inc. v. Does 1-237 (Case No. 4:12-cv-03690)
    Studio West Productions Inc. v. Does 1-205 (Case No. 4:12-cv-03691)

    All I have to say about these two cases is that they are in my back yard, so I will be happy to be there at the hearings and report things as they evolve.

    IN SUM

    As for all the other cases out there, I am still watching out for them, and if I see anything of interest, I will be happy to share what I find.  Obviously if anyone has any updates or questions about these cases, you know where to find me.

    —
    CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

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

      shalta book now cta