Advice to Attorneys – How to handle Rightscorp DMCA letters.

March 5, 2023July 6, 2017 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

Rightscorp DMCA lettersrightscorp-dmca-letters Rightscorp DMCA letters

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

Rightscorp vs. CEG-TEK Settlement Amounts

When representing a client in a CEG-TEK DMCA settlement demand notice (Rightscorp DMCA letters), clients would come with 3-20 notices (and at $300/claim, the settlement asking price was $900-$6,000 before settlement negotiations). Thus, representing a client and having the client pay our fees made sense.
Not so with a Rightscorp DMCA letters, with the same type of downloader who received those same 3-20 notices at CEG-TEK. At a promoted $20/claim [if the accused downloader foregoes using an attorney to negotiate the claims against them], the settlement asking price appears to be only $60-$400. The later request for “additional titles downloaded” and whatever else is to follow after the settlement is paid is not immediately apparent to them.
Thus, when representing a Rightscorp client dealing with one of their Rightscorp DMCA letters, our fee appears to be disproportionately large to what appears to be only a $20 problem.

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

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

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

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

Why you are not hiring an attorney:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preventing other “games” played against those who settle.

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

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

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

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

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

All I know about Rightscorp Inc in One Page

September 14, 2020April 3, 2017 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

RightsCorp Inc. | Digital Rights Corp | DMCA Settlement Letters

RIGHTSCORP THEN AND NOW

Rightscorp Inc. has always been the bastard child of the RIAA. Backed by the RIAA, Rightscorp Inc. uses the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to send DMCA copyright notices to the accused music downloaders. Rightscorp has been known to strongarm the ISPs and force them to identify the account holders who allegedly downloaded copyrighted titles belonging to Rightscorp Inc. clients. Then, they forward these accused downloaders multiple settlement demand notices threatening that they will be sued for $150,000 per instance of copyright infringement unless they pay a measly sum of $20-$75 per instance of infringement.

RIGHTSCORP WAS THE GIANT THAT WOKE UP IN 2013

Rightscorp Inc. came on my radar in June of 2013, where I wrote the article, “RIAA Giant Waking Up and Luring Defendants into Settlements.” At the time I wrote that article, I was spending a considerable amount of time helping clients who received similar notices for adult films they allegedly downloaded, but through Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK), another copyright monetization outfit. Because there was confusion between CEG-TEK and Rightscorp, I wrote an article explaining the differences between them.

Rightscorp Inc. DMCA Letters ‘Smelled’ Like a Trap

Knowing the DMCA rules and the ways copyright holders enforced them, something ‘smelled wrong’ with the Rightscorp Inc. letters. The Rightscorp Inc. company (a.k.a., “Digital Rights Corp”) itself seemed legitimate, but the way they handled their DMCA notices caused me to think that they were up to a scam. I sensed that the $20 settlement letters (recently increased to $75 per title) were a trap, and I recommended that recipients of those letters ignore them. Here is what I wrote in 2013 on the topic:

“What is bothering me, however, is that the release on their https://secure.digitalrightscorp.com/settle website (pasted below) releases the accused defendant from their claim of copyright infringement for a mere $20, but it has the defendant ADMITTING GUILT to the infringement. Thus, in legal terms, an accused internet user who pays the $20 may be released from liability for THAT instance of infringement, but the next time they catch that user downloading, they can not only sue for the full $150,000 (or ask for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS as a settlement), but in court, they would use the prior settlement as EVIDENCE OF GUILT that the accused defendant habitually downloads copyrighted videos and TV shows.

To be clear: EVERY settlement agreement for copyright infringement should have language stating that the accused defendant is not admitting guilt, or else the act of settling a copyright infringement claim can be construed as an “admission” of guilt in a court. Specifically, the language (e.g., taken from CEG-TEK’s settlements) would say something like “this Liability Release represents a compromise and that nothing herein is to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of RELEASEE.” This language appears to be purposefully ABSENT from the RightsCorp Settlement Agreements.”

Rightscorp Inc. DMCA Settlement Notices Ended Up Being A Trap

I worried that a client who settled a Rightscorp Inc. copyright infringement notice subjected himself to future claims of copyright infringements. Every settlement was an admission of guilt, and it turned out that Rightscorp Inc. sent many follow-up DMCA notices to the individual who paid their “friendly” $20 fee.

Pay One Notice, Receive Twenty More

Those who paid the DMCA settlement notices on their own often ended up calling me when they received twenty more DMCA settlement notices. For a while, I thought that this was part of their elaborate plan of eliciting hundreds of dollars from each defendant rather than a one-time payment of $20. Unlike CEG-TEK, who at the time would list all of the alleged claims against a particular user in real time (based on the IP addresses they allegedly used to download the copyrighted content), Rightscorp Inc. asked for one settlement at a time, and when you settled one, there was often another one right behind it.

The Rightscorp scam in my opinion did not start until Rightscorp Inc. started to ask its users for settlements in the thousands of dollars. While the numbers never matched CEG-TEK settlements (where CEG-TEK was asking for $300 per title), Rightscorp settlement numbers often found themselves hovering near the $900-$1,800 range.

Settling ONE Instance Of Infringement vs. Settling All Past Downloads of a Title

The reason Rightscorp was able to increase their settlement amounts was because each settlement was for “one instance of copyright infringement,” which means that if a user downloaded the file twice, they had to pay twice. If they left their bittorrent software on overnight, and that bittorrent software seeded 20 copies of a title to 20 downloaders, that accused downloader would be accused of 20 more instances of infringement.

This was very different from CEG-TEK, who allowed their settlements to cover “all past instances of infringement regarding that copyrighted title.”

Rightscorp Inc. Then Used Settlements To Force ISPs To Shut Accounts

Rightscorp then used the admissions of guilt within the settlement agreements to attempt to strongarm the ISPs to shut down their internet accounts.

I always thought this was a petty move. I understood that there were some politicians behind the Digital Rights Corp / Rightscorp entity, and that those politicians had no idea how to run a company (which is why Rightscorp stock has been worth only a few pennies for years now). I also understood that Rightscorp Inc. motives were not [at first] to extort money from the accused downloaders such as a copyright troll would, but rather, they wanted to protect their music labels and stop piracy.

I understand and respect a company who legitimately tries to stop piracy, but Rightscorp Inc. went about it in the wrong way. I always thought that Rightscorp pressuring the ISPs to shut down the internet accounts of those who paid a settlement ransom was vindictive. To me, it just showed the callous disregard for the power Rightscorp wielded like a child who swings a light saber at his infant unsuspecting brother.

Then Rightscorp Inc. Started Robocalling Accused Downloaders

Rightscorp then started ‘robocalling’ accused downloaders. They did it recklessly — again, think of a child whacking his infant brother with a lightsaber — and they broke a whole slew of laws in the process. In addition, they called at all hours of the night, and because the company was in my opinion a ‘headless’ company, meaning that there was nobody to call to complain or help resolve a situation, the Rightscorp harassment issues only got worse. Eventually they were sued in a class action lawsuit and had to pay a hefty settlement for their robocalling shenanigans.

Then Rightscorp Inc. Started Suing Accused Downloaders For $150,000

I must admit, I lost interest in the Rightscorp shenanigans after I noted that their settlement agreements do not protect the legal rights of those who settle because their settlements amounted to admissions of guilt. Thus, when someone asked me “Should I pay Rightscorp Inc.?” my answer was “not without a valid release that doesn’t have you admitting guilt.”

However, there was a point that Rightscorp Inc. started filing copyright infringement lawsuits against accused music downloaders in federal court. Each accused defendant was sued for $150,000 statutory damages for the unlawful download of the various music titles they allegedly downloaded via bittorrent.

Rightscorp defendants deceptively are not told that it is Rightscorp who is suing them. Rather, they will receive a subpoena relating to some ‘motion to compel’ that they have filed in a federal court. Their subpoenas force the ISP to hand over account information to a place called “Inquest Resources” at 807 Brazos Street, Suite 805 in Austin, TX. The subpoenas usually come with a Declaration by Dennis J. Hawk of the Business Law Group under the 17 USC 512(h) statute.

I don’t have much to say here, except that Jordan Rushie was one of the attorneys who was hired by Rightscorp to file the lawsuits. If I was looking for it, the Jordan Rushie connection with Carl Crowell and RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was something that I did not make until writing “The Great MPAA/RIAA Scheme To Defraud Copyright Law” in March, 2017).

Rightscorp Then. Reckless Copyright Troll.

All I could say about Rightscorp is that is has been a trainwreck. First with the bad settlement agreements. Then with the unruly wielding of power to shut down ISP accounts of infringers. Then the ‘headless’ robocalls. Then the copyright infringement lawsuits. Rightscorp was a reckless copyright troll, and I always sensed that the leadership was delegating orders the management simply could not carry out. To make matters worse, Rightscorp was in financial ruin (at one point before what appears to have been a ‘cash infusion’ which brought them out of their consistent negative cashflow), and I used to refer to Rightscorp as a “sinking ship.” As a result, I advised clients to stay far away from them.

Rightscorp Now. Dangerous Copyright Troll

Rightscorp in recent years has become more dangerous. With CEG-TEK out of the way, they are the only copyright enforcement outfit, and the term “power corrupts” applies here. As a result, Rightscorp feels justified in increasing their settlement amounts unilaterally. For too many years, I turned away clients hoping they would simply ignore the DMCA notices, but many got caught in Rightscorp’s web of paying a settlement and then being sucked in deeper and deeper into what I still consider to be a copyright enforcement scam.

In the past year, I have personally taken a number of clients who received Rightscorp’s DMCA notices. In each case, I needed to negotiate the settlement agreements to prevent my client from admitting guilt, and I needed to negotiate the price to remove many titles that did not belong in a settlement. Most importantly, I have acted as a shield to my clients to prevent Rightscorp and the underlying copyright holders 1) from contacting my client after a settlement is complete and 2) from seeking additional settlements “for additional titles allegedly downloaded.” All of this is covered one time in one settlement negotiation. Lastly, I am more than comfortable telling Rightscorp that my client is not willing to settle (or no longer willing to settle), and that I would be representing them if and when their client files a lawsuit.

Most telling, Rightscorp is now working to pressure accused downloaders to forego hiring an attorney. Rather, they are trying to force them to accept their boilerplate contract and lure them into settling without an attorney. Where a settlement with an attorney may cost the client $75/title (again, per title, not “per instance of infringement”), they are trying to lure accused downloaders by offering $20 per title if the accused downloader agrees to pay the settlement without involving an attorney.

I’ve considered sounding the alarm on this, but based on my years of covering Rightscorp and their schemes, most people know to call me if they want me to represent them in a settlement or otherwise.

From the perspective of running our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, my view of the Rightscorp cases have changed, especially with their most recent push to trick defendants into getting a “discount” for foregoing an attorney. In the past, we used to decline representing Rightscorp clients because their settlement agreements did not protect the interests of our clients. However, with their recent push to pull unsuspecting defendants into their scheme (specifically without an attorney), we have lowered our fees to make Rightscorp cases affordable to our clients.

I still believe there is an awkwardness in taking a client to resolve what is presented to them as a $20 problem. When representing a client in a CEG-TEK DMCA settlement demand notice, clients would come with 3-20 notices (and at $300/claim, the settlement asking price was $900-$6,000 before settlement negotiations). Thus, CEG-TEK was upfront in telling accused downloaders what they wanted from them, and representing a client and having the client pay our fees made sense.

Not so with a Rightscorp accused downloader who received those same 3-20 notices. At a promoted $20/claim [if the accused downloader foregoes using an attorney to negotiate the claims against them], the settlement asking price appears to be only $60-$400. The later request for “additional titles downloaded” and whatever else is to follow after the settlement is paid is not immediately apparent to them. Thus, when representing a Rightscorp client, our fee appears to be disproportionately large to what appears to be only a $20 problem.

For more on this topic, click the “Rightscorp settlement attorney considerations for a set of DMCA notices” article.

How To Handle a Rightscorp Notice Today

Rightscorp Inc. is still a failing company (from the point of view of corporate earnings and management). However, from the point of view of an accused downloader of a Jethro Tull music album, or some other piece of music, you must assume that failing to settle could put you at risk of being sued for copyright infringement in federal court. All this being said, when you receive the letter, the Rightscorp problem is still small, and can be managed with the assistance of a lawyer (myself or anyone else).

How An Attorney Would Represent You In Resolving Your Rightscorp Matter

[NOTE: For credibility purposes, be aware that since 2013, I recommended that if Rightscorp is unwilling to protect your interests in a settle, do not settle. If you get sued, hire an attorney (again, me, or someone else) because Rightscorp lawsuits likely have the same Guardaley “no evidence” problem I described here). Now that Rightscorp Inc. is trying to convince accused downloaders to forego hiring an attorney, our firm is now actively accepting clients to handle Rightscorp cases.]

Here is why to retain a lawyer, and what we would do for you. (Below, when I speak of “you,” I am speaking in a general way. I do not become your attorney (nor should this be considered legal advice) until we sign a contract together.)

Next Step: Schedule a Consultation

Follow the three steps below to begin working with a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney:

1. Schedule a phone appointment to speak to a defense attorney about your matter.

2. Get, sign, and return retainer agreement.

3. Sit back, relax, and let us work on your behalf to get you the results you need.

After scheduling your appointment online, you will be contacted by phone at the specified date and time by a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney.

Discuss your Rightscorp Case With a Cashman Law Firm Attorney

Anonymous Settlement

Remember, when you receive the DMCA notice from your internet provider, you are anonymous, AND YOU SHOULD STAY THAT WAY. Rightscorp has enough of a history to have me recommend that every client of mine who settles does so ANONYMOUSLY.

Stop Rightscorp From Sending Additional DMCA Notices After a Settlement

There should be a legal barrier between you and Rightscorp, and hiring an attorney and having me put them on notice that I am representing your account stops them from contacting you in the future. Also, any future communications (or additional DMCA notices) should come through me, as I am the attorney representing you. By having me represent you, we ‘discourage’ Rightscorp or their clients from sending any additional DMCA notices after a settlement is complete. Rather, we ask them to research to see whether there are any outstanding titles claimed against you, and we would include them in the settlement negotiations.

Negotiate the Settlement, Facilitate the Anonymous Payment

You would have me review and negotiate the claims with Rightscorp. When they agree to lower the price to something you are comfortable paying, I would facilitate the settlement to make it an ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENT.

Review Release of Liability

This is an obvious step to be done before we pay the settlement on your behalf. I am giving this section its own heading because sometimes, custom terms need to be inserted into the Rightscorp agreements to protect a client’s interests. This would be part of the settlement negotiations (above).

Handle Any Follow-Up Communications From Rightscorp

This last step happens after the settlement is complete, and we do not charge our clients for this. When we settle the claims, we settle them as an “Anonymous Client” of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC (using our law firm’s address and e-mail). That way, they have our information on file should they have any follow-up questions.

After a settlement is complete, in the past, Rightscorp has been known to send additional DMCA notices asking for more money. With our clients, this has not been the case because we ask them to include all claims in the settlement negotiations we do on our client’s behalf. However, should Rightscorp have a question about a settlement, or should a new matter occur, we will speak to them and handle any needed follow-up communications on your behalf, even after we have closed your file. Should any communication occur relating to a matter we have already settled anonymously on your behalf, I will be sure to let you know.

Next Step: Schedule a Consultation

Follow the three steps below to begin working with a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney:

1. Schedule a phone appointment to speak to a defense attorney about your matter.

2. Get, sign, and return retainer agreement.

3. Sit back, relax, and let us work on your behalf to get you the results you need.

After scheduling your appointment online, you will be contacted by phone at the specified date and time by a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney.

*QUICK UPDATE (7/2017)*: I have created a short Rightscorp FAQ page on my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC website which gives a short overview of the Rightscorp problem.

—
FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about Rightscorp DMCA letter or subpoena, click here. Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call or SMS 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.

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 I Believe MPAA/RIAA in a Scheme to Break Copyright Law

September 14, 2020March 17, 2017 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

Analyzing the relationship between MPAA/RIAA and the adult film industry lawsuits (via Guardaley).

Yesterday, I spent most of the day writing articles for the blog. My two priorities for the day were 1) to get articles out on RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (focusing on how they differ from what I wrote about CEG-TEK), and 2) to write about the great merging of the porn and movie industry to break copyright law.

THE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT ARTICLES FOCUSED ON HOW THEY DIFFER FROM CEG-TEK.

Getting articles out on RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was my first priority, specifically, because so many people were going to the old CEG-TEK articles, and I did not want to give my readers a false sense of security based on what I wrote about those same topics as they applied to the CEG-TEK entity.

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT should be considered a hostile copyright troll (analogous to a John Steele / Prenda-level troll because their beliefs about law and ‘pirates’ mirror each other). I have abstained from commenting on the personality of Carl Crowell (the owner of RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT and the likely puppet master behind all of the adult film and movie “John Doe” bittorrent lawsuits filed across the US). However, I meant it when I said that one should expect tactics of using very illegal, but untraceable means to violate the security of your computer when you log into his site in order to gain leverage over you and scare you into paying a settlement.

Why do I think Crowell would break the law just as John Steele did to achieve his goals? Attorneys that powerful (if not already corrupt) become corrupted, and I have too often seen them develop a sense of invincibility to the law. After crossing one grey line after another, they ultimately end up breaking the law thinking that they will never be caught. This is what happened to John Steele, and this is what I am guessing will eventually happen to the Carl Crowell.

HERE IS WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CASES. ALL ARTICLES POSTED WERE OFFSHOOTS OF TOPICS FROM THIS ARTICLE.

You should expect that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT will likely be treating cases differently than CEG-TEK did, so I did not want people to get the wrong impression that they were harmless, as CEG-TEK was (in comparison).

WHY I NOW BELIEVE THAT THE MPAA/RIAA COLLUDED WITH THE PORN COMPANIES TO CREATE CASE LAW IN ORDER TO BREAK COPYRIGHT LAW.

The more important topic I wrote about yesterday got shadowed by my other articles. That topic was how the MPAA/RIAA appears to have colluded with the adult film / porn companies with the intent of breaking copyright law.

HERE IS WHY I THINK THAT THE MPAA/RIAA IS BEHIND THE ADULT FILM LAWSUITS WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.

I started the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC in 2010, just as the MPAA/RIAA lawsuits became quiet. I always wondered where they went, and why they stopped suing defendants.

Now based upon the explicit ‘coming together’ of the adult film companies, the movie companies (MPAA), and now Rightscorp (RIAA) under the leadership of Carl Crowell, his network of attorneys filing Guardaley-backed bittorrent lawsuits across the US, and now the appearance of his RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT company, the merging of what were thought to be separate entities demonstrates that perhaps they weren’t so separate as we thought they were.

WHY I THINK THAT THE MOVIE INDUSTRY AND THE PORN INDUSTRY WERE IN COLLUSION

With the appearance of the RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity, I couldn’t help but to think that 1) EITHER CARL CROWELL IS A GENIUS ATTORNEY WHO HAS MERGED THE TWO VERY SEPARATE FACTIONS — MOVIE-BASED COPYRIGHT TROLLS, and PORNOGRAPHY-BASED COPYRIGHT TROLLS, or 2) CARL CROWELL IS MERELY A FIGUREHEAD, A PATSY.

Reading what I have learned about this man, I cannot believe that he is a genius who has united the separate entities of movie lawsuits and porn lawsuits. This is just too big of a project for one man. Rather, I think Carl Crowell is the figurehead replaced by some entity behind the scenes when the relationship between this Guardaley-backed ‘investor’ and Keith Lipscomb soured in April of 2016.

REMEMBER — WHEN LIPSCOMB AND MALIBU MEDIA LLC PARTED WAYS, LIPSCOMB AND GUARDALEY ALSO PARTED WAYS. MALIBU MEDIA LLC CONTINUED FILING LAWSUITS WITH THEIR GUARDALEY-BACKED ENTITY AS THE BOSS, CLAIMING, “WE HAVE A NEW INVESTOR.” ONLY THEN WAS CARL CROWELL INSTALLED AS THE HEAD OF THE GUARDALEY-BACKED SET OF LAWSUITS.

Thus, it occurred to me that Carl Crowell is not the one behind everything, but he is merely their “figurehead / fall guy” answering to some higher entity (just as Lipscomb was the “figurehead / fall guy” to some higher entity for all of the porn-based lawsuits filed since 2010, and just as Paul Duffy of Prenda Law Inc. (R.I.P.) was the “figurehead / fall guy” installed by John Steele). [It would be interesting to learn whether John Steele TOO answered to some higher entity, because he too fits the profile I am about to describe.] Each of these guys came out of nowhere into positions of extreme power, and with the exception of Lipscomb, each of these guys reminded me of drunk fraternity guys who showed up to work in a stretched and torn football jersey, shorts, and a hangover.

HOW I ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MOVIE AND PORN INDUSTRY ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO BREAK COPYRIGHT LAW

In the context of researching the ME2 cases (already noting that there was a connection between a number of movie cases [ME2/COOK/CELL/SEPTEMBER/I.T.], specifically, that the same attorneys were filing the same set of lawsuits across the US), I wrote a side article explaining “the evolution of piracy,” (an innocuous post). In that post, it occurred to me that “it would be just too terrible” if there was collusion between the movie industry and the porn industry.

A few days later, I noticed in my website’s analytics that people were rushing to view my CEG-TEK articles, and I could not figure out why (CEG-TEK was no longer sending out letter to John Doe Defendants). From there, I learned about Carl Crowell (who I previously ignored as being a nobody) and his RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity, which demonstrated that there was a connection between the movie industry and the porn industry.

It was then when I saw that Carl Crowell’s RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT entity represented both the mainstream movie companies (the ME2 / COOK PRODUCTIONS / I.T. PRODUCTIONS connection I was already looking for), and from my own website analytics and follow-up research, learning that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was also sending out notices for CEG-TEK’s old porn company clients that I made the connection that perhaps there was a relationship between the porn and movie industry.

Then I remembered the Guardaley connection years back when representing clients in the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC cases, and it occurred to me that some entity connected with Guardaley is behind both the porn-based lawsuits AND the movie-based lawsuits, but why? That is where I learned that Rightscorp (the MPAA/RIAA also joined with Carl Crowell), and the connection made sense. Through some common entity or ‘investor’, both the movie companies and the adult film companies are having their lawsuits funded. Then it occurred to me how convenient it would have been for that investor to be the MPAA/RIAA, especially considering the millions they are pouring into Rightscorp (a sinking ship), just as they spent [I believe] hundreds of millions on lawsuits for copyright infringement shortly before I started my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC in 2010.

I always wondered why all of a sudden in 2010, the MPAA/RIAA stopped filing the copyright infringement lawsuits. Now, I am starting to understand that if I am correct about the MPAA/RIAA being the entity behind the adult film lawsuits, they never did stop their activities. Rather, they just devised a clever scheme to get the porn industry to file lawsuits and blaze the trail to create case law across the US (because most pornography-based defendants do not fight back, and judges laugh when they see the explicit porn titles sued upon, and through this uncomfortable laugh, judges undermine their legal sense and allow the ‘repressed, stigma-based industry’ to proceed with protecting their rights to sue “just like everyone else.”). As a result of having the porn companies file the lawsuits across the US, IF what is unfolding ends up being true, then the MPAA/RIAA schemed to break copyright infringement law so that they can come back seven years later and start filing lawsuits, but now, with a “lower bar” and relaxed legal standards.

—
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.

WHAT I KNOW ABOUT RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT

September 7, 2020March 16, 2017 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT represents EVERY movie copyright troll.

This is what I know so far about RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (rightsenforcement.com) and the clients they are representing.

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is a reverse-engineered ‘evil twin’ of CEG-TEK. I assume they are even a more advanced version of CEG-TEK (2.0), where they have likely taken CEG-TEK’s system and improved it to gain insight into the accused downloaders by using unethical malware, website scripts, and even illegal methods — “anything to gain an advantage.” (I do have reasons for saying this.)

Carl Crowell is behind the company. He is a known copyright troll and is apparently the puppet master behind most of the movie-based “John Doe” copyright infringement lawsuits filed across the US by his team of local counsel.

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT clients include both adult film companies, movie companies, (and with the recent contract to Rightscorp, now music artists as well).

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is the pre-lawsuit settlement arm of his copyright enforcement machine. This pre-lawsuit mechanism uses automated DMCA abuse / copyright infringement notices to send settlement requests directly to subscribers through their ISPs.

WHAT ISPs ARE KNOWN TO BE WORKING WITH RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT?

ISPs known to be working with RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT are:

AT&T,
CenturyLink,
Charter,
Comcast,
COX,
Frontier,
Hawaiian Telecom,
Optimum Online,
Time Warner Cable,
Verizon, and
Windstream.

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT settlement demand letters require that accused recipients visit his rightsenforcement.com website and pay $300 per instance of infringement, per title (this can be negotiated down by an attorney).

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOUR ISP AND RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT?

Click here for a detailed answer.

Quick Answer: There are three reasons an ISP will work with a copyright enforcement company such as RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT:

1) BECAUSE THEY ARE THREATENED TO COMPLY with the DMCA statutes,

2) BECAUSE THEY PROFIT FROM THE RELATIONSHIP, and

3) BECAUSE BOTH HOLD HANDS to reduce piracy on their networks.

Most likely, the relationship between Carl Crowell and the ISPs is 1) a relationship of force, threats, and control.

Again, click here for the full answer.

WHAT ARE THE MOVIE TITLES FOR WHICH RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT HAS LICENSED TO SUE?

Click here for RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT’s list of known movie titles from which they have and will likely sue.

UPDATES: This list of movies (copyright holders who are signing on with Carl Crowell’s copyright trolling copyright enforcement model) continues to grow. As of July, 2017, I have written about this twice already:

“RIGHTSENFORCEMENT (NEW MPAA MOVIES GONE COPYRIGHT TROLL),” written on 4/28/2017, and
“RIGHTSENFORCEMENT – NEW MOVIE TITLES (JULY 2017 UPDATE),” written on 7/18/2017.

I have listed the list of titles in the linked article (click here) based on the the list of movies listed on the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website. I even took screenshots from that website (pasted below) so that you can view the images of the movies — that way, you’ll have a ‘heads up’ to learn which lawsuits will be filed for which movies in the coming months (they are methodically going through that list).

Rights Enforcement | RightsEnforcement.com Screenshot

WHAT IF I ALREADY RECEIVED A DMCA NOTICE AND IT EXPIRED?

*IT IS NOT TOO LATE.* Click here for an answer.

Hint: The copyright holders are given a 3-year statute of limitations to sue individuals for copyright infringement. However, pretty quickly after your 30-day deadline expires (or however long RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT will allow you to settle before taking down the ability to settle), you will probably receive a second letter — this time addressed from one of their lawyers — indicating that “because you did not settle, now we want more money.” That second-tier settlement amount will probably be significantly higher.

Again, click that link to get a more detailed answer.

SHOULD I IGNORE THE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DMCA VIOLATION NOTICE?

Click here for an answer.

Short answer: Because there are MANY ‘COPYRIGHT TROLL’ ATTORNEYS filing lawsuits across the US and working for Carl Crowell (the owner of the RIGHTS ENFORCRMENT website and likely puppet master for all of the movie-based copyright infringement lawsuits across the US), it is likely a VERY BAD IDEA to ignore this.

Again, click that link to get a more detailed answer.

IS IT SAFE TO LOG IN WITH MY CASE NUMBER AND IP ADDRESS ON THE RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM WEBSITE?

Click here for a detailed answer.

Short Answer: Absolutely not. Logging into Carl Crowell’s RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT website will not only create a record that you were given the chance to settle for $XYZ amount, but there are also likely trackers and barbs built into the website which can dig into your computer and determine private things, such as what IP address you are coming from, where you are physically located (based on the geolocation of your IP address), what the MAC address is of your computer, what your operating system is, etc.

***And, if you do not have your javascript off and Adobe Flash capability turned off, RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT can dig deeper into your computer to determine what files you have installed on your computer, what software programs you have installed on your machine (e.g., do you have bittorrent installed?), and their website can run scripts (akin to apps or mini-programs) in your browser to reveal many other private things about you.

WHY DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS?

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is a reverse-engineered clone of the CEG-TEK website and DMCA abuse / copyright violation system. I spent close to FIVE YEARS digging deep into the mechanics of their website, learning what tricks or systems were put in place, and I am generally knowledgeable about privacy and anonymity to the point that would make even someone wearing a tin hat cower in a corner.

What makes me good at this is because I understand not only what CEG-TEK did with their website, but I also understand how their system can be misused, and I have every expectation that the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM website will be an improved version of the CEG-TEK website, complete with advanced tracking, and malicious scripts and content to provide the attorneys evidence against you which they will use to gain an advantage over you.

Plus, this is all fun for me (I am not a hacker), but I enjoy uncovering what pitfalls the bad guys have set up on their sites, and how to get around those pitfalls in a way that keeps my clients anonymous, that protects their wallet, their credit cards, and their peace of mind, and that keeps them legally out of trouble.

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DMCA letters like CEG-TEK but with teeth.

April 3, 2017March 9, 2017 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

If CEG-TEK were a stone, I deeply analyzed every facet of it. I knew every client of theirs. I knew what business connections they had, how they acquired them, and which ISPs they were working with. I knew which of their principles answered the phones, and at what times. I knew what problems they were working on internally, and what business ventures they were working on externally. But then in August of 2016, they took a step back and stopped sending DMCA letters to ISP subscribers accusing them of copyright infringement.

I thought this was a win, namely, that there was one fewer copyright enforcement agency out there actively sending settlement demand letters and threats to sue for copyright infringement in federal court.

Before CEG-TEK stopped going after downloaders, there were rumblings of what was to come. …What they would and would not do, and as far as I understood, their success was causing their business model to fail. Around the same time, there was a huge opportunity missed for Keith Lipscomb to partner with CEG-TEK (consider this lucky timing based on him getting sued by his Malibu Media, LLC client), because if the relationship between Lipscomb and Malibu Media, LLC had not soured around the same time as CEG-TEK began to shift their client base and restructure the operations of the company, Lipscomb might have proposed a partnership and CEG-TEK might have agreed to it.

For those of you are newcomers because you received a notice or a letter forwarded to you from your ISP based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) statutes, Lipscomb used to be the mastermind behind each and every Malibu Media, LLC (adult film-based pornography lawsuit) and through his local attorneys across the US, he filed thousands of copyright infringement lawsuits against John Doe Defendants, initially asking for $20,000+ in settlement amounts from each defendant. Do the math.

If Lipscomb corrupted CEG-TEK’s Copyright Enforcement system, instead of asking for a mere $300 per title for the bittorrent download of one copyrighted title, Lipscomb would have employed Malibu Media, LLC’s strategy of “catch one torrent click, sue for 60+ titles which were all downloadable by clicking that one bittorrent file.” In other words, we would have seen settlement amounts of $18,000 ($300/title x 60 titles) per accused downloader.

But that didn’t happen, or so I thought…

HAS “RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT” BECOME THE NEW CEG-TEK?

Come now, a new entity dressed in new clothes, but one that still ‘walks and quacks’ like CEG-TEK did. This new entity named “RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT” (or, “RIGHTSENFORCEMENT”) appears to have gotten access (legally, illegally) to CEG-TEK’s proprietary systems and mechanisms and they started sending DMCA settlement demand letters directly to ISP subscribers, just as CEG-TEK did. They appear to be tracking and sending these notices the same way CEG-TEK did. They are asking for $300 per title as a settlement, just as CEG-TEK did. But the RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT name doesn’t carry the same history as does the CEG-TEK name, which caused me to write almost FIVE YEARS of blog entries on them.

A few weeks ago, I started to notice that people were finding my older website articles using the names of CEG-TEK’s old clients, as I outlined in CEG-TEK’s Client List (posted in 2014). I saw Google Searches such as looking for DMCA notices surrounding adult film companies such as Brazzers, Girlfriends Films, Reality Kings, Wicked Pictures (all CEG-TEK clients), just to name a few. I did not think anything about this until in the past few days, people started visiting my CEG-TEK articles. Again, I didn’t think much about it until the visits to the CEG-TEK articles started to spike in the last day or so, and this morning, I wrote a blog entry in alarm, asking why everyone was suddenly visiting articles on CEG-TEK, a sleeping entity?

I have to thank Sophisticated Jane Doe (“SJD”) of FightCopyrightTrolls.com for the tip-off. I am posting her comment in its entirety, and I do encourage her to write more about it. While I could answer a number of her questions about the mechanisms of how CEG-TEK did their tracking, and how their systems worked, SJD has pieced together who the entities are behind the scenes.

Crowell was cozying with Siegel since last summer. “London Has Fallen,” used for shakedown by both the Guardaley network and Siegel, was a test drive for something new IMO. This “new” is a new CEG-TEK-like outfit created and run by Crowell in December. Check it out. The letters are already being sent out. I wanted to write a post (and maybe I will) about these developments, but has been busy recently.
I don’t know who harvests IP addresses and have no idea to what extent Siegel and Crowell work together, if at all, but my gut feeling: they do.
The gravity of this news is that Crowell & Co have something that neither Rightscorp nor CEG-TEK had: credibility of threats to sue. As a result of non-paying to this new shakedown factory, at least one lawsuit was already filed (can’t locate it for the moment, but the complaint explicitly mentioned that the defendant was given opportunity to pay small ransom, but skipped).
Funnily, Crowell wrote about it anonymously yesterday, as if he didn’t know.

“RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT” IS NOT CEG-TEK

So what do we have now? We appear to have a new copyright enforcement entity called “Rights Enforcement” which acts as if it is CEG-TEK, just in new clothes. Aside from the fact that this name (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT) is impossible to search for in a Google Search (ingenious). Aside from the fact that it is next to impossible to bring scrutiny to Rights Enforcement’s practices because the name is so generic. And, aside from the fact that “rightsenforcement.com” is just as confusing to look at as “iwenttothestoreyesterdaytobuysomedaisies.com”… I believe what is going on.

CEG-TEK WOULDN’T SUE. RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT UNDER OWNERSHIP / MANAGEMENT OF ATTORNEY CARL CROWELL WILL SUE.

A big complaint the principles at CEG-TEK used to have is that they would ask for $300/title and threaten to sue if this amount was not paid, but when that notice was ignored, nobody at CEG-TEK filed any lawsuits. I would even say that Ira Siegel was averse to filing lawsuits, as we know that he used to file copyright infringement lawsuits, and then after having Siegel had a number of bad experiences with the California federal courts inquiring about his settlement rates, he dropped all of his lawsuits and went on to help form Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK).

However, RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is run not by Ira Siegel, but by Carl Crowell. Putting aside everything that has been written about him on the other bittorrent-based blogs, one thing that you as a recipient of the DMCA letter must know is that Carl Crowell files lawsuits in federal courts, justified or not. This means that if a settlement is not reached, he will file copyright infringement lawsuits against individual John Doe Defendants, and instead of asking for $300 for one title (or whatever he is asking for in the DMCA notices), he will file a copyright infringement lawsuit for $150,000 for the infringement (unlawful download, upload, etc) for ONE copyrighted movie.

So in sum, as far as I understand it, RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is a reverse-engineered copy of CEG-TEK, but with teeth and a salivating desire to sue accused downloaders who do not settle.

FOLLOW-UP NOTE (FOR ACCURACY PURPOSES): RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, especially with litigious attorney Carl Crowell is certainly a threat to anyone who received a DMCA letter from their ISP. Why? Because whoever represents a client in a settlement MUST be prepared to also be able to fight Carl Crowell in the federal courts. It appears as if they have somehow acquired, or even reverse engineered CEG-TEK’s DMCA copyright infringement notice system (I have already contacted a number of individuals at CEG-TEK trying to ascertain who RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT is).

Either way, based on the way they appear to be structured, I believe that we’ll be able to settle these cases using the same methodologies as we did the CEG-TEK cases (keeping the accused downloader ANONYMOUS), but with a caveat that we did not need to give our CEG-TEK clients — these guys are a different breed of attorneys than CEG-TEK, and they come to the negotiations with a “we’ll take your house” mentality, so aggressive negotiations backed by a willingness to fight or be bullied is the strategy that will need to be used with this new RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT / CEG-TEK clone entity.