The Truth about Kerry Culpepper IP movie lawsuits.

hb-productions-fallen-productions-settlements Multiple Settlements from One Lawsuit

Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP in Hawaii is a complicated attorney. I have demonstrated in previous articles that Kerry Culpepper thinks “at levels higher than the average person,” and that he can usually run circles around judges do not have the caffeine to oppose him. Here, Kerry Culpepper brazenly exposes what I call a COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity by representing ALL of the movie copyright trolls together in one lawsuit. [Click to Tweet!]

[SEPTEMBER 2020 UPDATE: SETTLEMENT DEMAND E-MAILS.]

CULPEPPER IP has figured out a way to enforce his movie clients’ copyrights out-of-court. He has done this by sending settlement demand e-mails to internet users accused of VISITING, REGISTERING (with their real e-mail address), and DOWNLOADING copyrighted movies from the YTS website.

These settlement demand letters have been sent *via e-mail* by Attorney Joshua Lee (who now appears to be working for Kerry Culpepper at Culpepper IP). Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters sent directly to internet users… without an ISP subpoena, without a Hawaii Rule 512(h) subpoena, without asking Cloudfront or Google Analytics to hand over the IP address information, and without a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Hawaii District Court.

The reason I am mentioning the Culpepper IP settlement demand e-mails here [in this article] is because with Kerry Culpepper, YOU MUST BE PREPARED that there is SOMETHING ELSE going on behind the scenes.

While in the settlement demand email” article I conclude that Culpepper’s end goal is to engage in “lawfare” against the piracy websites in order to protect his movie clients’ interests, you must be prepared that he is simply doing this for ONLY PROFIT, in which the topics I wrote about in this article REMAIN VERY RELEVANT TO YOUR SETTLEMENT DEMAND E-MAIL.

Here is that article for your reference: The truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand letters VIA E-MAIL to YTS users.

Now back to the movie lawsuits…

Expect to be asked to pay multiple settlements for multiple movies downloaded.

Be warned that settling the Fallen Productions Inc. (or HB Productions Inc.) ISP subpoena-based lawsuits might result in Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP asking you to pay for additional settlements for other movies your accused IP address downloaded on other dates using bittorrent.

[Also be warned that if you hire a “settlement factory” defense attorney, chances are high that in their attempt to streamline the settlement process, you will not only pay a settlement for the “Angel Has Fallen” movie (or the “Hellboy” movie, or whatever movie is behind that particular copyright infringement lawsuit), but you may also end up having to pay for EACH AND EVERY OTHER MOVIE you may have downloaded over the past few years (assuming “tongue-in-cheek” for a moment that this same plaintiff attorney is representing the other movie companies as well).]

How is it that Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the same attorney representing ALL the movie lawsuits?

Now obviously Kerry Culpepper is only one attorney in Hawaii. There have been *MANY* attorneys over the past ten years which I consider to be copyright troll attorneys who represent the same set of clients. However, in the past few days / weeks, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP started a storm of activity on the web by going after YTS / 1337x.to — the bittorrent trackers and the piracy websites themselves.

Then, he followed this up be asking the court for a subpoena to disclose the identity of accused downloaders who used those website to download his client’s movies.

…Then, Kerry Culpepper sent DMCA settlement demand letters to these accused downloaders asking them to settle the claims against them for $1,000 per movie download or face a copyright infringement lawsuit in the federal courts. Thus, I am using Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP as the example in this article about his client — a COMMON MOVIE TROLL entity.

Have you heard? There is STILL a COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity behind all of the movie lawsuits in the US.

I am about to claim (again, 3 years later) that the same set of attorneys (here, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP) are behind ALL of the movie lawsuits filed in the US (and that each of these attorneys are working for the same common copyright troll entity), and I have proof.

[Click to Tweet!]

In 2017, I spent a lot of time making known that the movie-based bittorrent cases were all being run by the same people behind the scenes. It was too coincidental that the same “copyright troll” attorneys were attracting every single movie company to be “their” client. 

For years, I had only anecdotal evidence that the same attorneys were representing the same set of movie companies. It was only here in this lawsuit [All the movie companies together (represented by Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP) v. Harry Beasor and DOE (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004) in the Hawaii District Court] that I had demonstrable proof that one attorney was representing EACH AND EVERY ONE of the movie copyright trolls.

[Initially, I could explain this theory away by thinking that it is more plausible that there is a large entity who moves within the circles of the large movie producers and has the ear of the production companies.  Thus, when there is (yet) a(nother) movie that flops, they suggest that this movie production company use their services and sue downloaders of the film to re-coup losses from their failed movie.  At one point, I thought it was the MPAA itself which was the entity behind the scenes.  Within the context of this “bigger” entity, the plaintiff attorneys filing the lawsuits in each state are merely “cogs” in the wheel of this larger entity.]

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

One Explanation: ONE attorney in each state works for the same COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity.

Let’s elaborate using logic.  If ONE plaintiff attorney in one particular state has become the ONLY ATTORNEY who files ALL of the movie lawsuits, then this plaintiff attorney must either be a MARKETING GENIUS by achieving this monopoly (meaning, the plaintiff attorney is 100% successful in attracting every one of the new movie lawsuits AND has been 100% successful in excluding EVERY OTHER ATTORNEY from filing movie lawsuits in that particular state)…

…Or (more likely,) there are a group of insiders or [there is] a single entity behind the scenes [with a reputation among the movie production companies] which actively sells their services to each of the movie companies — [offering to sue every downloader for copyright infringement].

Each attorney filing in each state’s federal court is working for this same “common copyright troll” entity which provides them with the instructions to sue defendants accused of downloading their client’s copyrighted movie titles. 

My observation: The same movie companies are always represented by the SAME copyright troll attorneys in each state.

Based on my observations over the years, the SAME plaintiff attorneys represent the SAME movie companies in EVERY STATE.

With this case (pictured above), I can demonstrate that in the Hawaii District Court, Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the attorney that is representing each and every one of the movie lawsuits.

In other words, just as Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is the “copyright troll movie attorney” in Hawaii, there are other plaintiff attorneys in other states who are working for a common copyright troll entity working behind the scenes. 

Who is this COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL entity?

But who is this common copyright troll entity?  Thinking logically that the MPAA is too-big-of-an-entity to cause such mischief, after some searching, in 2017, I found a company named “Rights Enforcement” (found at RightsEnforcement.com) being run by “Carl Crowell, a one-man police force for Hollywood studios.

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (Now Defunct)

[As of writing this article, Rights Enforcement has since taken down their website and changed their name. I currently do not know under what name they are operating].

An Example of Copyright Trolls Hiding Their Activities: Carl Crowell and RightsEnforcement.com

It was further proof at the time that there was a copyright troll [at the time, Carl Crowell, owner of RightsEnforcement.com (RightsEnforcement website *now taken down or changed to some other name I am not yet aware of*)] who was [at the time] posting each of the movies on their websites only to have those exact movies be the movies that were used to sue accused downloaders across the US.Below is an image taken from the now defunct RightsEnforcement.com website:

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-angel-productions-carl-crowell-guardaley-connection

NOTE: It appears to me that Rights Enforcement (purposefully named to be an impossible name to find on a Google Search) was the website that was used to sell Carl Crowell’s “Hire us and we’ll sue [for you] internet users who have downloaded your copyrighted films.” The RightsEnforcement.com website’s last update was in July, 2017 when they updated the list of movies.

RightsEnforcement.com has since been removed and their domain abandoned.

You might think this means that they went out of business, but really, based on my own research, it appears as if they did not want people to be aware of their activities. In other words, the RightsEnforcement.com website was meant to be hidden from people like you and me, and our articles brought too much exposure to what they were doing.

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

As you can see below, Carl Crowell and RightsEnforcement.com even took steps to hide their footsteps by excluding their website history from archive.org’s “Way Back Machine.”

settlements-hb-productions-fallen-productions Wayback Machine RightsEnforcement

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

Why I think that HB Productions & Fallen Productions, Inc. are part of this “common copyright troll” conglomerate entity.

Returning to the HB Productions, Inc. (“Hellboy”) and Fallen Productions, Inc. (“Angel Has Fallen”) lawsuits, I have reason to believe that these two “shell” production companies are yet TWO MORE companies affiliated with Carl Crowell, Rights Enforcement (whatever name they go by now), and Guardaley (the German entity probably behind even Carl Crowell).

As you can see, these two copyright trolls are represented in this lawsuit image above by Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP.

When I first saw this, I was surprised to see that so many of the “common copyright troll” entity’s clients showed up as co-plaintiffs… suing TOGETHER in ONE copyright infringement lawsuit…

But then when I immediately saw that this was filed in the US DISTRICT COURT… FOR THE DISTRICT OF *HAWAII*, my immediate thought was that “Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP must have been the one who filed this.” Only he would have the strategic calculations that would inspire him to bunch these lawsuits plaintiffs together.

“Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP” in Hawaii must have been the one who sued these defendants for all of his client’s movies (including HB Productions Inc. & Fallen Productions Inc.).

In sum, call this all a conspiracy theory, but then notice which copyright holders have just sued defendants TOGETHER IN ONE LAWSUIT filed by Kerry Culpepper in the Hawaii District Court:

kerry-culpepper-of-culpepper-ip-filed-fallen-productions-angel-has-fallen-hb-productions-hellboy-isp-subpoena-movie-lawsuit-common-troll

So to date, which “copyright troll” movie companies are represented by this “COMMON COPYRIGHT TROLL” MOVIE CONGLOMERATE”? Let’s look:

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

Coincidence that kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is representing each of the movie companies together?

Is it ANY COINCIDENCE that Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP (the plaintiff attorney for the Fallen Productions Inc. and the HB Productions Inc. ISP subpoena based lawsuits) is also suing defendants for the bittorrent download of these other movies as well? …in the SAME LAWSUIT?

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

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

Do you think if you were sued for just one title… and Kerry Culpepper has reason to know that the IP address [that you were assigned from your ISP] was also seen downloading these other movies, do you think that you will also be asked to settle the claims against you for these other movies too?

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

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

Have Movie Companies Taken a Lesson [to ask for multiple settlements] from the Porn Industry Strike 3 Holdings LLC & Malibu Media LLC Lawsuits?

Strike 3 Holdings LLC and Malibu Media LLC (both pornography-based lawsuits) found a way to force accused adult film downloaders to not only settle the claims against them for one copyrighted movie downloaded, but in every lawsuit, they now ask for settlements for each and every copyrighted title ever downloaded by that internet user.

Do you think that the plaintiff attorneys behind the Fallen Productions Inc. “Angel Has Fallen” movie John Doe lawsuits (or the HB Productions inc. “Hellboy” movie John Doe lawsuits) won’t also ask for settlements from other movies they also believe that you downloaded in the past?

kerry-culpepper-ip-dmca-settlement-letters-hb-productions-fallen-productions Common Troll HB Productions & Fallen Productions

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

[Remember, copyright infringement gives the copyright holder *THREE YEARS* from the alleged date of infringement to file a copyright infringement John Doe lawsuit against you for the bittorrent-based download of that copyrighted movie.]

How many times are YOU willing to settle the claims against you?

In sum, unlike Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP, most plaintiff attorneys have been trying to hide on the court’s dockets that they are suing for one video, but asking for settlements for other titles allegedly downloaded by that same downloader. Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP in Hawaii has demonstrated that there is an explicit link between these copyright holders by suing defendants for the download of each of these copyright holders’ copyrighted movie titles. [Click to Tweet!]

Why using a settlement factory attorney to settle claims in lawsuits like these could be problematic.

I don’t even need to breach this topic, but settlement factory attorneys will try to settle the claims made against their client in the most “economical” method possible.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT HIRING A SETTLEMENT FACTORY ATTORNEY TO SETTLE ONE TITLE CLAIMED AGAINST YOU WILL KEEP YOU OUT OF TROUBLE WHEN THAT SAME COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY TAKES YOUR SETTLEMENT MONEY AND LATER ASKS FOR MORE SETTLEMENTS FOR “OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED?”

…How many times can you afford to settle a copyright claim against you? How many titles can you afford to pay to settle?

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

Misleading HB Productions Inc. & Fallen Productions Inc. Filings?

Thus far, these are the HB Productions Inc. and Fallen Productions Inc. that have been filed… each alleging ONLY the download of ONE title. Deceptive? Have the plaintiff attorneys in these cases disclosed the REAL INTERESTED PARTY or is the common-troll hoax still trying to be hidden?

HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07511)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07159)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07512)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07161)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07508)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07002)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-19 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07005)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07513)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07157)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07163)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07003)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07514)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07160)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07004)
HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07006)

HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Nevada District Court:

HB Productions, Inc. v. Doe Defendants 1-5 (Case No. 2:19-cv-01849)

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

Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08339)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08343)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08340)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08341)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-31 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08342)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00367)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00369)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00374)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00371)
Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00368)

Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Hawaii District Court:

Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. Beasor et al (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004)
Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. DOE (Case No. 1:20-cv-00033)

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

In sum, understand from this article the dynamics of who is really suing you.

In sum, just be careful when dealing with any of these movie company lawsuits.  I have written about Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP many times, and I have even called him an “evil genius” at times because he thinks out of the box.

Chances are that each movie lawsuit is filed by the same attorney who is filing other movie lawsuits, and because there is a “common copyright troll” between the various lawsuits, there is a mechanism for them to look up your accused IP address and check to see whether you have downloaded any of their “other clients’ copyrighted titles.”

If you as a defendant are unaware of this fact, or if you are an attorney who is purposefully blind to this fact (this is one of my big problems with “settlement factory” defense attorneys), then you expose yourself (or you expose your client) to additional claims of copyright infringement while that plaintiff attorney seeks to solicit additional money for additional titles allegedly downloaded… just after you (or your client) paid them thousands of dollars to settle the claims asserted in the lawsuit.

Obviously I am simplifying here greatly (and not all attorneys ask for additional settlements), but for what it is worth, understanding the dynamics of who is suing you and where they received your information is very important when deciding how to approach the defense of your case… especially when you seek to settle one claim of copyright infringement and that plaintiff attorney claims that you downloaded four other titles belonging to “his” clients.

[Please Click to Tweet!]


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions, Inc. 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 Fallen Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

    Fallen Productions, Inc. (“Angel Has Fallen”)

    fallen-productions-angel-has-fallen Fallen Productions Inc. | Angel Has Fallen Movie Lawsuit

    I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the Fallen Productions, Inc. (a.k.a. the “Angel Has Fallen (2019)”) movie lawsuit cases.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, or you hear that a Fallen Productions subpoena has been issued to an ISP, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Fallen Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01363) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Fallen Productions, Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.

    fallen-productions-angel-has-fallen Fallen Productions Inc. | Angel Has Fallen Movie Lawsuit

    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does Lawsuits

    Fallen Productions, Inc. is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the “Angel Has Fallen (2019)” movie, starring Gerard Butler, Frederick Schmidt, and Danny Huston.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

    Accused internet users [in receipt of Fallen Productions subpoenas] are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (e.g., CenturyLink, Comcast, Hawaii Telecom, Verizon Fios, Time Warner Cable, etc.), which informs them 1) they are implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant in this case, and 2) the ISP is bound by a subpoena to share the account holder’s contact information (and relevant information about their IP address’ involvement in the case) on a certain due date unless the subscriber files an objection to the Fallen Productions subpoena with the court (referring to a “motion to quash“).

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

    Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions, Inc. 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 Fallen Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    WHAT ENTITY OR “COMMON TROLL” ENTITY IS BEHIND YOUR ANGEL HAS FALLEN / FALLEN PRODUCTIONS INC. LAWSUIT.

    Be aware that the Fallen Productions Inc. lawsuits appear to be yet another “shell” movie production company set up for the purpose of suing defendants for the copyright infringement of that movie.

    It is a good idea to understand who (or what kind of entity) is behind these lawsuits, and what role the plaintiff attorney who sued you plays in coming after you for the copyright infringement of “their” client’s copyrighted movie.

    RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE FALLEN PRODUCTIONS SUBPOENA CASES:

    Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08339)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08343)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08340)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08341)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-31 (Case No. 1:19-cv-08342)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00367)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00369)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00374)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00371)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00368)

    Fallen Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Hawaii District Court:

    Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. Beasor et al (Case No. 1:20-cv-00004)
    Fallen Productions, Inc. et al v. DOE (Case No. 1:20-cv-00033)

    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions subpoena-based 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 Fallen Productions subpoena, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

    BLOG POSTS:

    Article(s) Written on the Angel Has Fallen (2019) / Fallen Productions subpoenas:

    Everything you need to know in one page about your Fallen Productions, Inc. (“Angel Has Fallen (2019)”) Movie Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” written on 2/10/2020

    HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A FALLEN PRODUCTIONS SUBPOENA CLIENT:

    Because bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases appear to be similar, I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.  (Look here for an article on when to hire an attorney, and at what point does it become too late to hire an attorney.)

    Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf.

    STEP 1) STOP PLAINTIFF FROM CONTACTING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR BEHALF (WORKPLACE) ABOUT THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.

    Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.

    STEP 2) RESEARCH AND DISCUSS CLAIMS COMPARING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S DATA OF USE VERSUS ACTUAL USE OR NON-USE.

    Carl Crowell and his local counsel across the US appear to be researching the claims and linking the accused IP addresses to determine whether that accused defendant has been involved in the download of other copyrighted films.  They appear to be watching the activity of the IP address (specifically, before and after the date the ISP sends the subpoena notice to the account holders) to see if there is a change in the downloading activity of the accused subscriber.

    It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates.  The plaintiff attorneys have data that they rely on, but their reliance on that data is based on a STORY which may or may not have an alternative explanation.  Obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims in order to refute their story without admitting guilt on your behalf.

    STEP 3) DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS WITH PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, WHETHER BY PAYING A SETTLEMENT FEE, OR NO SETTLEMENT (PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT).

    Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, a bittorrent-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not always the case with the Fallen Productions, Inc. attorneys, as they do not always offer settlements to accused defendants.

    The “no settlement” letter option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download, or the plaintiff attorney was unwilling to come to an amicable arrangement.

    Obviously if neither side can agree on an early solution to the problem, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.

    STEP 4) NEGOTIATE PRICE (IF BENEFICIAL, CONSIDERING CLIENT’S ABILITY TO PAY). PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OR STATEMENT IF NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS.

    Many accused defendants downloaded the copyrighted movie not realizing that the download was illegal.  This is because there is software (e.g., Popcorn Time) which, on its face, appears to be legitimate.  However, unbeknownst to the end user, Popcorn Time uses a bittorrent backbone in order to acquire the file for the end user.  It is here that the account holder gets ‘caught’ downloading the video, because his/her real IP address is exposed as the Popcorn Time software joins one or more bittorrent swarms in order to acquire the video.

    popcorn_time-fallen-productions-angel-has-fallen-movie-lawsuit

    Unfortunately, it is not always known whether a software source is legitimate or not.  For example, as far as I understand, the videos presented on the Popcorn Time software are usually pirated, and downloading the videos or viewing the videos can get the end user sued for copyright infringement.  Contrast this with other movie sources, e.g., Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc., these are legitimate.  However, there are many “in between” software platforms and websites which appear to be legitimate, but may not be.  Most notoriously – Crackle.  So far, to me it looks as if Crackle movies are legitimate and can be viewed without being sued for copyright infringement, but I could easily be wrong and we will not know this until the lawsuits start flying.

    Regardless of the intention of how the video was acquired, downloaded, or viewed, this is our goal — to have the circumstances of the accused defendant be relevant and useful in a negotiation with Fallen Productions, Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

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

    STEP 4A) IF ATTORNEY IS UNCOOPERATIVE, CONSIDER ARGUING FOR MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES

    Obviously this is not a preferred outcome, but it still must be considered.  If an attorney is unwilling to settle (or if he or she is being unreasonable in settlement negotiations, e.g., asking for too much money, or requiring the client to take some action outside negotiating a settlement agreement), there is another alternative strategy.  Have your attorney file an answer on your behalf, admit guilt to the claims of copyright infringement, and argue for what is called “minimum statutory damages” of $750 plus the other side’s attorney fees (which at this point would be minimal).  While not a preferred alternative, it is a method of forcing a reasonable settlement amount upon the plaintiff attorney if the download actually occurred.

    STEP 5) NEGOTIATE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

    The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable.  The terms should not ‘admit guilt’ on behalf of the client, and the scope of the contract should include not only the accused defendant (the account holder), but also the household and/or family members.

    There are other crucial elements to have in a settlement agreement (e.g., attorney fee shifting specific to copyright infringement lawsuits), but the above should be sufficient.

    STEP 6) HAVE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY SIGN AGREEMENT(S), THEN HAVE CLIENT SIGN AGREEMENT(S) AND PROCESS SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.

    This is self explanatory. Fallen Productions, Inc. is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.

    STEP 7) FOLLOW-UP WITH PLAINTIFF TO HAVE CLIENT’S “JOHN DOE” ENTITY DISMISSED FROM CASE.

    Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.

    The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit (assuming the John Doe Defendant signed first), the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.

    Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.

    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions, Inc. 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 Fallen Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

    TIMELINE: FALLEN PRODUCTIONS SUBPOENAS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM

    Any Fallen Productions, Inc. “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the Fallen Productions subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  Tracking a Fallen Productions subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.

    NOTE: I have moved the contents of this section to its own article, because the topic of “Subpoena Stages and Anonymity” is not limited to the Fallen Productions / “Angel Has Fallen (2019)” movie cases.

    Fallen Productions Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

    A Fallen Productions subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading Fallen Productions Inc.’s “Angel Has Fallen (2019)” movie.

    Fallen Productions Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

    The federal judge approves the Fallen Productions subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the Fallen Productions subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.).  These ISPs in receipt of the Fallen Productions subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  They send a notice to the account holder that a Fallen Productions subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the Fallen Productions subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

    The ISP forwards the Fallen Productions Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.

    You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the Fallen Productions subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the Fallen Productions, Inc. v. Does lawsuit.  At this point, you are still anonymous.

    The ISP complies with the Fallen Productions Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

    Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the Fallen Productions subpoena.  They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else).  You are still anonymous.

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

    The exact moment your anonymity expires.

    At this point, the life of the Fallen Productions subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it).  At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity.  YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).

    Your anonymity expires once the Fallen Productions plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their “Angel Has Fallen (2019)” movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint.  At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous.  At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (again, consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.

    NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.

    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions, Inc. 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 Fallen Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    In sum, about this article.

    In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit, and for this reason, I wrote this article 1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly, 2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Fallen Productions, Inc. 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 Fallen Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

      HB PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“HELLBOY”)

      hb-productions-hellboy Hellboy Movie Lawsuit | HB Productions ISP Subpoena

      I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the HB Productions, Inc. (a.k.a. the “Hellboy (2019)”) movie lawsuit cases.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, or you hear that a HB Productions subpoena has been issued to an ISP, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “HB Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01363) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where HB Productions, Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.

      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does Lawsuits

      HB Productions, Inc. is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the “Hellboy (2019)” movie, starring David Harbour, Milla Jovovich, and Ian McShane.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

      Accused internet users [in receipt of HB Productions subpoenas] are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (e.g., CenturyLink, Comcast, Hawaii Telecom, Verizon Fios, Time Warner Cable, etc.), which informs them 1) they are implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant in this case, and 2) the ISP is bound by a subpoena to share the account holder’s contact information (and relevant information about their IP address’ involvement in the case) on a certain due date unless the subscriber files an objection to the HB Productions subpoena with the court (referring to a “motion to quash“).

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

      Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the HB Productions, Inc. 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 HB Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      WHAT ENTITY OR “COMMON TROLL” ENTITY IS BEHIND YOUR HELLBOY / HB PRODUCTIONS INC. LAWSUIT.

      Be aware that the HB Productions Inc. lawsuits appear to be yet another “shell” movie production company set up for the purpose of suing defendants for the copyright infringement of that movie.

      It is a good idea to understand who (or what kind of entity) is behind these lawsuits, and what role the plaintiff attorney who sued you plays in coming after you for the copyright infringement of “their” client’s copyrighted movie.

      RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE HB PRODUCTIONS SUBPOENA CASES:

      HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court:

      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07511)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07159)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07512)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07161)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07508)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07002)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-19 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07005)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07513)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07157)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07163)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07003)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07514)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07160)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07004)
      HB Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07006)

      HB Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Nevada District Court:

      HB Productions, Inc. v. Doe Defendants 1-5 (Case No. 2:19-cv-01849)

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the HB Productions subpoena-based 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 HB Productions subpoena, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

      BLOG POSTS:

      Article(s) Written on the Hellboy (2019) / HB Productions subpoenas:

      Everything you need to know in one page about your HB Productions, Inc. (“Hellboy (2019)”) Movie Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” written on 2/10/2020

      HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A HB PRODUCTIONS SUBPOENA CLIENT:

      Because bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases appear to be similar, I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.  (Look here for an article on when to hire an attorney, and at what point does it become too late to hire an attorney.)

      Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf.

      STEP 1) STOP PLAINTIFF FROM CONTACTING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR BEHALF (WORKPLACE) ABOUT THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.

      Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.

      STEP 2) RESEARCH AND DISCUSS CLAIMS COMPARING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S DATA OF USE VERSUS ACTUAL USE OR NON-USE.

      Carl Crowell and his local counsel across the US appear to be researching the claims and linking the accused IP addresses to determine whether that accused defendant has been involved in the download of other copyrighted films.  They appear to be watching the activity of the IP address (specifically, before and after the date the ISP sends the subpoena notice to the account holders) to see if there is a change in the downloading activity of the accused subscriber.

      It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates.  The plaintiff attorneys have data that they rely on, but their reliance on that data is based on a STORY which may or may not have an alternative explanation.  Obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims in order to refute their story without admitting guilt on your behalf.

      STEP 3) DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS WITH PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, WHETHER BY PAYING A SETTLEMENT FEE, OR NO SETTLEMENT (PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT).

      Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, a bittorrent-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not always the case with the HB Productions, Inc. attorneys, as they do not always offer settlements to accused defendants.

      The “no settlement” letter option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download, or the plaintiff attorney was unwilling to come to an amicable arrangement.

      Obviously if neither side can agree on an early solution to the problem, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.

      STEP 4) NEGOTIATE PRICE (IF BENEFICIAL, CONSIDERING CLIENT’S ABILITY TO PAY). PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OR STATEMENT IF NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS.

      Many accused defendants downloaded the copyrighted movie not realizing that the download was illegal.  This is because there is software (e.g., Popcorn Time) which, on its face, appears to be legitimate.  However, unbeknownst to the end user, Popcorn Time uses a bittorrent backbone in order to acquire the file for the end user.  It is here that the account holder gets ‘caught’ downloading the video, because his/her real IP address is exposed as the Popcorn Time software joins one or more bittorrent swarms in order to acquire the video.

      popcorn_time-hb-productions-hellboy-movie-lawsuit

      Unfortunately, it is not always known whether a software source is legitimate or not.  For example, as far as I understand, the videos presented on the Popcorn Time software are usually pirated, and downloading the videos or viewing the videos can get the end user sued for copyright infringement.  Contrast this with other movie sources, e.g., Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc., these are legitimate.  However, there are many “in between” software platforms and websites which appear to be legitimate, but may not be.  Most notoriously – Crackle.  So far, to me it looks as if Crackle movies are legitimate and can be viewed without being sued for copyright infringement, but I could easily be wrong and we will not know this until the lawsuits start flying.

      Regardless of the intention of how the video was acquired, downloaded, or viewed, this is our goal — to have the circumstances of the accused defendant be relevant and useful in a negotiation with HB Productions, Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

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

      STEP 4A) IF ATTORNEY IS UNCOOPERATIVE, CONSIDER ARGUING FOR MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES

      Obviously this is not a preferred outcome, but it still must be considered.  If an attorney is unwilling to settle (or if he or she is being unreasonable in settlement negotiations, e.g., asking for too much money, or requiring the client to take some action outside negotiating a settlement agreement), there is another alternative strategy.  Have your attorney file an answer on your behalf, admit guilt to the claims of copyright infringement, and argue for what is called “minimum statutory damages” of $750 plus the other side’s attorney fees (which at this point would be minimal).  While not a preferred alternative, it is a method of forcing a reasonable settlement amount upon the plaintiff attorney if the download actually occurred.

      STEP 5) NEGOTIATE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

      The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable.  The terms should not ‘admit guilt’ on behalf of the client, and the scope of the contract should include not only the accused defendant (the account holder), but also the household and/or family members.

      There are other crucial elements to have in a settlement agreement (e.g., attorney fee shifting specific to copyright infringement lawsuits), but the above should be sufficient.

      STEP 6) HAVE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY SIGN AGREEMENT(S), THEN HAVE CLIENT SIGN AGREEMENT(S) AND PROCESS SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.

      This is self explanatory. HB Productions, Inc. is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.

      STEP 7) FOLLOW-UP WITH PLAINTIFF TO HAVE CLIENT’S “JOHN DOE” ENTITY DISMISSED FROM CASE.

      Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.

      The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit (assuming the John Doe Defendant signed first), the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.

      Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the HB Productions, Inc. 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 HB Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

      TIMELINE: HB Productions SUBPOENAS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM

      Any HB Productions, Inc. “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the HB Productions subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  Tracking a HB Productions subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.

      NOTE: I have moved the contents of this section to its own article, because the topic of “Subpoena Stages and Anonymity” is not limited to the HB Productions / “Hellboy (2019)” movie cases.

      HB Productions Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

      A HB Productions subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading HB Productions Inc.’s “Hellboy (2019)” movie.

      HB Productions Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

      The federal judge approves the HB Productions subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the HB Productions subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.).  These ISPs in receipt of the HB Productions subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  They send a notice to the account holder that a HB Productions subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the HB Productions subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

      The ISP forwards the HB Productions Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.

      You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the HB Productions subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the HB Productions, Inc. v. Does lawsuit.  At this point, you are still anonymous.

      The ISP complies with the HB Productions Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

      Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the HB Productions subpoena.  They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else).  You are still anonymous.

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

      The exact moment your anonymity expires.

      At this point, the life of the HB Productions subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it).  At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity.  YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).

      Your anonymity expires once the HB Productions plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their “Hellboy (2019)” movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint.  At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous.  At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (again, consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.

      NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the HB Productions, Inc. 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 HB Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      In sum, about this article.

      In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit, and for this reason, I wrote this article 1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly, 2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.


      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the HB Productions, Inc. 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 HB Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

        Hawaii’s 512(h) subpoenas unmask identities in a sneaky way.

        Kerry-Culpepper-IP 512(h) subpoenas Hunter Killer Productions Inc.

        Kerry Culpepper of Hawaii-based Culpepper IP LLLC has taken a roundabout way of uncovering the identities of Verizon Wireless subscribers who downloaded the Hunter Killer movie using their cell phones. I wanted to spend a moment on how Culpepper did this, because it provides a good follow-up on my 5/3 article about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuits.

        Culpepper IP is the Hawaii-based law firm which Kerry Culpepper has since used to send letters to internet users ACCUSED OF VISITING a particular website, and downloading a movie which is copyrighted by his clients.

        * 9/16/2020 UPDATE *: Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP appears to be a first year associate who is working for Kerry Culpepper. Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters, which is why I am mentioning it here.

        Hunter Killer Inc v. John Does as a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

        Ordinarily the case would show up on my radar because the plaintiff attorney would file a Hunter Killer Productions Inc. v. John Does copyright infringement lawsuit in a particular federal court (here, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii).

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

        Kerry Culpepper would then ask the court for what is referred to as “expedited discovery,” meaning, he would ask the court to authorize Culpepper to send a subpoena to the ISP. I described this process in detail just days ago in the “How Paul Beik Has Malibu Media LLC Defendants Served” section of the linked article.

        This ISP subpoena would ordinarily then force the Hawaii-based ISP to hand over the name of the John Doe defendant(s) accused of infringing the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. copyright holder’s “Hunter Killer” movie.

        Judges are aware of the “copyright troll” problem.

        I had to ask myself, “why would Kerry Culpepper go through such loops to disclose the identity of the alleged downloaders? Couldn’t he have just filed a Hunter Killer Productions Inc. v. Does 1-20 copyright infringement lawsuit against 20 downloaders like any other plaintiff attorney / copyright holder?

        Then it occurred to me: In the list of Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuits filed against defendants, I did not see *any* cases filed in the Hawaii District Court. (Rather, I only saw a few Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

        Could it be that the Hawaii District Court has outlawed Rule 26 “expedited discovery” bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases in their case holdings? If Kerry Culpepper cannot get a federal judge to grant an “expedited discovery” to allow him to send a subpoena to the ISPs [to discover the identity of the would-be John Doe defendants], then the plaintiff attorney has a copyright infringement lawsuit without any known defendants.

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

        Judges across the US have become aware of the problem we refer to as “copyright trolling,” where a copyright holder uses the federal courts to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against a set of unknown defendants. They use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 26) “expedited discovery” tool to unmask the identities of the defendants sued in the lawsuits.

        As a result of much abuse and harassment by a number of plaintiff attorneys, some judges have taken proactive steps to DENY the plaintiff attorney’s FRCP Rule 26 “expedited discovery” requests. If this is what is happening in Hawaii, this would in theory prevent Kerry Culpepper from forcing the ISP to hand over the names of the account subscribers (hence, no known defendants to sue).

        What is a “MISCELLANEOUS CASE”?

        What a BORING name for such an abused type of lawsuit!!!

        I have seen lawsuits that look something like “Case No. 1:19-mc-00123” which differ from the civil cases [which look like “Case No. 1:19-cv-00123”]. These “miscellaneous” cases do not formally accuse the defendant of copyright infringement in the form of a complaint, but rather, they function more as a “motion to compel” [to force] a third party (here, Verizon Wireless) to disclose the identity of a would-be defendant.

        From a non-lawyer’s eye, who cares whether the plaintiff attorney used a “1:19-cv-12345″ (a “civil” case) to file their lawsuit, or a “1:19-mc-12345″ (“miscellaneous” case) to discover the identity of the alleged infringer. It is the same result — the plaintiff attorney (here, Kerry Culpepper of Hawaii-based Culpepper IP LLLC) acquires the name of the alleged infringer and contacts him or her with the intention of accusing them of copyright infringement.

        However it is the BACKHANDED WAY the plaintiff attorney gets his defendants that simply irks me.

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

        I saw these same “miscellaneous case” filings in Florida state courts in 2010-2012.

        This is not the first time I have seen “miscellaneous cases (mc)” rather than the typical “civil cases (cv)”.

        Keith Lipscomb, the attorney [at the time] behind all of the Malibu Media LLC cases (and formerly, the Patrick Collins Inc. cases from 2010-2012) used to use a similar mechanism in the Florida state courts to achieve these same ends. As an attorney myself who operates in the FEDERAL COURTS, a “mc” case filed in a state court would not show up on my radar.

        What Kerry Culpepper did in Hawaii to force the clerk to issue 512(h) subpoenas to Verizon Wireless

        Kerry Culpepper in my opinion is one of the smarter plaintiff attorneys. I have always known this, as his copyright infringement lawsuits were always out-of-the-box.

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

        When dealing with him, Culpepper rarely asked for a settlement outright — rather, he had a roundabout way of explaining that, “…since my client accessed the bittorrent file 530 times over a two-day (26 hour) period to download a full copy of the movie, and that bittorrent swarm shared the movie with 2,930 other bittorrent users over those same 26 hours, judging the discounted cost of a movie at Wal*Mart is $2.99 (in a clearance bin, not $19.99 retail on the shelf), multiply the $2.99 x 2,930 to arrive at a settlement price of $8,760.70.”

        His thinking style was also visible when he decided to sue a group of individuals who I presume were profiting off of the ad sales of a movie app which shares pirated movies. Rather than “shake down” the end user (the downloader), he went after the “big bucks,” here I assume the ad revenue, as the Showbox app was actively being used [and ads shown] by literally millions of users.

        In sum, Kerry Culpepper a good mind which he uses to discover methods of suing defendants for profit.

        Kerry Culpepper-512(h)-subpoenas-hawaii-hunter-killer-productions

        Hunter Killer Productions Inc. and their new defendants.

        This brings us to Kerry Culpepper’s latest feat — getting the Hawaii Federal Court to force Verizon Wireless to hand over the names of several defendants WITHOUT EVER FILING A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT.

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

        In his application to the US District Court for the District of Hawaii entitled “In re Subpoena to Verizon Wireless” (Case No. 1:19-mc-00125), he invokes 17 USC 512(h) to ask the *CLERK* (not a judge, and WITHOUT a lawsuit filed) to issue a subpoena to disclose the identity of an alleged copyright infringer.

        Let me say that again. Kerry Culpepper just succeeded in getting the CLERK to issue a subpoena WITHOUT ANY JUDGE ruling on the motion, and WITHOUT NEEDING TO FILE ANY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT.

        Literally, the entire “miscellaneous” lawsuit was:

        • Doc 1) Application for a 512(h) subpoena,
        • Doc 2) Judge assigns the case to a magistrate judge (in my opinion, in an “I’m not touching this one,” way),
        • Doc 3) Clerk issues subpoena.
          [CASE CLOSED]

        KERRY CULPEPPER’S ARGUMENT TO THE HAWAII DISTRICT COURT

        Kerry Culpepper’s argument was simple. I am laying it out in points below:

        1) DC Circuit said that a 512(h) subpoena can only be issued to an ISP engaged in storing infringing copyrighted materials on their servers. (351 F.3d 1229, 1233 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).

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

        2) Eighth circuit said that a 512(h) subpoena only applies to an ISP that directly stores, caches, or provides links to infringing materials. (393 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2005)).

        Kerry Culpepper noted that neither court mentioned anything about whether a subpoena can be issued to an ISP that acts as a CONDUIT [to allow their subscribers to pass copyrighted content through their servers].

        Here is where Kerry Culpepper shows his talents:

        Culpepper then commented that the 9th Circuit (which is a higher court which includes and is binding upon the Hawaii District) has not ruled on whether a copyright holder can use a 512(h) subpoena to an ISP that acts as a CONDUIT [to allow their subscribers to infringe copyrighted materials].

        He then invoked the recent BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications Inc., 881 F.3d 293, 300 (4th Cir. 2018) case to conclude that the 9th Circuit (including the Hawaii District Court) would allow such a 512(h) subpoena.

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

        PERSONAL NOTE:

        There are some people who operate at such a high level that I get a headache when listening to them. I could strain to understand them, but I wonder whether I would understand them better if I too were a few magnitudes smarter.

        I read the arguments and looked up the references, but I don’t get the jump in logic.

        Personally, I think Culpepper confused the court with a logic-based argument, but I believe he jumped to a conclusion that his facts did not support.

        However, I’ve heard Culpepper speak — he is a smart dude and he thinks very quickly. Sometimes it is difficult to understand him because he is thinking at levels higher than the average person (here, the average judge) can comprehend.

        However, I still think that the judge dropped the ball and did not have the caffeine to oppose Culpepper (NOTE: there was no “defense” counsel to oppose him), and the Hawaii court capitulated.

        This is how I see it after reading what happened.

        [UPDATE: After writing this e-mail, Kerry Culpepper explained his reasoning why 512(h) subpoenas are a legitimate way to uncover the identities of his client’s movies.]

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

        THE END RESULT: CULPEPPER KNOWS WHO YOU ARE.

        The end result is that now Verizon Wireless will be complying with the subpoena and providing Culpepper here, a list of 20 defendants who allegedly used their cell phones to view, stream, or download copies of his client’s Hunter Killer movie, and the settlement demands will likely ensue.

        If you are an attorney and have the desire to see exactly what Kerry Culpepper did, here is the link to his application to the court.

        If you are a defendant (or you received a letter from Kerry Culpepper asking for settlement money for the download of the Hunter Killer movie using your cell phone), at least now you will understand how he got your name.

        hawaii-512h-subpoenas-kerry-culpepper-ip-hunter-killer-settlement-hawaii-hi
        Perlinator / Pixabay

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


        [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. 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 Hunter Killer Productions Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

          Hunter Killer Productions Inc. and Their Sordid History

          Kerry-Culpepper-IP 512(h) subpoenas Hunter Killer Productions Inc.

          Doing a HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. COPYRIGHT TROLL WRITE-UP was not my initial purpose in searching PACER for documentation regarding last night’s Strike 3 Holdings LLC “turf war” article, but what I came across with Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is noteworthy because of my memories of this entity.

          I have useful information on Hunter Killer Productions Inc. because I have background information [piecing my memories together] which provide a context for the new Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois by Michael Hierl and William Kalbac.

          Looking up the most recent Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases last night on PACER, I couldn’t help but to notice that another small set of lawsuits popped up on my radar.

          There is now a new [apparent] “copyright troll” testing the waters named “Hunter Killer Productions Inc.” Hunter Killer Productions Inc. originally did not raise any flags for me — I remembered that they have a history in Hawaii with former-copyright-troll Kerry Culpepper, and I had nothing wrong with their activities… until now.

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

          THE HUNTER KILLER MOVIE

          Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is the shell company that owns the rights to the “Hunter Killer” movie. “Hunter killer” is an action, thriller movie directed by Donovan Marsh, and stars Gerard Butler and Gary Oldman (among others).

          I mention their name merely for movie recognition — not because the actors themselves ever benefit from the copyright troll lawsuits their production companies file to monetize the piracy of their movies.

          hunter-killer-productions-inc, Hunter Killer Productions ISP subpoena lawsuit | Notice of Subpoena For Records

          Hunter Killer Productions Inc. was known to me to merely “consort” with known copyright trolls (more on this below), but I did not identify them as copyright trolls themselves… until now.

          Copyright trolls are production companies and lawyers who file lawsuits against internet users who are accused of downloading copyrighted movies; these companies and lawyers seek to use the federal courts and the copyright infringement statutory damages to demand thousands of dollars in settlement payments from each accused defendant (through their John Doe entity).

          Apparently, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is now testing the waters with copyright troll bittorrent-based lawsuits filed in the Illinois Northern District federal court.

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

          HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC HISTORY IN HAWAII

          At first glance, when seeing the copyright infringement cases in Illinois, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. as the plaintiff did not raise any “red flags” except that 1) it is a production company, and 2) it filed multiple identical-looking lawsuits against a handful of John Doe Defendants in each case.

          Delving deeper into the Hawaii case (and remembering that Kerry Culpepper was the plaintiff attorney who was filing all of the Hawaii copyright troll lawsuits in previous years), I was surprised by what I saw — the complaint was not only claiming copyright infringement, but also “…FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, INDUCEMENT, FALSE ADVERTISING, UNFAIR COMPETITION, AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES.”

          Thus, the Hawaii case (especially with what I remember Kerry Culpepper was doing) did not look like a copyright troll lawsuit to me.

          KERRY CULPEPPER MOVED PAST COPYRIGHT TROLLING

          I remember distinctly that Kerry Culpepper was getting into significantly more in-depth cases, namely going after the PROVIDERS of movies which are streamed online via the Show Box app (“Showbox”), which illegally provide pirated content to the web by advertising their app as a method of “watching free movies.”

          I also remember not being so interested in the topic, as I had nothing wrong with Kerry Culpepper trying to stop Showbox or the flow of pirated movies.

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

          As long as Kerry was not going after the end users (the internet users who actually downloaded the content) seeking thousands of dollars in settlements for each lawsuit, I had nothing wrong with his lawsuit against Showbox.  As far as I recall, the providers of Showbox were Indian companies such as Galbatross Technologies who were somehow benefiting financially (if I recall, by significant ad revenue) by providing copyrighted content to internet users in the US.

          You could read the Adobe PDF link to Kerry Culpepper’s complaint against Showbox here.

          Ernesto from Torrentfreak.com also wrote up the topic on the Showbox lawsuit here:

          I could be mistaken, but I also vaguely recall that Showbox sold set top boxes here in the US, and those set top boxes streamed copyrighted content to US customers which were acquired by using BitTorrent software on the back end. I remember this because a handful of past clients of mine got sued by Gary Fischman in Texas for using Showbox, but the lawsuits were for BitTorrent use.

          HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS IS AN EXTENSION OF THE SHOWBOX LAWSUITS

          I must admit that I was a bit surprised when I saw the in-depth lawsuit filed by Hunter Killer Productions Inc. against the few named defendants. What jogged my memory about the Showbox cases were the “group effort” of copyright troll plaintiffs who were involved as plaintiffs in the effort. Those companies include:

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

          The similarity of plaintiffs in this Kerry Culpepper’s Hawaii-based Hunter Killer Productions Inc. case reminded me of Culpepper’s former Showbox lawsuit and its list of plaintiffs. They included companies such as:

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

          REMEMBERING THE “COMMON THREAD” CONTROVERSY

          NOTE: I want to point out the big “common thread” controversy from years ago when I claimed that all of the movie lawsuits were working behind the scenes together as a master settlement scheme. So many people (and attorneys) told me that I was “full of it” when I noticed a common string between each of the lawsuits filed by each of these copyright troll production companies (via their “shell” companies).

          Each of these companies COINCIDENTALLY hired the IDENTICAL SET OF ATTORNEYS in every state in which bittorrent based copyright infringement lawsuits were filed. This made no sense to me — either these attorneys were each masterful in acquiring the identical copyright troll clients, or there was a “kingpin” behind the scenes of each of these seemingly separate companies who were directing each of the hundreds of lawsuits filed across the US (please read my article yesterday on Strike 3 Holdings LLC and the need for a kingpin to manage and centralize multiple lawsuits filed by local attorneys in each state’s federal court).

          In sum, Culpepper took every copyright troll and sued the source of the piracy — something I had nothing wrong with, as my goal in defending copyright infringement lawsuits is not to encourage piracy, but to prevent the harassment of defendants accused of copyright infringement (and the inexcusably high settlement demands that inevitably come with these copyright infringement lawsuits).

          The Defendants in the Hawaii-based Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuit didn’t interest me much either. To me, it seemed like Kerry Culpepper again trying to go after the source of the copyright infringement (foreign defendants) rather than the end users.

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

          THE NEW HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. COPYRIGHT TROLL LAWSUITS

          TWO DAYS AGO, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. jumped into the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and started suing John Doe Defendants in Illinois. Seeing the attorneys Michael Hierl and William Benjamin Kalbac (who I know as “Bill Kalbac”), this changed the story.

          Hunter Killer Productions Inc John Doe Lawsuits

          Now Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is suing John Doe defendants (all Comcast subscribers) for the download of the “Hunter Killer” movie, or more specifically, for the “Hunter.Killer.2018.KORSUB.HDRip.x264-STUTTERSHIT” movie which was shared on bittorrent networks in December 2018.

          In other words, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is now suing defendants using the classic copyright troll model (and the same attorneys).

          Pasted below are the small set of Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases I’ve seen thus far.  As far as I can tell, they are only “dipping their toes” into the Illinois federal court to test the copyright trolling model, but with Michael Hierl and Bill Kalbac as plaintiff attorneys (in 2012, I called Michael Heirl a “baby copyright troll,” but now we are SIX YEARS LATER), their chances of successfully soliciting settlements from accused users is high.

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

          Case filed in the Hawaii District Court
          Hunter Killer Productions Inc et al. v. Qazi Muhammad Zarlish et al. (1:19-cv-00168)

          Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court
          HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-21 (1:19-cv-02926)
          HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-23 (1:19-cv-02922)
          HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-23 (1:19-cv-02924)
          HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-17 (1:19-cv-02927)
          Hunter Killer Productions Inc. v. DOES 1-21 (1:19-cv-02920)

          UPDATE (9/2020)

          Culpepper IP is the Hawaii-based law firm which Kerry Culpepper has since used to send letters to internet users ACCUSED OF VISITING a particular website, and downloading a movie which is copyrighted by his clients.

          * 9/16/2020 UPDATE *: Attorney Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP is a first year associate who is now working under Kerry Culpepper’s direction. Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters.

          SUMMARY

          In sum, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is a known entity with a history of taking legal steps to enforce its copyright rights.  Now they have “dipped their toes” into what I consider to be illegitimate copyright enforcement activities, namely, copyright trolling and soliciting multiple-thousand dollar settlements from each defendant.


          [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. 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 Hunter Killer Productions Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

            Skip to content