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.

    Did ME2 Attorney Fischman disclose real Interested Parties?

    UT ME2 Productions | Utah ME2 Settlement Letters Sent by Todd Zenger

    In the Texas Federal District Court (as of 2017), I am working on defense research for five (5) copyright infringement / bittorrent “John Doe” lawsuits affiliated with the Guardaley / Carl Crowell.  In a ME2 case, ME2’s local counsel Gary Fischman was ordered by Judge Keith P. Ellison to disclose “all interested parties” to the lawsuit, and this is the subject of this article.

    Texas cases I am actively working on (filed after 1/1/2017):
    ME2 Productions, Inc. v DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00695)
    ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00275)
    ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00501)
    ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404)
    I.T. Productions, LLC v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00597)
    and, the Siemens PLM v. Does 1-100 software piracy case and multiple Malibu Media, LLC cases (both outside the scope of this article).

    WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHO HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT?

    The reason it is important to know who has a financial interest in these lawsuits is because I need to know 1) whether the corporate entity that is suing has the authority to sue, and 2) whether the corporate entity filing the lawsuit is the same entity that holds the copyright to the movie allegedly infringed in the lawsuit.

    If the corporate entity (here, ME2 Productions, Inc.) does not have the authority to sue, or if it is not the true copyright holder (but some entity that licensed the rights to make money for the copyright holder based on the copyright rights granted to the true copyright holder to the “Mechanic:Ressurection” movie), the plaintiff might lose the lawsuit or even get sanctioned for not disclosing the true parties who are interested in the outcome of the lawsuit by alleging in a document like this one (link) that they had the right to sue when in fact they did not.

    WHY AM I SUSPECT THAT MAYBE THE PARTY SUING MIGHT NOT HAVE COPYRIGHT RIGHTS TO SUE?

    The only way a plaintiff can sue for STATUTORY DAMAGES OF $150,000 FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is if they have a valid copyright to the movie title allegedly being infringed (or, downloaded using bittorrent or Popcorn Time).  If they do not own the copyright but only the right to monetize, the plaintiff may only be entitled to ACTUAL DAMAGES, NOT STATUTORY DAMAGES.

    In a bittorrent “John Doe” lawsuit, the actual damages are really the cost to purchase a copy of the infringed movie (~$30 for the DVD), or perhaps $8 for the movie ticket if the movie is still in theaters.  The law only gives STATUTORY DAMAGES OF $150,000 to plaintiffs who have a valid copyright at the time of the lawsuit.

    So here is why I am suspect that maybe ME2 Productions, Inc. might not be the holder of a valid copyright:  We know from the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuits (when the real Dallas Buyers Club copyright holder sued Voltage Pictures, Inc. for not paying settlement moneys owed to them) that there was an entity (Voltage Pictures) that purchased the rights to monetize Dallas Buyer’s Club’s intellectual property (the right to use the Dallas Buyer’s Club name, the right to sue, etc.)  Voltage then turned around and set up an entity called “Dallas Buyers Club, LLC” and sued hundreds of John Doe Defendants using that name.

    Little did we know at the time that the Dallas Buyer’s Club plaintiff was not the Dallas Buyer’s Club copyright holder, and the copyright troll plaintiff entity was merely masquerading as the Dallas Buyers Club copyright holder.

    WHY ARE THE DALLAS BUYERS CLUB LAWSUITS RELEVANT TO ME2 PRODUCTIONS CASES?

    The common thread behind the Dallas Buyer’s Club lawsuits and most copyright infringement lawsuits filed today is a german company called Guardaley (a.k.a. IPP).  It is not relevant that Guardaley’s bittorrent tracking methods have been ruled not credible by the German courts; they have been wreaking havoc on US courts since 2012.  Guardaley (as far as I understand) has been behind the scenes of each and every ‘copyright troll’ lawsuit filed in the federal courts.  And, after April 2016, they have reportedly signed an agreement with Carl Crowell (a known copyright troll attorney, but more importantly, likely the mastermind behind each of the ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits filed by local attorneys across the US).

    Carl Crowell’s connection to ME2 Productions, Inc. is that they are his client.  I can demonstrate this connection by looking at his new DMCA scare letter scheme entity, “Rights Enforcement”.  If you look at the Crowell’s client list (as described by Torrentfreak), you will see that Mechanic:Resurrection (the movie behind the ME2 lawsuits) is one of Carl Crowell’s clients.  (Carl Crowell himself is also a known ‘copyright troll’ where he has filed ME2 lawsuits against John Doe Defendants in Oregon.)

    RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com screenshot with ME2 outlined.
    Screenshot from Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, with Mechanic:Resurrection outlined.

    Thus, naturally, I am suspect to each of ME2 Productions, Inc.’s other lawsuits in other states, here, Texas, because as the apparent puppetmaster behind the various ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits filed across the US, I must assume he has a financial interest in the outcome of this Texas lawsuit filed by Gary Fischman.

    WHO DID ATTORNEY FISCHMAN SAY HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE ME2 BITTORRENT LAWSUITS?

    In the filing, Gary Fischman noted that the following three entities has a financial interest in the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases:

    • ME2 Productions, Inc.
    • A&T IP, Inc., and
    • Fischman Law, PLLC

    ME2 Productions, Inc. might be the actual copyright owner, or it is possible that they are an entity that was set up for the purpose of monetizing the copyright rights granted to the actual copyright holder, the owner of the Mechanic:Resurrection movie.

    A&T IP, Inc. is an enigma to me.  I do not know who they are, where they are incorporated, and who the beneficiaries are of this entity.

    UPDATE: DieTrollDie suggests that perhaps A&T IP, Inc. is actually the Anti-Piracy Management Co (APMC).

    DTD Twitter Screenshot Suggesting A&T IP, Inc. is APMC.
    DieTrollDie suspects that A&T IP, Inc. is really the Anti-Piracy Management Co. (APMC).

    Fischman Law, PLLC is curious in and of itself for reasons outside the scope of this article.  Naturally, it could be explained that Gary Fischman as the attorney suing on behalf of ME2 will benefit (e.g., commissions from settlements received, possibly fees from the copyright holder or the Crowell / Guardaley entity itself for time spent prosecuting these cases).  However, I suspect the link goes slightly deeper, as his partner for a number of the Guardaley lawsuits, Joshua Wyde, listed himself as a witness in the lawsuit (something that is generally not done).  So there may be more to the eye here, but not relevant to this article.

    Here is a link to the actual document filed with the court:

    021017 ME2 417-cv-00404 – Doc6 – Certificate of Interested Parties by ME2

    MY FINAL QUESTIONS

    Looking at all of this information together, I am left with the following questions.

    1. WHERE IS GUARDALEY (IPP) AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN THIS CASE?
    2. WHY IS CARL CROWELL NOT LISTED AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN THIS CASE, OR IS HE [AND GUARDALEY] SOMEHOW WRAPPED UP IN THAT “A&T IP, INC” ENTITY?
    3. IS ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. THE SAME LEGAL ENTITY THAT OWNS THE COPYRIGHT TO THE MECHANIC:RESURRECTION MOVIE, OR ARE THEY SOME OTHER ENTITY THAT IS MERELY MASQUERADING AS THE ME2 PRODUCTIONS / COPYRIGHT HOLDER UNDER SOME LICENSE TO MONETIZE THEIR COPYRIGHT RIGHTS?

    Your thoughts and feedback are obviously welcome.


    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.

      I.T. Productions, LLC should really be called “I, Troll.”

      IT Productions Lawsuits are clients of RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com. Screenshot with I.T. outlined.

      To properly defend against the I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does lawsuits, it is important to understand the similarities between each case.  Each lawsuit, regardless of in which federal court it is filed, has certain similarities.  The purpose of this article is to point out the similarities between the I.T. Productions cases, and other ‘movie troll’ lawsuits filed in the same federal courts by the same copyright troll attorneys.

      Different Lawsuits, Same Plaintiff Attorneys?

      These past few weeks, I have been pushing the idea that there is an entity (until now, I believed it was Voltage Pictures, Inc.) behind the lawsuits which is calling up movie companies who have produced movies which have flopped in the theaters (I call them “floppers”), and this entity convinces the movie company to license its copyright rights to them so that they can sue bittorrent users as John Doe Defendants in copyright infringement lawsuits across the US.

      Yesterday, I wrote about the Cook Productions, LLC lawsuits (which are sending subpoenas to ISPs to reveal the identities of subscribers who are accused of downloading the “Mr. Church” flopper), and I was concerned that maybe this copyright holder was somehow separate from the others — the ME2 Productions lawsuits, the September Productions lawsuits, and the Cell Film Holdings lawsuits (the “three legs” or “trio“) — that we have been seeing over the past few months. [So it’s not a three-legged stool; it’s a chair.]

      But then this morning, I was writing an article on the I.T. Productions, LLC lawsuits, and after speaking to a John Doe Defendant on the phone, I decided to check the list of plaintiff attorneys suing in each state for the I.T. Productions to the attorneys suing in the ME2 Productions, September Productions, (and also LHF Productions and Criminal Productions, Inc., articles to come), and the connections popped out at me.  They are the same attorneys!!!

      In sum, this ‘shadow entity’ (which I believed to be Voltage Pictures, Inc.) who is licensing ‘floppers’ is using the same attorneys to sue for each and every one of these movies.

      I.T. Productions cases are filed in the same states as other movie troll cases.

      Not only that, but for the IT Productions, LLC cases, they are even ‘dipping their toes’ into the same states as I saw yesterday when reviewing the Cook Productions, LLC cases.  Here are the similarities:

      Arizona District Court (NONE YET)
      Colorado District Court (I.T. 10 cases, Cook Productions, 1 case)
      Hawaii District Court (I.T. 2 cases, Cook Productions, 4 cases)
      Illinois Northern District Court (NONE YET)
      Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts (NONE YET)
      Kentucky Western District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
      Maryland District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
      Nevada District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
      North Carolina Eastern & Middle District Courts (NONE YET)
      Ohio Northen & Southern District Courts (I.T. 2 cases, Cook Productions 2 cases)
      Oregon District Courts (I.T. 4 cases, Cook Productions 3 cases)
      Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
      Washington Western District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)

      See the similarities?!?  So… expect to see I.T. Productions, LLC cases to soon be filed in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and North Carolina.

      Texas based I.T. Productions Cases

      Why are Gary Fischman and Josh Wyde always the plaintiff attorneys for each movie troll case?

      As far as the attorneys for each of the lawsuits were concerned, I could not understand how here in Texas, Gary Fischman and Josh Wyde showed up OUT OF NOWHERE, and started filing lawsuits for Fathers & Daughters Nevada, September Productions, Cell Film Holdings, and most recently, I.T. Productions and ME2 Productions.  Where did they come from?  And how did they all of a sudden score EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE movie companies to come to THEM and hire THEM to sue John Doe defendants in Texas for the unlawful download of these films?

      Why is R. Matthew Van Sickle always the attorney for the movie troll cases in North Carolina?

      Another name that keeps popping up in recent weeks has been R. Matthew Van Sickle (a.k.a. Ross Matthew Van Sickle) of Van Sickle Law, PC in North Carolina.  His website is http://mattvansicklelaw.com/ and it lists an expertise in “Construction Law, Civil Litigation, Employment Law, Insurance Coverage/Defense, and Mediation” (and no doubt, soon his website will be updated to state that he is knowledgeable in intellectual property matters, copyright infringement matters, and federal practice.) At least plaintiff / copyright troll attorneys Josh Wyde and Gary Fischman (AFAIK) are knowledgeable in this area of law.

      The common threads between all movie troll cases.

      So… who is behind these lawsuits?  Is it Voltage Pictures, Inc.?  Someone affiliated with Carl Crowell? Guardaley / IPP?  Again, do you care??

      All About the I.T. Productions Lawsuits (Regardless of Where They Are Filed)

      So I digress.  I.T. Productions, LLC has convinced the judges of the various courts to rubber stamp the authorization for them to conduct what is called ‘expedited discovery.’  What this means is that they are now permitted to send a subpoena to the various ISPs (e.g., Comcast, CenturyLink, AT&T, etc.), and force them to disclose the identity of the ten or so John Doe Defendants who are accused of copyright infringement from the download of their film.

      The I.T. Productions, LLC lawsuit is suing for the download of the “I.T.” movie starring Pierce Brosnan.  The concept of the movie is pretty cool — innovative owner of an enterprising company is flying high until his daughter gets stalked by one of his information technology (IT) guys, who uses every technological facet to attack them.

      Unfortunately, as cool as the movie sounds, IMDb gave it only 5.4 or 10 stars, which means that the movie was a flopper.  It’s too bad; I liked the concept of the movie.

      So why did I spend all this time linking this I.T. Productions case to the Cook Productions case, the ME2 Productions case, and the others?  To show that there is a decrepit and sinister entity behind the scene who has likely now set up the entity called “I.T. Productions, LLC” for the purpose of suing downloaders across the U.S. for copyright infringement.

      However, as terrible as this sounds, the benefit to the John Doe Defendant reading this article is that you can begin to draw lines and conclusions from one lawsuit (e.g., the ME2 lawsuits) to understand how the plaintiff attorneys will act in these lawsuits.

      Honestly, I think I understand now why this movie is called “I.T.”  It really stands for “I Troll.”

      As always, I hope this article has been of assistance to you.

      For an analysis of the other I.T. Productions, LLC bittorrent-based cases filed across the US, click here.

      RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE I.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC CASES:

      Cases now filed in the Texas Southern District Court:
      Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)

      I.T. Productions, LLC v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00597)

      Cases filed in the Colorado District Court:
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-7 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00468)
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. John Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02979)
      Other cases with the same name:
      Case No. 1:16-cv-02998
      Case No. 1:16-cv-03009
      Case No. 1:16-cv-03058
      Case No. 1:16-cv-03064
      Case No. 1:16-cv-03089
      Case No. 1:16-cv-03132
      Case No. 1:16-cv-03150
      Case No. 1:17-cv-00112

      Cases filed in the Hawaii District Court:
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1 through 5 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00084)
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1 through 3 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00035)
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-6 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00641)

      Case filed in the Kentucky Western District Court:
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00836)

      Case filed in the Maryland District Court:
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 8:16-cv-03999)

      Case filed in the Nevada District Court:
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02705)

      Cases filed in the Ohio Northern and Southern District Courts (respectively):
      I.T. Productions LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-03073)
      I.T. Productions LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-01199)

      Cases filed in the Oregon District Court:
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.115.0.173 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02102)
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.27.241.78 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02103)
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.115.228.18 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02101)
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.27.242.207 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00163)

      Case filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court:
      I.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. 2:16-cv-06533)

      Case filed in the Washington Western District Court:
      I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01775)


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

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

        shalta boook now cta

        Why Being Served in a Bittorrent Case Can Lead To Settlement

        Bittorrent ‘John Doe’ Defendants are being forced deeper into copyright infringement lawsuits. Being served can backfire on a troll forcing a cheap settlement.

        DISCLAIMER: In this article I speak a lot about plaintiff attorneys cheating their own copyright holder clients, billing them “by the hour” (rather than the conventional method of accepting the copyright holder clients “on contingency”), and in some cases, wasting time to generate additional billing to their own clients.  It is my observation and opinion that this is happening, but short of a lawsuit like we saw with the Dallas Buyers Club copyright holders against their Voltage Pictures licensee, it is difficult to prove that such things are taking place.  However, “honor or dishonor among thieves” is not the topic or the point of the article — the point of the article is that plaintiffs are dragging defendants further into the federal lawsuits by naming and serving them, and it is my opinion that it is still possible to obtain a settlement, even after a client has admitted guilt in an answer to a deposition question.

        It is a sad day when trolls force those they’ve accused to become legal experts and to stick their toes into the federal courts to defend themselves. In the attached article, DTD is correct that lawyers (myself included) can get expensive, and defending a case (e.g., answering a complaint, showing up and defending a deposition, answering the various requests for information that are required in a federal lawsuit, etc.) is often more expensive than simply paying a copyright troll plaintiff a few bucks to make them go away.

        Unfortunately (at least in my Texas Southern District federal court), the copyright-troll attorneys appear to be billing their copyright-holder clients BY THE HOUR (which differs from the old model of a plaintiff attorney agreeing to take a case on contingency and only sharing in the settlement profits believing [the lie] that “they’ll make millions going after John Doe Defendants”), so these ‘hardened’ plaintiff attorneys seem to be running-up the bill by dragging the defendants through the mud — naming them, serving them, filing documents, and wasting everyone’s time.

        In short, while I agree that IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES doing what DTD suggested (filing an answer with the court and fighting your case) would normally not be something one would ever dare do [at least without a lawyer holding his/her hand, or sitting in and defending a deposition], in today’s evolution of the bittorrent cases, filing an answer and at least being willing to endure the legal process until a settlement is offered (and a settlement is usually offered eventually) has become a necessity.

        WHY BEING FORCED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN A DEPOSITION MIGHT LEAD TO A SETTLEMENT:

        Let’s take a quick example.  In the typical scenario, the goal in representing a client who wants to settle is to contact the plaintiff attorney on the client’s behalf and negotiate a settlement.  For a plaintiff attorney who is billing his copyright troll client by the hour (as is what appears to be happening in the Texas bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases), agreeing to a settlement is too easy of an outcome because the plaintiff attorney does not make the kind of money he could make “dragging the defendant through the mud while charging his client hourly to do so.”  (Remember, as we saw with the Voltage / Dallas Buyers Club cases, a crooked attorney steals not only from his victim [the accused defendant], but also from his client (as we saw in the Voltage / Dallas Buyers Club cases where Voltage was sued for failing to pay Dallas Buyers Club monies earned and owed to it through its copyright enforcement activities)).

        More likely than not, the plaintiff attorney’s client (the actual copyright holder seeking to “monetize” or “enforce” the rights given to him via his copyright) is not aware that the attorney is over-billing (e.g., engaging in such “mud-dragging”, “revenue-producing” activities often cannot be proven, and thus it continues until the copyright holder gets tired of paying his attorney’s bill).  Thus, free of scrutiny from his client, the plaintiff attorney needlessly exacerbates the situation by demanding from the defendant something unreasonable (e.g., that unless the defendant is willing to agree to sign an explicit admission of guilt prior to being made aware of the kind or amount of settlement he will be offered, there will be no settlement).  [FYI, this is something no sane person would agree to.]  As a result, the defendant refuses to admit guilt, he gets named and served, and he is forced to spend thousands of dollars more to defend himself.  Why?  Because his plaintiff attorney figured out a way to milk not only him (the defendant), but his copyright-holder client as well.

        There are a number of steps that happen after being named and served, but the point is that eventually, the plaintiff attorney is going to schedule a deposition (where the defendant will need to answer questions “under oath,”) and the defendant is going to tell the truth about what happened.  If the download indeed happened, this will come out in the deposition.

        However, this “nightmare” fear that the defendant will “admit guilt” will only cause one result — the plaintiff will have proof that at trial, based on the information elicited from the defendant in the deposition, that defendant could be held liable for the $150,000 in statutory damages.  But then… how many of these defendants have $150K sitting around in their mattresses or in their bank accounts?  And if they do, don’t you think that instead of paying the judgment, they would rather hire a bankruptcy lawyer and file for a bankruptcy to discharge the copyright infringement judgment in bankruptcy?

        In short, the worst-case-scenario in a deposition is that the defendant admits guilt, which is often what will likely happen if the defendant is the downloader of the copyrighted film.  But then after all this excitement, the plaintiff attorney and the copyright holder still want to get paid (and they know they are likely not going to collect anything by obtaining a $150K judgment against the defendant).  This is why the plaintiff attorney will likely initiate settlement talks with the defendant, taking his financial circumstances into consideration.

        This is not to say that settling a case right away (and before being named and served) is no longer an option — there are multiple copyright holders filing in the Texas and New York courts, including Criminal Productions Inc., September Productions Inc., CELL Film Holdings LLC, the infamous Malibu Media LLC, Fathers & Daughters Nevada LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC, and the related non-bittorrent copyright holders which include DISH Network L.L.C. (not so much anymore) and Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. (a software company), each of whom have their priorities and specific instructions on how they would like their plaintiff attorneys to handle the lawsuits on their behalf.

        But, what I do want you to glean from this commentary (really, it’s an article, but I did re-blog DTD’s article and I need to stick to that topic), is that plaintiff attorneys ARE naming and serving defendants, and it should be expected that this could happen — and if a defendant is named and served, they could still negotiate a settlement.  But be aware that in order to get to that point, the plaintiff attorney (who might be motivated by maximizing his billing to his own client [think, stealing from you AND stealing from his own client]) might drag you through a deposition and a number of steps before he accepts a settlement from you.

        LAST NOTE: BILLING IN “BLOCKS.”

        I agree that lawyers are expensive simply because we charge for the time it takes to complete each step of the legal process. However, many attorneys (myself included) already know how much time each step will take, so “flat fee” billing is an option (understanding that billing would happen based on timelines of where you are in the lawsuit).

        Thus, it might make sense to hire an attorney who charges you a flat fee for a certain “block” or piece of the lawsuit (e.g.,

        BLOCK 1: FROM GETTING NOTICE OF THE LAWSUIT THROUGH BEING NAMED AND SERVED [WITH THE INTENT OF NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO BEING NAMED AND SERVED].

        BLOCK 2: FROM BEING NAMED AND SERVED (E.G., FILING AN ANSWER WITH THE COURT, PROVIDING ANY NEEDED DISCLOSURES, FILING ANY PROTECTIVE ORDERS, SETTING DISCOVERY TIMELINES).

        BLOCK 3: FILING INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, AND ANSWERING INTERROGATORIES AND/OR REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION.

        BLOCK 4: PREPARING FOR AND DEFENDING A DEPOSITION.

        BLOCK 5: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY.  Or, BLOCK 5A: FILING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION TO RELEASE DEFENDANT FROM LIABILITY,

        …AND SO ON, BLOCK 6: …TRIAL (my opinion, unlikely, unless the copyright holder figured out a way to prevent the deep-pocket defendant from filing for bankruptcy).

        I have laid these out as a template, as each case and each copyright holder often needs to be handled differently.  Typically, clients were able to negotiate a settlement and be released from liability with just BLOCK 1.  However, as we discussed above, we are seeing more-and-more that plaintiff attorneys are taking defendants deeper into the lawsuits (“deeper down the rabbit hole, so to speak”), specifically past the “naming and serving” stage, past the answer stage, and into the discovery stages before considering or accepting settlements.  I am not one to advocate doing this on your own, and if you could afford an attorney (me, or anyone else), that is the safest way to go.  But if hiring me or another attorney is not an option, fighting this on your own (called, “pro se”) is the best alternative, and DTD’s article gives you a good first and necessary step in getting the ball rolling.

        As I said before, good article, DTD!

        Caveat – I’m not an attorney and I’m not practicing law. This is simply my thoughts and views based on what I see concerning BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Infringement Trolls. If you decide you need legal advice, please hire a knowledgeable attorney. IF you truly cannot afford an attorney, here at least is one possible option. […]

        via Answering A BT Copyright Troll Summons/Complaint — DieTrollDie


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

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

          shalta book now cta

          Dallas Buyers Club sues Voltage for not sharing proceeds.

          Rights Enforcement | RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com screenshot.

          It is 12:30am and I really do not have time to go into this, but I just learned that Dallas Buyers Club, LLC is suing Voltage Pictures, LLC in Montgomery County, TX for, among other things, not paying fees to Dallas Buyers Club for the licensing fees owed to them.

          [Hat tip to SJD @ FightCopyrightTrolls for breaking the story.  Her link to the lawsuit can be found here.]

          It appears from the TX case filing (Cause No. 15-06-06049) that Voltage Pictures, LLC approached Dallas Buyers Club, LLC and offered to pay for the license to act as Dallas Buyer’s Club’s agent so that they can sell the film abroad and… so that they can file lawsuits against John Doe Defendants across the US. Part of this agreement appears to be that Voltage Pictures was permitted to use Dallas Buyer’s Club’s name.

          082516 Voltage-DBC Power of attorney

          …and skipping down a bit:

          082516 Voltage-DBC Exclusive Agent

          Well, now we learn that Nicholas Chartier and Voltage Pictures are being sued because after making all of the sales and suing all of the John Doe defendants for copyright infringement, Voltage Pictures is accused of cheating Dallas Buyers Club out of their earned licensing fees.

          I feel as if I just fell down a rabbit hole…

          Thus, whenever we saw a Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuit, and whenever we represented a client against Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, we were really representing them against… VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC?!?

          This brings me to the Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC cases.  Did Voltage Pictures, LLC make the same licensing deal with the Fathers & Daughters movie producers, and are they also not paying them the money that is due to them?  When we see a Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC case, are we really representing clients against the makers of the Fathers and Daughters movie? Or are we representing clients against VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC who is parading as Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC and claiming that they are Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC, when really they are not?!?

          This also makes me ask who the attorneys for the Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC are really representing? Are Josh Wyde and Gary Fischman suing on behalf of Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC? Or are they suing on behalf of Voltage Pictures, LLC pretending to be Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC?  I know Josh is watching this blog, so please feel free to comment.

          Who is their client? Voltage or Fathers & Daughters Nevada?

          Last question, and then I’m going to sleep. Will Voltage Pictures, LLC soon be sued by the real Fathers & Daughters copyright holders for failure to pay the licensing fees, proceeds, and sales from the monetization of the Fathers & Daughters movie copyright? Have the same facts that are coming out with the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuit also transpired with the Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC copyright holder?

          One more thought — a while back, I was concerned that perhaps the shell companies that were created for various movies were not properly funded. [Well, okay, I backed away from that accusation, but that was on my mind.]  The original thought was that production companies made movies, and to limit their liability, we understood that they set up shell companies as limited liability companies so that if something went wrong or if, say, Dallas Buyers Club caused damage to someone and they were sued, fined, sanctioned, or otherwise held liable for damages from their activities, those damages would be contained to the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC limited liability entity, and they would not trickle “up” to what I thought was the Voltage Pictures, LLC production company.

          However, now we see that Voltage Pictures, LLC is NOT the production company, but a LICENSEE (one who signs an agreement to acquire a license to sell or act on behalf of the copyright holder [the licensor]). Thus, this brings me back to the entity that was formed to sue John Doe Defendants in federal court. Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, and Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC (the two Voltage-related companies that are currently on my mind). Are they properly funded? Who owns them, and who are the real parties acting through them? Voltage Pictures or Dallas Buyers Club? Voltage Pictures or Fathers & Daughters? Who is providing the funding for them?  And did they properly notify the court of this arrangement when they filed the lawsuits against the John Doe Defendants?

          Wow, when they say that there is “no honor among thieves,” they weren’t kidding.  First Keith Lipscomb is sued by Malibu Media, LLC for not paying them the royalties and/or funds received through Lipscomb’s Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe lawsuits across the US, and now Voltage Pictures, LLC is being sued by Dallas Buyers Club, LLC for the same thing. I also want to point out that Liberty Media also sued their lawyer, Marc Randazza (although the circumstances were different, and if what Marc wrote in his defense was true (e.g., that they used his office desk to shoot adult films), both Liberty Media and Randazza are both to blame, but for different reasons). I also remember when Prenda Law Inc. stopped paying their local counsel here in Houston the fees and commissions he earned through the filing of the lawsuits.

          So… in sum, is this the scenario of thieves stealing from thieves as we have seen before? Or is this an example of “copyright trolls stealing also from their own clients”?? Wow, this field of law has skeletons hidden in closets all over the place.

          UPDATE: For more on this topic, SJD covered this topic in detail.  See FightCopyrightTrolls article, “How copyright trolls plunder both US citizens and… rights holders.


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

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

            shalta boook now cta

            Skip to content