PHE Inc. | TorrentLawyer ISP Subpoena

CEG-TEK’s client list.

August 31, 2020June 17, 2014 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

[2017 UPDATE: Carl Crowell has created a new entity called RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT which has reverse-engineered CEG-TEK’s proprietary DMCA copyright infringement notice system. Many of you have visited CEG-TEK links thinking that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was CEG-TEK, but really they are an ‘evil twin’ competitor. Since the two entities operate almost the same way, and since Crowell has solicited (and likely taken) most of the clients on this list, this article is relevant.]

2016 UPDATE: I wrote this article in June, 2014. Immediately afterwards, a number of the companies changed their names which confused the issue of who was a copyright troll suing defendants, and who was not a copyright troll. It is now almost two years later, and while I usually do not update older posts, since this article does still come up from time to time, I am updated a few of the copyright holders’ names. -RZC

I believe it is the duty of the copyright holders to “police their own copyrights,” meaning, if a company sees a bittorrent tracker or website hosting an unlicensed copy of their copyrighted work, BY ALL MEANS, issue a DMCA takedown notice to the website or to the bittorrent tracker, and that torrent will be GONE AND UNAVAILABLE for downloaders to take the content.

Rather than doing this, copyright holders hire CEG-TEK to target EVERY SINGLE DOWNLOADER with a letter forwarded by various ISPs, VPN providers, or university IT departments who are cooperating with CEG-TEK (sometimes for profit). Account holders receive “notice of infringement” letters sent directly to them either via an e-mail, FedEx, or a screen pop-up link along with a notification that they have violated the ISP’s terms of service. CEG-TEK’s letters now ask for $250-$300 per download, and they direct the accused downloaders to the “Copyright Settlements” website (http://www.copyrightsettlements.com) with a link which pre-populates the assigned Case Number and Password into the website.

With the cooperation of the ISPs in forwarding CEG-TEK’s letters to accused downloaders, there is no longer an anonymity barrier between the accused downloaders and the copyright holders as there once was when CEG-TEK would need a court order to access the identities of the accused downloaders. Now, since various ISPs and universities (e.g., Charter, Suddenlink, CenturyLink, Giganews/VyprVPN, etc.; NOTE: Comcast, Verizon, and the other big ISPs appear NOT to be working with CEG-TEK for the moment) have been useless in stopping the copyright holders from contacting the account holders, other than hiring a lawyer such as myself to create a buffer between the copyright holders and the accused account holders, bittorrent users should probably be aware of which companies are using this extortion tactic of “we will sue you unless you pay us money for the video you have downloaded.”

Here is a list I compiled from my own records as to which copyright holders are [at the moment] using Ira Siegel and CEG-TEK to “monetize” their “most pirated” copyrights. I want to point out that I am conflicted as to whether to post this list because the list itself can be deceiving — a title “not” on this list can still be monitored, and by no means am I suggesting that someone avoid these titles and download others. Perhaps by listing which companies are enforcing their copyrights using this extortion-type of “settle or else we’ll sue” method, it might shame the companies into doing something a bit more ethical (e.g., by policing their own copyrights and issuing DMCA takedown letters rather than attacking the downloaders as a means for financial revenue):

Axel Braun Productions
– “Batman XXX: A Porn Parody”
Celestial Inc., DBA Lethal Hardcore
– Fuck My Mom and Me 17
Cinderella Distributors Inc.
– Backdoor To Hollywood 6
Coast to Coast Video
– Older Women Younger Men 16
Combat Zone Inc.
– Daddy’s Little Princess #2
Daring Media Group
– Pretty Woman
Diabolic
– Swallowing is Good For You
Digital Sin, Inc.
– All About Ashlynn 1
– Incestuous
– Little Darlings
– My Anal School Girl
– My Plaything Ashlynn Brooke
– Perfect Little Pussy
– The Family That Lays Together
– The Innocence Of Youth #3, #5, #6
– This Is My First… A Gangbang Movie
Echo Alpha, Inc. DBA Evil Angel
– Fetish Fanatic 12
– Fetish Fuck Dolls 3
– Raw 16
– Rocco’s Perfect Slaves 3
– Rocco’s Young Anal Adventures
Fallout Films
– Naughty Girls 2
Froytal Services Limited DBA Babes (now known as “MG Premium Ltd.”)
– Abrasador
– Amatores
– Dancing With Myself
– Hearts Racing
– Love Encounter
– Raving With Pleasure
Froytal Services Limited DBA Brazzers (now known as “MG Premium Ltd.”)
– Dani’s Back and Ready to Play
– Driving Mrs. Madison Wild
– I Can Walk!!!
– Miss Titness America
– Mommy Got Boobs 15
– Sharing My Roommate’s Cock (Milfs Like It Big)
– Slutty Sorority Contest
– Teens Like It Big 12
– The Dangers of Working From Home (Kiki Minaj)
Froytal Services Limited DBA Mofos (now known as “MG Premium Ltd.”)
– Best Vacation Ever! (Ivy Laine)
– Cheerleader Fantasy
– Flashing Gets Her Whatever She Wants
– Fun And Sex Games
– I Make It Rain On Your Tits (I Know That Girl; Dillon Harper)
– Jewels for the Duch-ASS
– Rub a Dub Gimme a Tug
– Swinging Slut Buffet
Froytal Services Limited DBA Twistys (now known as “MG Premium Ltd.”)
– Burnin’ Luv
– Cum Over And Taste..
GGW Direct, LLC DBA “Girls Gone Wild”
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 1
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 2
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 3
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 4
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 5
– ALL NEW COLLEGE GIRLS EXPOSED VOL 6
– Baby Bash Live & Uncensored
– Bad Girls 2
– BEACH BABES 3
– BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
– Best Breasts Ever
– BEST BREASTS EVER 2
– Best of Blondes 2
– Celebrity Look-A-Likes
– CO-ED TRYOUTS
– CO-ED TRYOUTS 2
– CO-ED TRYOUTS 3
– DADDY’S LITTLE GIRLS
– Endless Spring Break 3
– Endless Spring Break 4
– Endless Spring Break 5
– Endless Spring Break 6
– Endless Spring Break 7
– Endless Spring Break 9
– Endless Spring Break 10
– Endless Spring Break 11
– Endless Spring Break 12
– Endless Spring Break 13
– Endless Spring Break 14
– EXTREME ORGY 1
– EXTREME ORGY 2
– EXTREME ORGY 3
– FIRST TIMERS
– FIRST TIMERS 2
– Freshman Class
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 1
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 2
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 3
– FRESHMAN ORIENTATION 4
– GGW – Extreme Sex
– GGW – On Tour 1
– GGW – On Tour 2
– GGW – On Tour 3
– GGW – On Tour 4
– GGW – On Tour 5
– GGW – On Tour 6
– GGW – On Tour 7
– GGW – On Tour 8
– GGW – Sweet Young Sex Maniacs
– GIRL POWER
– GIRL POWER 2
– GIRL POWER 3
– GIRL POWER 4
– GIRL POWER 5
– GIRL POWER 6
– GIRL POWER 7
– GIRL POWER 8
– GIRL POWER 8
– GIRL POWER 9
– Girls On Girls
– GIRLS WHO CRAVE SEX
– GIRLS WHO CRAVE SEX 3
– Girls Who Like Girls
– GIRLS WHO LIKE TOYS
– Horny Cheerleaders
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS 2
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS 3 (PRIVATE TAPES)
– HORNY SCHOOL GIRLS 4
– Hottest Texas Coeds
– ISLAND ORGY
– MARDI GRAS INVASION
– My 18th Birthday
– Road Trip
– ROCKS AMERICA
– Sex Race
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 2
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 3
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 4
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 5
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 6
– SEX STARVED COLLEGE GIRLS 7
– SEX STARVED PANTY RAID
– Sexiest Moments Ever
– Sexiest Moments Ever 2
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY 2
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY 3
– SORORITY GIRL ORGY 4
– Spring Break 2007
– SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT
– The Perfect Pair
– THE SEIZED VIDEO
– Ultimate Rush
– Usually a siterip or a torrent containing 25+ titles.
– Wild World
– Wildest Bar in America
Giant Media Group, Inc. DBA Devil’s Film (they have changed this name more than once, but have kept the “Devil’s Film” trade name.)
– Ass Full Of Cum 4
– Best Of Gangland Cream Pie
– Cum On My Hairy Pussy 2
– Cum On My Hairy Pussy 16
– Don’t Tell My Wife I Buttfucked Her Best Friend
– Gangland 70
– Gangland 85
– Gangland Cream Pie 24
– Gangland Cream Pie 25
– Gangland Cream Pie 26
– Gangland Cream Pie 27
– Gangland Cream Pie 28
– I Wanna Buttfuck Your Daughter 10
– My Wife Caught Me Assfucking Her Mother
– My Wife Caught Me Assfucking Her Mother 2
– My Wife Caught Me Assfucking Her Mother 5
Girlfriends Films Inc.
– I Dream of Jo 4 True Passion
– Mother Daughter Exchange Club 27
– Poor Little Shyla 2
– Tides of Lust
– Lesbian First Timers
– Lesbian Seductions 46
Intense Industries
– Fucking Your Socks Off
JM Productions Inc.
– Suck Off Races 3
JW Releasing Ltd
– Kinky Business
Kick Ass Pictures Inc.
– Foot Fetish Daily 9
LFP Internet Group, LLC DBA Hustler
– Barely Legal 2
– Barely Legal 16
– Barely Legal 19
– Barely Legal 84
– Barely Legal 100
– Barely Legal 127
– Barely Legal 128
– Barely Legal 131
– Barely Legal 134
– Barely Legal 138
– Barely Legal 139
– Barely Legal 140
– Barely Legal Little Runaways
– Barely Legal: All Stars 5
– New Wave Hookers
– The Opening of Misty Beethoven
– This Ain’t Game of Thrones
Manwin Content RK Limited DBA Reality Kings (now known as “MG Content RK Limited”)
– 2 For 1 Pink
– A Lavish Load
– Belle Bottom
– Bouncing Deluca (Big Naturals; Angel Deluca)
– Cum Hard
– Dirty Minds
– Full Figure (Monster Curves; Katie Banks)
– Getting Hardy
– Girlfriends Revenge (GF Revenge 6)
– Hello Alexis
– Leather and Lace
– Licking Lessons – Jasmine Wolff (Moms Bang Teens 2013-12-30)
– Naughty Kennedy – Kennedy Leigh (Moms Bang Teens 2014-01-20)
– Pussy Love (Money Talks – Esmi & Lily)
– Riding Riley
– Ripping Through
– Sexy All Star
– Sexy Stella
– Sweet Veronica
– Tits and Hips
– Ass In Heels – Angell Summers (EuroSexParties 2013-05-30)
– Busty Bikini Babes 1
– Finger Licking Good
– Lick It
Manwin DP Corp. DBA Digital Playground
– Bad Girls 5
– Bad Girls 6
– Bridesmaids
– Code of Honor
– Don’t Fuck My Sister
– For Sale
– Island Fever 2
– Island Fever 3
– Jack Attack 4
– Jack’s POV 2
– Jack’s POV 3
– Jack’s POV 5
– Jack’s POV 7
– Jack’s POV 8
– Jack’s POV 10
– Jack’s POV 12
– Jack’s POV 15
– JACK’S POV 19
– Jesse Jane Fuck Fantasy
– Jesse Jane Kiss Kiss
– Lost and Found
– Nurses
– Pink Slip
– Pirates
– Raven Alexis The Substitute
– Riley Steele Deceptions
– Riley Steele Satisfaction
– The Girlfriend Exchange
– Titlicious 2
– Top Guns
– unSEXpected
– Web Whore
– WHEN DADDY’S AWAY
Marc Dorcel
– Cathy 40 (Cheating Housewife)
– WIFE NEXT DOOR
Marc Dorcel DBA SBO Pictures, Inc.
– Orgy Anthology
SBO Pictures DBA Vouyer Media
– Jack In Me POV 2
SBO Pictures DBA Wicked Pictures
– Daddy Did The Babysitter
– I Was a Mail Order Bride
– Octomom: Home Alone
– Selfies
– Spacenuts
– Teen Ravers
Metro Media Entertainment
– Cute Little Asses
Millennium TGA, DBA Grooby Productions
– Buddy Wood’s Shemale Bedtime Stories
New Sensations Inc.
– Almost Heaven
– Anal Sex Secrets
– Ashlynn Brooke Is Sexy
– Big Bang Theory A XXX Parody
– Big Girls Are Sexy #3
– Double D Vixens
– Friends A Xxx Parody
– I Can’t Believe I’m Doing This (Zeina Heart)
– I Love Asians 11
– I Love Asians 5
– Redheads Are Sexy #5
– Sexy Student Bodies`
– WKRP in Cincinnati: A XXX Parody
– Young Girls With Big Tits 10
Patrick Collins Inc., DBA Elegant Angel
– Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman
– Big Wet Asses #3
– Big Wet Asses #6
– Big Wet Asses #7
– Big Wet Asses 16
– Cuties 4
– It’s A Daddy Thing!
– It’s A Secretary Thing!
– It’s A Secretary Thing! 2
– Massive Facials 5
– Performers Of The Year 2014
– Real Female Orgasms 10
– The A Line
– The Bombshells 5
– The Greatest Squirters Ever! 4
Pleasure Productions Inc.
– Wild Honey 2 (Tera Patrick)
RLD Distribution LLC
– Girls Of Red Light District – Sasha Grey
– I Bang Teens (Megan Salinas)
– White Dicks Black Chicks
Second Phase Distribution Inc.
– Big Butt All Stars – Crystal Clear
– Mama Turned Me Out 3
– Mama Turned Me Out 4
– Mama Turned Me Out 5
– Pigtail Virgins
Third Degree Films, Inc.
– Big Boob Orgy 2
– Curve Appeal
– Illegal Ass 2
– Laid In Lingerie 2
– Laid in Lingerie 3
– Spunk’d 7
– Spunk’d 8
– Top Ten 2
Vivid Entertainment LLC
– Farrah 2 Backdoor and More
– Farrah Superstar: Backdoor Teen Mom
– Kim Kardashian Superstar
– Raven Alexis Unleashed
– Raylene’s Dirty Work
– Tera, Tera, Tera (Tera Patrick)
– Tila Tequila Backdoored and Squirting
– Tristan Taormino’s Expert Guide to the G-Spot
White Ghetto Films Inc.
– Group Sex Junkies
Zero Tolerance Entertainment
– Dr. Ava’s Guide to Sensual BDSM For Couples
– Is Your Mother Home?

Now obviously you will notice a common theme along each of these copyright holders, and that is the “genre” of content they all produce. You will also notice that in this list there are “copyright trolls,” (meaning, companies who in the past have used or use the federal courts to sue individual downloaders for copyright infringement) and there are “not” copyright trolls (meaning, companies who have NOT sued defendants for copyright infringement). You can see which are copyright trolls by either searching the web for their name, or doing a search on http://www.rfcexpress.com to see whether they have sued in federal court.

A few things to note.

1) Many of the larger companies have multiple websites, and do business as multiple entities. For example, Froytal Services Ltd. “does business as” (“DBA”) Mofos and Brazzers (corresponding to their Mofos.com and Brazzers.com websites).

2) Many copyright holders are OLDER COMPANIES and FAMILY OPERATED BUSINESSES. This means that it is common to have former porn companies hire CEG TEK to track and send letters for “vintage” films from the 1970’s and 1980’s. The copyrights for these films ARE STILL IN EFFECT, and the former owners of those companies are now elder individuals who are now enforcing their copyrights from FORTY YEARS AGO. On the flip side, many older couples have been caught downloading a film from their youth thinking that since the titles were so old, it was probably legal to do so.

In sum, all I ask of everyone is to understand that the bittorrent networks are no longer safe, and when you download something, assume someone else is watching you. And, be aware that there are companies out there like Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK Int’l) who are waiting to send you a settlement demand letter.

—
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.

“Swarm joinder theory” & “Judicial Economy” ruling refuted.

April 4, 2017September 13, 2013 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

Add Missouri to the list of states unfriendly to copyright trolls. And, congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients who have been severed and dismissed from the Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-91 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02292) lawsuit!

Now what was exciting about this Purzel Video GMBH case ruling was U.S. District Judge Audrery Fleissig’s 1) refutation of the “judicial economy” justification for joinder, and 2) her clarification of the relationship between bittorrent users for joinder purposes (and similarly, what she left open for future rulings by referring to bittorrent transfers as mere “pieces”).

Courts in other federal jurisdictions which allow multiple defendants to be sued together in bittorrent cases (pro-joinder jurisdictions) allow joinder of non-related defendants based on the fact that it is easier to have one “John Doe 1-500” case with five hundred (500) defendants in it rather than to have five hundred “single John Doe” lawsuits. The defendants in these cases are all accused of violating the same copyright laws; the defendants are all accused of using bittorrent to download the same title; the courts are all deciding the same issues for each defendant — whether the court has “personal jurisdiction” over each defendant (whether the plaintiffs sued defendants in the wrong state, depriving that federal court of personal jurisdiction over each John Doe Defendant), and whether the defendants are properly joined together as co-defendants in the same lawsuit.

I suspect that Judge Flessig caught on to the extortion scheme, and she made her ruling with the understanding that everything in the above justifications for “judicial economy” is true… if the plaintiffs are running a settlement extortion scheme. However, if the plaintiffs indeed intend in good faith to move forward with their case “on the merits,” then as the judge points out, the “judicial economy” approach falls apart.

The rule now in Missouri federal courts (binding on other Missouri cases, persuasive in non-Missouri cases) is that suing multiple defendants in a “John Doe 1-X” lawsuit is improper because of the prejudice to the co-defendants and the confusion that will result *if* the plaintiffs actually have a good faith intent on pursuing their claims (e.g., if they are “not” running a settlement extortion scheme).

For example, a rule in federal courts is that every named defendant needs to be provided copies of all documents for the case in which they are accused. The judge points out that it would prejudice Defendant #2 if he started receiving motions and rulings relating to the depositions and interrogatories for Defendant #1. Multiply the confusion that would occur if there are ten defendants, or one hundred defendants, and so on. Similarly, each defendant will end up having his own lawyer. If the lawyer for Defendant #1 makes a motion and the court orders his client to a case management hearing, Defendant #2 will receive a copy of this order and may think that he has to attend the hearing.

This gets even more burdensome as soon as defendants are named and discovery begins to take place. Judge Fleissig points out that every defendant has the right to attend the depositions of the other co-defendants. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if every John Doe Defendant crowds into a small office to hear the other defendants’ depositions. My own addition — imagine if all the accused defendants and each of their lawyers try to crowd into one small courtroom for a hearing.

Lastly, we all know that the justifications for joinder in a federal lawsuit is the “same transaction or occurrence” standard. In other words, courts have ruled that defendants can be joined together in one lawsuit if they were participating in the same bittorrent swarm at the same time — this is known as the “swarm joinder theory” asserted by the plaintiffs in every bittorrent lawsuit complaint.

In plaintiff attorney Paul Lesko’s cases, it is interesting to note that he was trying to extend the definition of a bittorrent swarm to span 18 weeks — from August 5th, 2012 to December 5th, 2012. This would obviously include internet users who never uploaded or downloaded from each other, and it would place them together as being part of the same transaction [big ongoing swarm] or occurrence [the “happening” of the swarm, for as long as “it” stays “alive”].

This secondary swarm theory has no official name, but it could be described as the “temporal swarm theory,” which asserts that defendants who participate in a bittorrent swarm can be sued with all other defendants who ever uploaded or downloaded to that swarm (as opposed to a more legitimate “snapshot swarm theory” which joins bittorrent users together in a lawsuit based on who is uploading and downloads to whom at a particular point in time).

However, Judge Fleissig rejected both the “swarm joinder theory” and the “temporal swarm theory” (“snapshot swarms” were not discussed) because in both cases, the bittorrent users did not download and upload from EACH OF ALL the other bittorrent users in that swarm. In other words, a bittorrent swarm consists of many small “transactions and occurrences” between multiple users, and the judge essentially ruled that association with a “bittorrent swarm” does not properly connect [for joinder purposes] one defendant with another defendant from whom or to whom he did not specifically download or upload.

Food for thought for future Missouri federal cases: I want to also mention that Judge Fleissig refers to the accused bittorrent users as merely transferring “pieces” of the copyrighted files to each other rather than the entire copyrighted title [to be found liable for copyright infringement (under the “substantial similarity” prong), courts have ruled that the entire copyrighted file needs to be transferred; not merely “pieces” of it].

I would love to interpret her words as meaning that ‘because no user transfers a complete copyrighted file to any other user (only data bits and “pieces” of the copyrighted file that the downloader’s bittorrent software pieces together into a file), no user can be found liable for copyright infringement,’ but I do not think this is what she was referring to.

Rather, by mentioning bittorrent transfers from one user to another user as mere “pieces” of a copyrighted file, Judge Fleissig leaves open the question (perhaps to be elaborated in a future ruling) whether transferring bits and “pieces” of a copyrighted file (but not the entire file) can constitute copyright infringement.

NOTE: This ruling directly affects as binding upon the following Missouri bittorrent cases* (sorted by filing date):

reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-39 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00895)
Georgia Film Fund Four, LLC v. Does 1-75 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00832)
The Bicycle Peddler, LLC v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00583)
Elf-Man, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00576)
The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00577)
PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00480)
Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-32 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00449)
Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-67 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00450)
Riding Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00430)
Bayou Pictures, LLC v. John Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00433)
The Good Doctor, LLC v. John Does 1-36 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00434)
Maxcon Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-88 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00428)
reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00409)
reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-53 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00408)
Breaking Glass Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-188 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00388)
Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00290)
Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-30 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00020)

*some of these may have already been dismissed on other grounds.

Canal Street Films… MORE AND MORE TROLLS…

September 5, 2020January 6, 2013 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

MOVIE PRODUCTION COMPANY RELEASING B-RATED FILMS

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

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

INNOCENT INFRINGEMENT LOOKING FOR A YOUNG MR. ROGERS?

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

COPYRIGHT LAWS NEED TO BE UPDATED

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

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

DMCA TAKEDOWN LETTERS

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

NEW COPYRIGHT TROLLS / CANAL STREET FILMS

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

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

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

NEW COPYRIGHT TROLLS / KINTOP PICTURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAUL LESKO / PHE INC. / PURZEL VIDEO GMBH

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

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

PAUL LESKO FIASCO WITH HIS ALMA MATER

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

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

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

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

NEW COPYRIGHT TROLLS / STUDIO WEST PRODUCTIONS INC.

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

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

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

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

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

IN SUM

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

“Nice try, PHE, Inc. – a failed copyright troll.”

August 30, 2020January 6, 2013 by Rob Cashman (Author, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC)

In a laughable attempt at a new copyright troll attempting to join the “me too” copyright infringement lawsuits that have been filed across the U.S., copyright troll attorney Sanjin Mutic [of the Mile High Law Office LLC; also on the board of the Triskele Foundation (thanks to SJD who did a good write-up on this)] stepped foot into the Colorado District Court without checking whether other more prolific copyright trolls (e.g., Jason Kotzker) have made a mess of cases in those courts already. Within days of filing his “PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-105 (Case No. 1:12-cv-03342)” lawsuit against 105 defendants, U.S. District Judge William Martinez killed the lawsuit by severing and dismissing defendants 2-105.

This lawsuit would have been PHE, Inc.’s first attempt to extort thousands of dollars from each defendant who would have been accused of downloading “Buffy the Vampire Slayer XXX: A Parody.”

It should be noted that PHE, Inc. also appears to be the same entity that runs the “Adam & Eve Adult Sex Toy Store” (you can scroll to the bottom of the page to see the connection between them). Why a company as reputable as “Adam and Eve” would venture to produce parody pornography and open themselves up to lawsuits by the Buffy copyright holders is beyond me.

The judge’s opinion speaks for itself:

“This case is part of an ‘outbreak of similar litigation…around the country in which copyright holders have attempted to assert claims against multiple unknown defendants by joining them, in often large numbers, into a single action.'”

My favorite part:

“Our federal court system provides litigants with some of the finest tools available to assist in resolving disputes; the courts should not, however, permit those tools to be used as a bludgeon.”

Nice try, PHE, Inc.

P.S. – I thought it was funny that Paul Lesko of Simmons and Browder, LLC was also trying a PHE, Inc. case in the Missouri Eastern District Court. That case is the PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-96 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02296) case.

P.P.S. – Sanjin Mutic is an interesting copyright troll himself. He is the attorney for the West Coast Productions, Inc. Colorado cases, specifically, West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-38 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02642 with Judge Heagarty) and West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-37 (Case No. 1:12-cv-02644 with Judge Watanabe). The Triskele Foundation of which he is on the board of directors is focused on helping high school drop-outs; perhaps he helps them find jobs in the lucrative billion-dollar industry in which he thrives. NOTE TO SELF: Was this comment offensive? Or is there just an inconsistency between someone who “helps high-school drop-outs” and who (at the same time) advocates for the porn industry?

UPDATE: 1/7/2013 – Techdirt article: “Company Behind Adam & Eve Discovers Quickly That Courts Are Now Hip To Copyright Trolling.”