Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys and their personalities.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

Why knowing which Strike 3 Holdings attorneys are filing the lawsuit against you is relevant to your case.

Strike 3 Holdings attorneys work together as cogs in a wheel to run what our Cashman Law Firm LLC calls a “quasi-legitimate settlement extortion scheme.” As far as the public is concerned, each Strike 3 Holdings attorney appears to work independently and appears to have autonomy to make decisions on how to run the copyright infringement cases federal court cases. However, based on my observations, there are attorneys who have authority to direct their own cases, and there are attorneys who appear to read scripts to accused defendants and file boilerplate documents in the federal courts when moving their cookie-cutter lawsuits against hundreds of John Doe defendants through the federal court system.

strike-3-holdings-attorneys-personalities Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys Personality
3dman_eu / Pixabay

Strike 3 Holdings attorneys come in two flavors.

Strike 3 Holdings attorneys appear to come in two flavors:

“Bosses”: There are Strike 3 Holdings attorney “bosses” (which are attorneys who have been running the settlement extortion scheme and the lawsuits for years now).

“Underlings”: There are Strike 3 Holdings attorneys which are “underlings” (which are newer attorneys who have been hired by Strike 3 to be a “warm body” in a federal court.

While I understand that in all cases, the more experienced Strike 3 attorneys appear to control the lawsuits, albeit “in the shadows.” I wrote about this in the article, “Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys in Miami-Dade County, Florida Have a ‘Behind the Scenes Shadow'” article in January, 2020).

The former “boss” of all of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys was Lincoln Bandlow.

For many years, Lincoln Bandlow (formerly of Fox Rothschild LLP) ran each and every Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit filed across the US. I understand that his network used to be separated into “teams” of attorneys, although which Strike 3 Holdings attorneys were on what “team” remains unknown to me.

My best guess is that each team was presumably separated by region — each geographic area of the US had a different “team”; although I would not be shocked if the “teams” were separated by hierarchy (like a pyramid). This way, those with decision-making power would be on one team, and those “underlings” who are merely reading scripts and following orders are in another team.

Why I think Strike 3 Holdings LLC now has multiple bosses.

Interestingly enough, as of May, 2019, I no longer think that there is one “boss” or “kingpin” running all of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits, but TWO. In May, 2019, I started to notice that the wrong Strike 3 Holdings attorneys were listed on the various court filings across the US. One of their Strike 3 Holdings attorneys would be listed as the attorney-of-record, but another attorney would be the one handling the case.

What was more interesting is that while Lincoln Bandlow [originally] was running everything, I noticed that a growing select number of attorneys [like Jacqueline James (Jackie James)] exerted authority over their cases in the form of making on-the-spot decisions where in the past, they would need to always “consult their client” and get back to me (meaning, they would check with Lincoln to get his authority or permission to agree to something I was pushing for a particular client of mine).

I noticed the same thing with John Atkin, who first worked for Fox Rothschild LLP (apparently as an “underling”) handling their New Jersey cases. But then, John Atkin left Fox Rothschild LLP and formed his own law firm, “The Atkin Firm, LLC.” That same day, based on my interactions with him, he began to manage his cases as if he were a “boss,” making decisions on-the-spot and deciding the direction of his own cases.

I discussed this shake-up of Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in an article that even one year later is still an interesting read because the players are still the same people.

I created this page so that you can look up the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys who sued you so that you can know their personality.

For now, I am creating this page with the intention of identifying which Strike 3 Holdings attorneys are operating in which states, so that [over time; I will edit this page again with updates] you will be able to come back here and look up the attorney who sued you in your home state’s federal court.

A Quick Note About Strike 3 Holdings State-Based Lawsuits (and why I think they will be filing in Arizona next).

NOTEWORTHY SIDE COMMENT: Since 2019, Strike 3 Holdings attorneys have also been suing defendants in state and county courts, such as the Miami-Dade County, Florida court. These lawsuits are NOT copyright infringement lawsuits, and no claims are asserted against each John Doe Defendant implicated in their lawsuits. However, because the threat is that “we will identify the accused infringer and sue him or her in the federal court in which he lives,” (my quote referring to them, not their actual words), these state-based Bill of Discovery lawsuits are concerning because they expose each possible defendant to Strike 3 Holdings and their forced-settlement extortion scheme.

This is not the first time a copyright troll such as Strike 3 Holdings, LLC tried this tactic of suing defendants in state courts under that state’s Bill of Discovery laws. Other former prolific copyright trolls have sued defendants in Maricopa County, Arizona as well as Miami-Dade, FL. [Arizona is where Strike 3 will probably be going next once they exhaust the “Miami-Dade Bill of Discovery” lawsuit campaign they have been running since late 2019].

List of Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys by State

Here is a list of Strike 3 Holdings attorneys for each state in which they are currently suing defendants:

Miami-Dade County, Florida
There are two known Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in Miami-Dade, Florida. Rachel Walker, and Tyler Mamone. In January, 2020, I wrote that Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone were not the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys with apparent authority to decide the fate of each accused John Doe defendant, but rather, Lincoln Bandlow was the one apparently running the cases behind the scenes.

More recently, it appears to me as if these Strike 3 Holdings attorneys *are* running the Miami-Dade, Florida cases, but where a defendant lives in a different location, e.g., they live in New York or Connecticut where Jackie James is “in charge” of that region, the case is handed off to Jackie James, and so on.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the currently open Miami-Dade County Strike 3 Holdings cases:

Local Case Numbers (open cases): 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.

California
California Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Lincoln Bandlow of Bandlow Law.

As you have read above, Lincoln Bandlow used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP, where he ran all of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and their cases across the US. But since the shake-up May, 2019, he left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm.

I still think that Lincoln is behind the scenes running each of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed across the US, but I no longer think he has sole authority and decision-making power. I believe that John Atkin (NJ) and Jackie James (NY/CT) also have similar power and authority.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings California cases:

CALIFORNIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings California Central District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 107.184.92.94 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07421)
v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 172.89.57.72 (Case No. 8:20-cv-01520)
v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 104.173.206.190 (Case No. 2:20-cv-07416)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.118.71 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06262
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.164.4 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06261)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.87.197.120 (Case No. 5:20-cv-01393)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.76.115 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06260)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 137.25.32.101 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06808)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.185.19.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-06807)

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

Strike 3 Holdings California Northern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.103.236.62 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04710)
v. John Doe infringer* identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 3:20-cv-04709)
v. John Doe infringer* identified as using IP address 174.62.95.35 (Case No. 4:20-cv-04709)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.103.145 (Case No. 5:20-cv-05221)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.150.134.57 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05220)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.150.134.57 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05220)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.169.103.145 (Case No. 4:20-cv-05221)
v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.176.167.14 (Case No. 3:20-cv-01325)

*[NOTE TO SELF: “Is there a difference between a “John Doe Subscriber” and a “John Doe infringer? No, but the title of being accused as “John Doe infringer” is funny, and here is why.]

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

Strike 3 Holdings California Southern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.176.167.14 (Case No. 3:20-cv-01325)

…Interestingly, not much going on in the California Southern District Court.

Connecticut
Connecticut Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.

Jacqueline James used to represent Malibu Media, LLC, another prolific copyright troll. Jackie was in charge of all of the Malibu Media, LLC cases filed in the New York federal courts.

I consider Jacqueline James to be a “boss” when categorizing her among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in the hierarchy.

Jaqueline James at one point was an important attorney filing many cases for Malibu Media, LLC. She even stayed with them after there was a shake-up of Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, but then one day she stopped filing for them.

It is important to note that Jackie James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC because she dropped them as a client. She did not “swing from one branch to the next” by dropping one client in favor of a more profitable one. When she dropped Malibu Media, LLC as a client, she did not have another client.

It was only later that [I presume] Strike 3 Holdings contacted her and asked her to file copyright infringement lawsuits on their behalf.

Today, she appears to have independent authority and control of her cases, and she is in charge of the Strike 3 Holdings federal court lawsuits filed in New York and more recently, in Connecticut.

When negotiating cases, Jackie James is known to be a difficult negotiator, but she is also fair. Be prepared to support everything you say with facts and if needed, documentation. Jackie James is the kind of attorney who does not simply take statements at face value, but she asks questions and follow-up questions… often which lead to uncomfortable conversations. Again, however, she is not known to gouge on settlement prices, but she is a tough in her approach.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut cases:

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:20-cv-01157, 3:20-cv-00961, and 3:20-cv-00960)

…These are newer cases, and the judge has not yet been assigned for these. I’m guessing Jackie James will be the plaintiff attorney in each of these.

UPDATE: I am happy to share that while searching for Dawn Sciarrino (when writing up the Virginia cases), I could not understand why she would take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client. However, searching for her, I found that Jackie James actually listed her as an attorney under her law firm. While I will post Dawn’s page under her state, because her we are discussing Jackie, you can find Jacqueline James’ profile and website here.

New Jersey
New Jersey Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by John Atkin of The Atkin Firm, LLC.

John Atkin used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP in New Jersey. John Atkin was the only one of the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys handling all of the New Jersey Strike 3 Holdings filings, however, at the time in which he was with Fox Rothschild, LLP, I did not get the sense that he had authority to negotiate the cases himself. Rather, it appeared as if he was local counsel filing cases for Lincoln Bandlow.

That changed in/around May, 2019. As you have read above, in my observation, John Atkin overthrew Lincoln Bandlow’s authority and carved out autonomy for himself among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in the hierarchy. By May, 2019, he already left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm. I learned about this when I started seeing “The Atkin Firm, LLC” on the cases in which I was representing clients rather than Fox Rothschild, LLP.

I still think that Lincoln might still be the “boss” of the various Strike 3 Holdings attorneys across the US along with the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases, but it appears to me as if John Atkin is working on his own (maybe as a co-equal boss with Lincoln Bandlow and/or Jackie James), with sole authority and decision-making power over his cases.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey cases:

NEW JERSEY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings New Jersey District Court

…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.109.249 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10179)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.15.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10180)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.228.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10185)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.202.59 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10173)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.245 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10174)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.157.64 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10181)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.226.89 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10178)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.71.239 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10175)

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

…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.109.249 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10179)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.245.115.134 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10177)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.228.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10185)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.15.186 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10180)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.127.245 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10174)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.114.252 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10183)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.202.59 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10173)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.157.64 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10181)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.226.89 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10178)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.71.239 (Case No. 1:20-cv-10175)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.126.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10184)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.27.165 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10182)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.242.30.49 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10208)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.99.44 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10206)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.102.216.227 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10205)

…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 74.105.217.57 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10207)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.129.28 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10201)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.44.2 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10198)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.166.25 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10202)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.66.59 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10199)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.41.90 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10223)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.185.130 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10222)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.108.155 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10217)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.35.204.190 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10224)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.127.201.146 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10228)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.72.39.170 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10226)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.78.195 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10225)
…v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.201.138 (Case No. 3:20-cv-10229)

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

*NOTES TO SELF: There are TWO IMPORTANT reasons why Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is putting so much money into filing lawsuits in New Jersey:

1) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC almost lost New Jersey as a state in which they would be allowed by the federal court to sue defendants (for lawyers, it was bad case law). For a short while, judges stood up to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and stopped them from being allowed to send subpoenas to ISPs to force the ISPs to hand over the subscriber information to them.

Apparently Strike 3 won that battle, so now they are taking advantage of that “WIN” and suing many defendants in New Jersey.

2) The plaintiff attorney for each of these New Jersey cases is John Atkin of the Atkin Firm, LLC. There is a history WHY John Atkin is important to New Jersey, and that history is uncovered by understanding WHAT HAPPENED with the shake-up of attorneys last year.

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

New York
New York Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.

Just as I described in the “Connecticut” section, Jackie James used to represent Malibu Media, LLC, another prolific copyright troll. Jackie was in charge of all of the Malibu Media, LLC cases filed in the New York federal courts.

I consider Jacqueline James to be a “boss” when categorizing her among the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys in their hierarchy.

Jackie James at one point was an important attorney filing many cases for Malibu Media, LLC. She even stayed with them after there was a shake-up of Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, but then one day she stopped filing for them.

It is important to note that Jacqueline James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC because she dropped them as a client. She did not “swing from one branch to the next” by dropping one client in favor of a more profitable one. When she dropped Malibu Media, LLC as a client, she did not have another client.

It was only later that [I presume] Strike 3 Holdings contacted her and asked her to file copyright infringement lawsuits on their behalf. Today, she appears to have independent authority and control of her cases, and she is in charge of the Strike 3 Holdings federal court lawsuits filed in New York and more recently, in Connecticut.

When negotiating cases, Jacqueline James is known to be a difficult negotiator, but she is also fair. Be prepared to support everything you say with facts and if needed, documentation. Jackie James is the kind of attorney who does not simply take statements at face value, but she asks questions and follow-up questions… often which lead to uncomfortable conversations. Again, however, she is not known to gouge on settlement prices, but she is a tough in her approach.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings New York cases:

NEW YORK STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

New York Eastern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 2:20-cv-03660, 2:20-cv-03654, 2:20-cv-03657, 2:20-cv-03653, 2:20-cv-03646, 2:20-cv-03659, 2:20-cv-03655, 2:20-cv-03648, 2:20-cv-03649, 2:20-cv-03658, 2:20-cv-03647, 2:20-cv-03651, 2:20-cv-03650, 2:20-cv-03656, and 2:20-cv-03399.)

New York Southern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-06030, and 1:20-cv-05425.)

New York Western District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01081, 1:20-cv-01079, 1:20-cv-01084, 1:20-cv-01083, 1:20-cv-01082, 1:20-cv-01085, 1:20-cv-01080, and 6:20-cv-06505.)

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

UPDATE: I am happy to share that while searching for Dawn Sciarrino (when writing up the Virginia cases), I could not understand why she would take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client. However, searching for her, I found that Jackie James actually listed her as an attorney under her law firm. While I will post Dawn’s page under her state, because her we are discussing Jackie, you can find Jacqueline James’ profile and website here.

Maryland
Maryland Strike 3 Holdings cases used to be run by Jessica Haire of Fox Rothschild, LLP, but more recently, they are run by Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez of Clark Hill PLC.

Let’s cover Jessica Haire first.

Pre-May, 2019.

The first time I spoke to Jessica Haire was in March, 2018. She and Lincoln Bandlow were colleagues at Fox Rothschild, LLP and were working together on managing the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases. At the time, whenever I would message Lincoln Bandlow, Jessica Haire would often respond back to me on his behalf.

It is interesting to note, however, that when Lincoln Bandlow left Fox Rothschild, LLP, Jessica Haire continued to work for them. I believe she is still working for them today.

Post-May, 2019:

Elsy Marleni Ramos Velasquez of Clark Hill PLC (“Elsy Velasquez”) is the name of the Strike 3 Holdings attorney who is showing up for the current slew of Strike 3 filings in Maryland District Court. She showed up as a new attorney filing lawsuits for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC [if I recall correctly] shortly after Lincoln Bandlow left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his new law firm.

She works out of Clark Hill PLC, and she works out of their Washington, DC office.

The first time I contacted Elsy Velasquez was in May, 2019 because she was the attorney that was taking over the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Maryland cases after the shake-up of their attorneys.

It is important to note that after a hiatus of filings (probably due to the pandemic), Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has put a lot of faith in Elsy Velasquez by allowing her to file many cases on their behalf.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Maryland cases:

MARYLAND STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Strike 3 Holdings Maryland District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe* (Case Nos. 8:20-cv-02298, 8:20-cv-02299, 8:20-cv-02300, 1:20-cv-02276, 1:20-cv-02271, 1:20-cv-02278, 1:20-cv-02277, 1:20-cv-02279, 1:20-cv-02285, 1:20-cv-02286, 1:20-cv-02284, 1:20-cv-02283, 1:20-cv-02280, 8:20-cv-02287, 8:20-cv-02289, 8:20-cv-02290, 8:20-cv-02291, 8:20-cv-02288, 8:20-cv-02293, 8:20-cv-02292, 8:20-cv-02295, 8:20-cv-02294, 8:20-cv-02296, 8:20-cv-02297, 8:20-cv-02298, 8:20-cv-02299, and 8:20-cv-02300)

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

*NOTES TO SELF: It is important to note that Strike 3 Holdings appears to be putting A LOT of money and resources into filing lawsuits in Maryland.

…The logic is that each of these defendants has money to pay a large settlement to them, or else they wouldn’t file the lawsuit against them.

Also interesting is that EVERY ONE of these Maryland cases were filed on ONE DAY — AUGUST 6TH, 2020.

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

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Jason M. Saruya of Clark Hill PLC.

Jason Saruya of Clark Hill PLC is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the Strike 3 filings in Pennsylvania District Court.

He works for Clark Hill PLC, and he works out of the Philadephia, PA office.

There is not much information about Jason Saruya, but from what I understand, he is a younger attorney, and he is probably working with Elsy Velasquez as his superior, as Elsy Velasquez was the attorney from Clark Hill PLC that took over the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Maryland cases after the shake-up of their attorneys.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Pennsylvania cases:

PENNSYLVANIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Pennsylvania Middle District Court*

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.55.82.15 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01322)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.130.61.38 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01324)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.58.204.183 (Case No. 1:20-cv-01323)

[*NOTE TO SELF: It is interesting that they are filing against defendants in the Pennsylvania MIDDLE District Court, and *NOT* in the Pennsylvania EASTERN District Court (where 99% of copyright troll litigation over the years happens there). I do not have a reason why this is the case.]

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

Virginia
Virginia Strike 3 Holdings cases are run by Dawn Marie Sciarrino of Sciarrino & Shubert, PLLC (more recently, I have found that she is working for Jacqueline James, the Strike 3 Holdings attorney for the NY/CT region).

Dawn Marie Sciarrino is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the Strike 3 filings in the Virginia federal court filings.

MY ORIGINAL WRITE-UP ON DAWN:
Dawn Marie appears to be a partner in her law firm, and she works out of Centreville, VA.

There is not much information about Dawn Marie Sciarrino (even their https://www.sciarrino.com website was down when I tried to reach it).

From what I understand, she has been practicing as an attorney for many years. Her first bar was in New York in 1991, and she has represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for the District of Columbia Circut.

What I do not understand is… [with her background, both educational and vocational] why in the world would she take Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as a client? This makes no sense to me.

UPDATED INFORMATION:
Doing further research, I was very surprised to see that Dawn Sciarrino was listed as an attorney in Jackie James’ website.

Understanding Jackie James’ background and her experience, the connection between Jackie and Dawn became clear. They know each other. It was likely Jackie who suggested that Dawn take the Virginia cases because Strike 3 Holdings, LLC needed an attorney to file lawsuits in the Virginia federal courts against those Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings defendants who did not settle the claims against them.

For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Strike 3 Holdings Virginia cases:

VIRGINIA STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES (7/2020 – 8/2020)

Virginia Eastern District Court

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-00825, 1:20-cv-00823, and 1:20-cv-00824.)

It is now 8/21/2020, 8:30am CDT, and I have written up what I could find on the current list of Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and their Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed both in Miami-Dade, and in the federal courts. Obviously more cases are filed each day, so I will do what I can to keep it current. Also in this article, I am using a new coding feature (new for me, at least) called Shortcodes. If you notice that something isn’t working on the page, or that I broke the code, please e-mail me at [email protected].


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the varioius Strike 3 Holdings attorneys and my experiences with them, 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 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can send a SMS / WhatsApp message to 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.

    Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade Lawsuits are NOT copyright lawsuits.

    strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

    MIAMI DADE COUNTY STRIKE 3 CASES SUE TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE DOWNLOADER, NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

    Strike 3 Holdings LLC is NOT suing defendants for copyright infringement in the Miami Dade County Court in Miami-Dade, Florida. However, they are copying what John Steele of Prenda Law Inc. [now in prison] did with his Lightspeed Media Hacker cases.

    Instead of filing a lawsuit against an accused bittorrent downloader in federal court, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is asking the Miami Dade County Court to reveal the identity of the owners of the accounts from which the downloading allegedly occurred. There is no claim of copyright infringement nor is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC asking the court for money damages.

    Once Strike 3 Holdings, LLC receives the identity and contact information, Strike 3 will likely then threaten a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court if that defendant does not settle the claims against them by paying them settlement money to the tune of thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars.

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

    The Florida-based legal mechanism that Strike 3 Holdings is using is called a Pure Bill of Discovery. I saw these years ago when copyright troll attorneys decided to avoid the federal courts and try to solicit settlements out-of-court under the “threat” that they would file a lawsuit if the defendant did not pay them thousands of dollars.

    A Pure Bill of Discovery tells the court, “So-and-so IP address was seen downloading my copyrighted film. I want to see whether the account holder is the downloader so that I can sue him in federal court. Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I can research my claim.” In reality, the request should be “Please order the ISP to have them give me his contact information so that I will demand from him thousands of dollars or else I will threaten to sue him.”

    I did not like Pure Bills of Discovery then, and I do not like them now. A Pure Bill of Discovery does not protect the identity of the accused defendant from sleazy attorneys using their contact information to extort them for everything they have.

    You can read about the Pure Bill of Discovery topic here.

    miami-dade-county-strike-3 miami dade county strike 3 holdings scheme
    Perlinator / Pixabay

    In the Miami Dade County Florida court, the plaintiff attorneys are Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker — both Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff attorneys who in the past, filed copyright infringement lawsuits against John Doe defendants in federal courts.

    However, apparently these attorneys must have done their research on what John Steele [now in prison], Paul Duffy [now R.I.P.], and Mark Lutz [?] have done in the past, and they must have thought, “why not avoid the federal courts all-together? Let us do exactly what John Steele and his gang did before they were arrested.”

    I initially thought these attorneys wanted to avoid the $400 filing fee, but Miami Dade County has a $300 filing fee. Thus, my only guess as to what these attorneys are up to is that they must be trying to avoid the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the judge’s scrutiny of their Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases (to avoid having them ask whether their lawsuits comprise a settlement extortion scheme).

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

    RACHEL WALKER AND TYLER MAMONE, STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS FEDERAL COURT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS.

    Here, Strike 3 Holdings is not suing only Florida-based defendants. Rather, they are suing defendants from across the country. This is noteworthy, because it shows that they have chosen FLORIDA because of its laws (and the ability to use the Pure Bill of Discovery to circumvent the federal court discovery rules to obtain the contact information of each accused defendant). This is also called forum shopping.

    Rachel Walker and/or Tyler Mamone (the plaintiff attorneys) have asked the court to order that each ISP provide the name and address of the ISP subscriber who was assigned the IP address on the date and time when the alleged instance of copyright infringement occurred. Again, they are not asking for money damages — only subscriber contact information.

    Which obscure ISPs have been ordered to share their subscribers’ contact information?

    ISPs involved in the Miami-Dade County-based Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases include:

    Condointernet.net, Clarksville Department of Electricity, Hotwire Fision, Webpass, US Internet, Wave Broadband, Sonic.net, Sail Internet, Consolidated Smart Systems LLC, San Bruno Cable, CenturyLink [not so obscure], and others.

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

    Strike 3 Holdings LLC appears to have already succeeded in their Miami Dade County Florida Bill of Discovery Cases.

    Accused defendants are now receiving letters from their ISPs (here, obscure ISPs) telling them that the ISP is under a duty to hand over their contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

    Here is my thought: If the accused defendants are already receiving letters, it suggests to me that the courts have starting granting the relief asked for by Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone.

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC MIAMI DADE COUNTY PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY TIMELINE.

    To date, I count only ten (10) Pure Bill of Discovery lawsuits filed by Strike 3 Holdings LLC against “Unknown Infringers Identified on Exhibit 1.”

    However, when I looked at the “Exhibit 1” of each lawsuit, I saw potentially hundreds of defendants hidden inside each case.

    This means that this could be the start of Miami Dade state-based copyright trolling on a massive scale. The cases were apparently first filed on 9/23/2019 and the most recent filing is this past Tuesday, 10/29. No doubt more cases will follow.

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

    MIAMI DADE COUNTY COURT LIST OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:

    At the risk of boring you with this information, I am pasting a list of the cases, including both the Local Case Number and the State Case Number. The name of each case is the same:

    STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1

    Local Case Numbers (open cases): 2020-016660-CC-05, 2020-016669-CC-05, 2020-016577-CC-05, 2020-014518-CC-05, 2020-014520-CC-05, 2020-014481-CC-05, 2020-012478-CC-05, 2020-011743-CC-05, 2020-011744-CC-05, 2020-011499-CC-05, 2020-009492-CC-05, 2020-009491-CC-05, 2020-009493-CC-05, 2020-005388-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05.

    State Case Numbers (open cases): 132019CC024647000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC003737000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC005388000005, 132020CC006500000005, 132020CC009493000005, 132020CC009491000005, 132020CC009492000005, 132020CC011499000005, 132020CC011744000005, 132020CC011743000005, 132020CC012478000005, 132020CC014481000005, 132020CC014520000005, 132020CC014518000005, 132020CC016577000005, 132020CC016669000005, 132020CC016660000005.

    *8/18/2020 UPDATE: Apparently no Florida Miami-Dade judge has put a stop to these cases yet, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC keeps filing. For reference, below are older cases that have been closed. This might seem like good news, but watch the federal court filings — the John Does from these cases are the ones now being sued in the federal courts across the US.

    Local Case Numbers (closed): 2020-006499-CC-05, 2020-006503-CC-05, 2020-005727-CC-05, 2020-003059-CC-05, 2020-003063-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05.

    State Case Numbers (closed): 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC003063000005, 132020CC003059000005, 132020CC005727000005, 132020CC006503000005, 132020CC006499000005.

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

    MY FINAL THOUGHTS ABOUT MIAMI DADE PURE BILL OF DISCOVERY CASES.

    In sum, this is not the first time I have seen a Pure Bill of Discovery case, and I have dealt with them in the past. I personally think that states that still have this cause of action are backwards and judges should not allow plaintiff attorneys to use these cases to perpetuate a grand settlement extortion scheme.

    I also know that Miami Dade County Court is not the only place these Pure Bill of Discovery cases were filed. There are a few select other courts across the US that a Pure Bill of Discovery was attempted, and the results were the same.

    In sum, if Strike 3 Holdings is now trying to avoid the federal courts in order to perpetuate their settlement extortion scheme outside of the federal court’s scrutiny, these cases are about to become much dirtier than they already were.

    Defendants: Is the threat to sue for copyright infringement a bluff? No.

    As far as options on what to do if you receive a notice from your ISP on this lawsuit — an accused defendant is going to face the threat of a federal court copyright infringement lawsuit in their own state’s federal court if they do not settle.

    If they call the bluff of the plaintiff attorney and say “come and sue me,” this is not a deterrent to the plaintiff attorney. The plaintiff attorney will simply sue that individual as a “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address [INSERT IP ADDRESS],” then once the lawsuit is filed in the federal court, they will threaten to name and serve the defendant if he does not settle the claims against him.

    In sum:
    “I don’t like these Pure Bill of Discovery cases. I do not like them at all.”

    If anyone has any questions about these cases, I’d be happy to speak about them further offline.

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


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases and my experiences with them when Malibu Media LLC used this same tactic, 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 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC 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.

      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC (“BLACKED, TUSHY, VIXEN”) ADULT FILM LAWSUITS

      strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement
      strike-3-holdings-blacked-tushy-vixen-awardsgraphic-for-lawsuit Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits for Blacked, Tushy, Vixen adult films

      I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the Strike 3 Holdings LLC (a.k.a. the Strike Three movie titles produced by Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen) 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 Strike 3 Holdings subpoena has been issued to an ISP, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01363) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Strike Three Holdings LLC is listed as the plaintiff.

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Does Lawsuits

      Strike 3 Holdings LLC (a.k.a. “Strike Three Holdings LLC”) is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download or streaming of the adult movie titles produced under the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen brands.  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 Strike 3 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 Strike 3 Holdings 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 Strike 3 Holdings LLC 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 Strike 3 Holdings LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE STRIKE 3 SUBPOENA CASES:

      Strike 3 ISP subpoenas ordered in the California Northern District Court:
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 5:17-cv-05960)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 108.217.228.232 (Case No. 3:17-cv-06055)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 24.143.239.235 (Case No. 3:17-cv-06060)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 24.4.239.115 (Case No. 3:17-cv-06057)
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.252.213.89 (Case No. 5:17-cv-05963)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 76.126.131.175 (Case No. 3:17-cv-06058)

      Strike 3 ISP subpoenas ordered in the Connecticut District Court:
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-01667)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
      (Case No. 3:17-cv-01678)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
      (Case No. 3:17-cv-01679)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
      (Case No. 3:17-cv-01680)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
      (Case No. 5:17-cv-01667)

      Strike 3 Holdings subpoena case in the Michigan Eastern District Court:
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.236.213.91 (Case No. 2:17-cv-13279)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.127.245.75 (Case No. 2:17-cv-13281)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.192.177.96 (Case No. 2:17-cv-13282)
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.192.208.158 (Case No. 2:17-cv-13283)

      Strike 3 Holdings subpoena case in the New Jersey District Court:
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.35.148.30 (Case No. 3:17-cv-10314)
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.54.7.225 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10305)
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.191.216.200 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10297)
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.228.16 (Case No. 1:17-cv-10276)
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.91.109 (Case No. 3:17-cv-10308)
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.195.102.8 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10290)
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.196.168.172 (Case No. 1:17-cv-10285)

      Strike 3 Holdings subpoena case in the New York Southern & Eastern District Courts:
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-05606, 2:17-cv-05630, 2:17-cv-05631, 2:17-cv-05633, 2:17-cv-05634, 2:17-cv-05635, 2:17-cv-05636, 2:17-cv-05637, 2:17-cv-05638, 1:17-cv-07343, 1:17-cv-07344, 1:17-cv-07345, 1:17-cv-07346, 1:17-cv-07347, 1:17-cv-07348, 1:17-cv-07349, 1:17-cv-07350, 1:17-cv-07351, 1:17-cv-07352, 1:17-cv-07353, 7:17-cv-07354, 7:17-cv-07355)

      Strike 3 Holdings subpoena case in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court:
      STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE
      (Case No. 2:17-cv-04797, 2:17-cv-04798, 2:17-cv-04802, 2:17-cv-04803, 2:17-cv-04804, 2:17-cv-04805)

      Strike Three Holdings subpoena cases in the Michigan Western District Court:
      Strike Three Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Assigned IP Address 172.15.113.94 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01000)
      Strike Three Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 107.4.34.188 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01001)
      Strike Three Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 68.56.45.203 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01002)
      Strike Three Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.161.220.250 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01003)
      Strike Three Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 96.36.2.82 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01005)

      *New Cases* filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia:
      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. DOE (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-02338, 1:17-cv-02344, 1:17-cv-02345, 1:17-cv-02346, 1:17-cv-02347, and 1:17-cv-02342)

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Strike 3 Holdings 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 Strike 3 Holdings 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 Strike Three Holdings subpoenas:

      Everything you need to know in one page about your Strike Three Holdings LLC (movie titles produced by Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen) Movie Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” written on 11/5/2017
      SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE STRIKE THREE LAWSUITS AND THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS,” written on 11/15

      HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A STRIKE 3 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 (here in Texas, Gary Fischman) 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 Strike Three Holdings LLC 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 are websites (e.g., The Pirate Bay) which, on their face, appear to be innocuous.  However, unbeknownst to the end user, The Pirate Bay shares a bittorrent file with the end user’s bittorrent software.  It through the download of the pirated videos included in the bittorrent file that the account holder gets ‘caught’ downloading the video, because his/her real IP address is exposed as the bittorrent software joins the user to one or more bittorrent swarms in order to acquire the video.

      Streaming movies via bittorrent is the newest way to get caught.

      Unfortunately, it is not always known whether a video source is legitimate or not.  For example, the videos presented on The Pirate Bay (as the name describes) 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., which are legitimate.  However, there are many “in between” websites which appear to be legitimate, but may not be.

      Regardless of the intention of how the adult film 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 Strike 3 Holdings LLC 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. Strike Three Holdings LLC 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 Strike Three Holdings LLC 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 Strike 3 Holdings LLC 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: STRIKE THREE SUBPOENAS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM

      Any Strike Three Holdings LLC “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the Strike 3 subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  Tracking a Strike Three Holdings 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 Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits stemming from adult film titles produced by Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen.

      Strike 3 Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

      A Strike Three 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 Strike Three Holdings LLC’s movie titles under the Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen brand names.

      Strike 3 Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

      The federal judge approves the Strike 3 subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the Strike 3 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 Strike 3 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 Strike 3 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 Strike 3 subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

      The ISP forwards the Strike 3 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 Strike 3 subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Does lawsuit.  At this point, you are still anonymous.

      The ISP complies with the Strike 3 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 Strike 3 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 Strike 3 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 Strike 3 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 Blacked, Tushy, and/or Vixen branded movie titles, 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 Strike Three Holdings LLC 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 Strike 3 Holdings LLC 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 Strike Three Holdings LLC 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 Strike 3 Holdings LLC 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.

        MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (“X-ART”) LAWSUITS, STRATEGIES, SETTLEMENTS.

        malibu-media-case-consolidations

        I have added this page for internet users who have been entangled in the Malibu Media, LLC (“X-Art”) cases.  Malibu Media, LLC is an adult film / pornographic film producer, and they sue individual John Doe Defendants for the bittorrent download of “siterips” based on their demographics in federal courts across the US.

        The goal of this page 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, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber having IP address 182.765.456.844 (Case No. 7:12-cv-03812) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Malibu Media, LLC is listed as the plaintiff.

        WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS (FAQ):

        Below is a good starting point to understand who Malibu Media, LLC is, and why you are being sued.  For a more in-depth article on the Malibu Media, LLC copyright trolling scheme, visit the “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (‘X-ART’ SITERIP) MOVIE LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA” article on my Cashman Law Firm, PLLC site.

        WHAT IS MALIBU MEDIA, LLC?

        Malibu Media, LLC is the company filing the copyright infringement lawsuits for the “x-art.com” adult film website.  Since 2012, Malibu Media, LLC has flooded the federal courts over 6000+ copyright infringement lawsuits based on bittorrent downloads of their adult film movies.  Each lawsuit sues for the illegal download of one film, but alleges that the defendant downloaded 20-80 additional titles.  They seek $150,000 in statutory damages for the download of that one film.

        Malibu Media, LLC is notorious for accusing downloaders of downloading “siterips,” where an internet user clicks on one (1) bittorrent file, but within that bittorrent file are 20-80 additional videos.  People claim that Malibu Media, LLC is ‘leaking’ and uploading these siterips themselves, and then tracking the bittorrent swarms to see who downloads them.

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

        What is Malibu Media’s affiliation with Guardaley?

        Malibu Media, LLC has been intimately associated with a German company called Guardaley to track their bittorrent swarms and provide so-called forensic “evidence” in the many lawsuits.  Guardaley is a questionable company and their tracking methods have been discredited by the German courts.  Guardaley is known to claim that an accused defendant downloaded an entire file (or a set of videos) as soon as he or she clicks on the bittorrent file and loads up the bittorrent software (before even a byte of data is even downloaded).  Many accused defendants that I have spoken to claim that they never finished any of Malibu Media, LLC’s downloads (yet they were sued anyway).

        How does Malibu Media, LLC choose which downloader to sue?

        Once a Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader, they continue to track that downloader over the course of months.  Lawsuits are filed against downloaders based on the geolocation of where the accused downloader apparently lives.

        MALIBU MEDIA USES INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS BASED ON ZIP CODE TO DETERMINE WHO TO SUE.

        Malibu Media has been known to check the location of the IP address against a list of zip codes, and compare those zip codes to demographic income information and home property values within those zip codes.  Poorer communities generally are discarded, and wealthier communities end up prioritised and sued.  The reason for this is that wealthier professionals have larger bank accounts, more assets, larger families, and are likely professionals and specialists within their trade, meaning that they are more apt to settle a lawsuit filed against them for the download and viewing of pornographic materials.

        How much does Malibu Media, LLC ask for in a settlement?

        In a settlement negotiation, Malibu Media, LLC knows that copyright holders traditionally ask for $3,500 for the download of one title.  They also know that settlements can be anywhere between $1,500-$1,800 once negotiated by an attorney.  For this reason, they start their negotiations at $1,500 PER TITLE when they are called by an accused defendant.

        Thus, an accused downloader who was claimed to download 20 titles should expect an initial settlement offer of $30,000 ($1,500 x 20 = $30K; an obscene number).

        As soon as an attorney opens up settlement negotiations, Malibu Media, LLC is known to immediately drop the settlement asking price to $750 PER TITLE (they refer to this as ‘minimum statutory damages,’ which multiplied by the number of titles they ask for in a settlement results in an obscene settlement asking price).  From there, we would normally determine 1) whether to settle or fight the case based on the merits of the lawsuit (many of my clients simply do not do the download), or 2) whether to negotiate down from there.

        What about Malibu Media anonymous settlements?”

        Malibu Media, LLC settlements, with some tweaking of the settlement agreement during the settlement negotiations can be an anonymous settlement.  There are a small number of settlement factory attorneys who are advertising and advocating “anonymous settlements.”  Buyer beware, as settling anonymously in the way they suggest can expose you to additional lawsuits, AFTER you have just paid Malibu a settlement.

        Click here to read about “Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer,” written on 7/23/2017.

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

        How our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC uses LEVERAGE to minimize the settlement amount.

        Because we are willing to fight each case on the merits (remember, Malibu Media lawsuits are based on Guardaley tracking methods, which are faulty), we do have leverage to negotiate the settlements down to something significantly more reasonable.  Up front, I do not encourage settlements nor do I push them on clients (especially if they did not do the download), but settlement negotiations are a good tool to consider when deciding whether to proceed with defending the case in court, or whether offering a settlement can minimize the costs to accused defendants.

        (If we are fighting, here is a settlement tactic:  Remember, if a settlement is offered and we end up fighting the case, and the ultimate judgement amount ends up being LESS than the settlement amount we offered, Malibu Media, LLC’s attorneys will likely be liable to the accused defendant for ALL THE ATTORNEY FEES SPENT AFTER THE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS MADE.)

        HOW MALIBU MEDIA, LLC OPERATES THEIR LAWSUITS ACROSS THE U.S.

        Malibu Media, LLC (and correspondingly, Guardaley) operates their lawsuits from one central location.  They usually choose a figurehead, or a law firm to manage and coordinate all of the attorneys filing lawsuits on their behalf across the US.

        Until 2016, Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were run by Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb & Eisenberg (now defunct, I believe).  After Lipscomb, they were temporarily run locally from a law firm called Pillar Law Firm, and now I have reason to believe they are apparently being run by Carl Crowell and his RIGHTSENFORCEMENT entity.

        WHY DID LIPSCOMB AND MALIBU MEDIA, LLC PART WAYS?

        The reason Keith Lipscomb and Malibu Media, LLC parted ways was because Lipscomb apparently did not pay Malibu Media, LLC the millions of dollars they made in settlements.  

        I have analyzed the numbers and it is unclear whether the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits were profitable for Lipscomb, or whether he is yet one more copyright troll attorney who has cheated his copyright troll client.

        WHERE IS MALIBU MEDIA SUING DEFENDANTS?  WHAT ATTORNEYS ARE THEY USING?

        Malibu Media appears to be focusing their lawsuits in Texas, and the New York / New Jersey / Connecticut tri-state area.

        Malibu’s attorney for the Texas cases is Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm.

        Malibu’s attorney for the NY & CT cases is Jacqueline James.

        Malibu’s attorney for the NJ cases is Patrick Cerillo.

        You can read the details about these three Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, here.

        There are other attorneys filing Malibu Media cases across the US, and I have listed the main attorneys below.  Those that file sporadically have been dropped from the list.

        List of Malibu Media, LLC single-defendant cases filed as of 3/17/2017:

        Jacqueline James (28% of all Malibu Cases)
        Connecticut (38 Cases)
        New York (40 Cases)

        Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg (16% of all Malibu Cases)
        Texas (42 Cases)

        Patrick Cerillo (14% of all Malibu Cases)
        New Jersey (38 Cases)

        Joel Bernier (6% of all Malibu Cases)
        Michigan (MIED) (16 Cases)

        Mary Schulz (4% of all Malibu Cases)
        Illinois (ILND) (12 Cases)

        Jon Hoppe (3% of all Malibu Cases)
        Maryland (7 Cases)

        Jordan Rushie (3% of all Malibu Cases)
        Pennsylvania (PAED) (8 Cases)

        John Decker (1% of all Malibu Cases)
        Virginia (VAED) (3 Cases)

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

        TorrentLawyer Malibu Media, LLC Articles:

        Below are recent articles we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have written on the Malibu Media, LLC plaintiff:

        Malibu Media anonymous settlement, a misnomer.,” written on 7/23/2017

        Judge forces Malibu Media to reveal the accuracy of their geolocation technology,” on 5/10/2017

        Malibu Media movies, and why it is important to know this list,” written on 5/5/2017.

        Malibu Media Cases and Why To Track Their Monthly Filings,” written on 5/4/2017.

        Turnkey ‘Settlement Factory’ Defense Attorneys and Malibu Media LLC,” written on 3/29/2017.

        Malibu Media, LLC appears to be adhering to an ‘Old Guard, New Guard’ distinction between their older and newer attorneys,” written on 3/13/2017.

        Confirmed: Malibu Media invests in $400 filing fees at $20,000/month,” written on  3/13/2017.

        2017 Malibu Media – Where Cases Are Filed and Who are the Attorneys?” written on 3/13/2017.

        Malibu Media, LLC cases facing hard scrutiny in California,” written on 12/23/2016.

        Malibu Media, LLC appears to be on a $20,000/month filing budget,” written on 12/23/2016.

        Was Lipscomb’s Malibu Media v. Doe campaign profitable?” written on 12/22/2016.

        What happened to Malibu Media, LLC in April 2016?” written on 12/21/2016.

        Is Malibu Media “faking” the publication requirement in their lawsuits?” written on 2/9/2016.

        Judge rules that (Guardaley) German investigator’s evidence is insufficient to prove direct infringement” written on 7/28/2015.

        My Response to the yet-to-be-written guilty verdict in the Malibu Media, LLC Bellwether Trial (PAED)” written on 6/12/2013.

        Malibu Media targets rich neighborhoods, and introduces prejudicial character evidence into each case” written on 6/4/2013.

        UNDER THE RADAR, 122 MALIBU MEDIA LLC ‘SINGLE-DOE’ CASES FILED,” written on 3/7/2013.

        California Judge Consolidates ALL Malibu Media, LLC Cases, and WHY THIS IS BAD,” written on 7/12/2012.

        (UPDATED) Forum Shopping by Malibu Media, LLC Copyright Trolls” written on 5/7/2012.

        Malibu Media, LLC cases go down in FLAMES in Virginia,” written on 4/3/2012.

        Malibu Media, LLC – Friend or Foe?  Foe!” written on 3/23/2012

        Malibu Media, LLC — New “Copyright Troll” on the Block,” written on 3/6/2012.

        FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.  

        To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  

        Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

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

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

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

          LIST OF MALIBU CASES FILED TO DATE (2017 CASES ONLY, AS OF 3/12/2017)

          Cases in the Connecticut District Court (38)
          Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

          Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:17-cv-00187, 3:17-cv-00188, 3:17-cv-00189, 3:17-cv-00190, 3:17-cv-00195, 3:17-cv-00203, 3:17-cv-00213, 3:17-cv-00219, 3:17-cv-00220, 3:17-cv-00221, 3:17-cv-00223, 3:17-cv-00224, 3:17-cv-00225, 3:17-cv-00227, 3:17-cv-00229, 3:17-cv-00230, 3:17-cv-00232, 3:17-cv-00233, 3:17-cv-00249, 3:17-cv-00250, 3:17-cv-00251, 3:17-cv-00252,  3:17-cv-00253, 3:17-cv-00254, 3:17-cv-00256, 3:17-cv-00257, 3:17-cv-00258, 3:17-cv-00259, 3:17-cv-00271, 3:17-cv-00272, 3:17-cv-00273, 3:17-cv-00274, 3:17-cv-00275, 3:17-cv-00276, 3:17-cv-00277, 3:17-cv-00278, 3:17-cv-00279, 3:17-cv-00280)

          Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (12)
          Attorney: Mary K. Schulz of the Media Litigation Firm, P.C.

          Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 208.59.138.51 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01183)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.89.147 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01190)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 50.172.197.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01195)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 67.175.128.50 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.168.198.228 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01197)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.74.242.152 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01200)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.27.62.75 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01201)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.28.181.87 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01202)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.231.75.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01206)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.206.219.205 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01210)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.75.40 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01396)
          …v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address96.95.112.34 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01209)

          Cases Filed in the Maryland District Court (7)
          Attorney: Jon Alexander Hoppe (“Jon Hoppe”) of the Law Office of Jon a Hoppe, Esquire

          Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 8:17-cv-00397, 8:17-cv-00396, 1:17-cv-00402, 8:17-cv-00401, 1:17-cv-00398, 1:17-cv-00399, 8:17-cv-00400)

          Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court (16)
          Attorney: Joel A. Bernier of Sheikh Legal Services PLLC
          176 S. Main St., Suite 1, Mount Clemens, MI 48043 ([email protected])

          MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:17-cv-10422)
          v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10426)
          v. IP Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 5:17-cv-10426)
          v. IP Address 68.32.2.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10432)
          v. IP Address 68.49.201.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10442)
          v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10443)
          v. IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10445)
          v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10444)
          v. IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 4:17-cv-10444)
          v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10446)
          v. IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10447)
          v. IP Address 68.60.174.21 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10448)
          v. IP Address 98.209.250.195 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10449)
          v. IP Address 98.224.223.170 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10450)
          v. IP Address 99.37.173.71 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10451)
          v. IP Address 68.40.27.99 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10441)

          Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court (38)
          Attorney: Patrick Joseph Cerillo (“Pat Cerillo”)

          MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01246, 2:17-cv-01251, 2:17-cv-01237, 2:17-cv-01240)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.207.93 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01239)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.206.172 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01172)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.167.50 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01185)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.52.134 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01182)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.147.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01183)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.252.54 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01193)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.124.255 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01228)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.54.44 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01232)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.249.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01233)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.197.251 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01234)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.93.127 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01236)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.82.37.90 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01252)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.64.114 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01271)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.77.86 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01272)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.117.66.98 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01261)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.118.248.215 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01273)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.122.18.0 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01275)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.237.206 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01262)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.239.77 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01265)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.211.121 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01279)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.10.138.235 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01266)
          v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.199.240.186 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01229)
          v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 96.248.95.37 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01268)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.35.167.198 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01180)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.53.193.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01188)
          v. JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.116.23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01179)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.124.120.156 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01276)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.15.229 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01277)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.160.218.175 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01307)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.168.244 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01310)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.197.106.118 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01315)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.248.226.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01317)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.116.108.250 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01319)
          v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.57.99.138 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01321)

          Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court (10)
          Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

          Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-01079, 2:17-cv-01078, 2:17-cv-01084, 2:17-cv-01077, 2:17-cv-01083, 2:17-cv-01076, 2:17-cv-01081, 2:17-cv-01080, 2:17-cv-01075, 2:17-cv-01082)

          Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court (30)
          Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

          Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00983, 1:17-cv-00985, 1:17-cv-00987, 1:17-cv-00988, 1:17-cv-00989, 1:17-cv-00992, 1:17-cv-00994, 1:17-cv-00995, 1:17-cv-01065, 1:17-cv-01067, 1:17-cv-01068, 1:17-cv-01069, 1:17-cv-01070, 1:17-cv-01072, 1:17-cv-01074, 1:17-cv-01075, 1:17-cv-01076, 1:17-cv-01078, 1:17-cv-01088, 1:17-cv-01094, 1:17-cv-01095, 1:17-cv-01096, 1:17-cv-01097, 1:17-cv-01098, 1:17-cv-01099, 1:17-cv-01100, 1:17-cv-01101, 1:17-cv-01102, 7:17-cv-00981, 7:17-cv-00982)

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

          Cases Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (8)
          Attorney: A. Jordan Rushie (“Jordan Rushie”) of Flynn Wirkus Young PC / Rushie Law

          MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00662, 2:17-cv-00509, 2:17-cv-00506, 2:17-cv-00510, 2:17-cv-00508, 2:17-cv-00507, 2:17-cv-00512, 2:17-cv-00511)

          Cases Filed in the Texas Southern District Court (42)
          Attorney: Andrew Darshan Kumar (“Andrew Kumar”) and Michael J. Lowenberg (“Mike Lowenberg”) of the Lowenberg Law Firm

          Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 4:17-cv-00413, 4:17-cv-00415, Case No. 4:17-cv-00417, 4:17-cv-00418, 4:17-cv-00420, 4:17-cv-00421, 4:17-cv-00422, 4:17-cv-00423, 4:17-cv-00424, 4:17-cv-00425, 4:17-cv-00465, 4:17-cv-00466, 4:17-cv-00468, 4:17-cv-00469, 4:17-cv-00470, 4:17-cv-00471, 4:17-cv-00472, 4:17-cv-00473, 4:17-cv-00474, 4:17-cv-00475, 4:17-cv-00476, 4:17-cv-00477,  4:17-cv-00478, 4:17-cv-00479, 4:17-cv-00480, 4:17-cv-00481, 4:17-cv-00482, 4:17-cv-00483, 4:17-cv-00484, 4:17-cv-00485, 4:17-cv-00486, 4:17-cv-00487, 4:17-cv-00488, 4:17-cv-00489, 4:17-cv-00490, 4:17-cv-00491, 4:17-cv-00492, 4:17-cv-00493, 4:17-cv-00494, 4:17-cv-00495, 4:17-cv-00497, and 4:17-cv-00498.)

          Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (3)
          Attorney: John Carlin Decker, II (“John Decker”) of the Law Office of John C. Decker II
          5207 Dalby Lane, Burke, VA 22015 (John is still using his Verizon e-mail when he files the lawsuits — [email protected])

          Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00192, 1:17-cv-00193, 1:17-cv-00194)


          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.

            Why I suspect MG Premium Ltd. will soon be suing defendants.

            mg-premium-ltd-lawsuits-coming

            MG Premium Ltd. is the owner of the websites containing adult content, [specifically, “Reality Kings,” “Brazzers,” “MOFOS,” “Babes.com,” “Twistys,” and others]. While at the moment they appear to be merely “shaking down” adult film websites [e.g., last year, WAXTUBE.COM; this year, YESPORNPLEASE.COM and/or VSHARE.IO], I cannot help but to think that MG Premium Ltd. will soon be suing downloaders accused of streaming their copyrighted adult films on Tube-like websites. 

            [Less likely (because they have already tried this in the US with CEG-TEK), I suspect that MG Premium might again begin sending DMCA settlement demand letters to US-based accused internet users just as they are currently doing in Sweden as I write this article (currently, they are trying to shake down 16,594 accused internet users in Sweden who have been observed downloading their adult film titles).]

            mg-premium-ltd. Pornhub has been ordered to expose copyright infringers

            Why I think MG Premium’s lawsuits will catch internet users who are STREAMING CONTENT rather than downloading videos on BITTORRENT SWARMS:

            In April of 2017, I suggested that in the future, internet users will be caught viewing streamed Tube-like videos.  I suggested that based on the Pornhub lawsuit (MG Premium Ltd. owns Pornhub.com), viewers of adult content would get caught by the Google Analytics tracker which is installed on many websites using Google Analytics to track their users. 

            This would be a “next-gen” kind of lawsuit where the copyright holders move past tracking bittorrent use (an outdated method of tracking downloaders), and they would start using the pirated porn websites themselves to track the users by their IP address.

            Unfortunately, I was wrong about the tracker, but I was right about the concept.  Instead of Google Analytics, I should have been looking at Cloudflare, the content delivery network (“CDN”) provider which hosts a majority of the content online. 

            In the near future, I expect [from mere 1+1 observation] that MG Premium Ltd. will soon launch lawsuits against John Doe defendants… but not based on bittorrent use.  Rather, they will have companies such as Cloudflare turn over the IP address logs of which IP addresses accessed the pirated adult films on which dates and times.

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

            WHO IS MG PREMIUM LTD.?

            MG Premium Ltd. is a subsidiary of Mindgeek. According to Ernesto from Torrentfreak, “[MG Premium Ltd.] the company, formerly known as Manwin, owns one of the most visited adult websites, Pornhub, and is also the driving force behind YouPorn, Redtube, Tube8, Xtube, and dozens of other sites.”

            TechNadu, “MindGeek is the owner of Pornhub, one of the most visited porn websites in the world, as well as the owner of well-known adult production companies.”

            NOTE: MG PREMIUM LTD. ALSO USED TO ACT UNDER THE NAME FROYTAL SERVICES LTD., THEN THEY ACTED UNDER THE NAME “MANWIN CONTENT.”

            HISTORY: MG PREMIUM LTD USED A COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY TO SEND DMCA SETTLEMENT DEMAND LETTERS.

            The last time I saw MG Premium Ltd. acting in the “copyright trolling” space was in 2014-2016 when they hired Copyright Enforcement Group (“CEG-TEK”) to send settlement demand letters asking for money every time an accused downloader downloaded one of their thousands of copyrighted titles.

            At the time, MG Premium Ltd. was using the business entity name “Froytal Services Limited”. I was tracking them for some time trying to warn those downloading their titles that they will receive a settlement demand letter from MG Premium Ltd. and others using CEG-TEK’s services. At the time, they were asking for $300/title allegedly downloaded, but back then, the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC “Tushy, Vixen, and Blacked” lawsuits did not yet get started.

            In 2015, the average settlement for an MG Premium Ltd. case was something like $900 (~3 titles displayed on CEG-TEK’s page). Now we are seeing Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits ask for settlements closer to $30,000 or $40,000 and I have no doubt that MG Premium Ltd. has noticed.

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

            MG PREMIUM LTD. IN 2015:

            In 2014-2015, most internet users at that time were fearful about $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuits filed in federal courts, as we see today with the Strike 3 Holdings LLC and (and in past years with the Malibu Media LLC lawsuits).

            In 2015, MG Premium Ltd. (via CEG-TEK) went around the US federal courts and used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to “politely ask” the ISPs to forward their settlement demand letter to ISP subscriber’s e-mail address on file.

            Using DMCA settlement demand notices [which went into the e-mail inbox of ISP account holders], MG Premium Ltd. accused the ISP account holders of copyright infringement.

            They threatened that they could file a copyright infringement lawsuit against them in federal court. However, “to avoid litigation,” they were willing to have the accused downloaders pay CEG-TEK (their agent) a modest settlement anonymously and conveniently using a credit card.

            CEG-TEK was the company they hired to set up the settlement payment website and to handle the settlement negotiations should an accused downloader have multiple titles claimed against him (and most did).

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

            I knew that tracking the piracy of every one of their adult films was prohibitively expensive because the huge amount of computer resources it would take to track every single bittorrent swarm containing the various versions leaking on the internet of each of their movie titles (1080p, 720, high definiton (HD), low definition, clips, siterips, mistitled swarms, etc.).

            Thus, I realized that MG Premium Ltd. merely resorted to selecting adult film videos (their most “popular” titles) which they believed would yield the largest number of settlements. For this reason, I posted an list of titles that MG Premium Ltd. was tracking.

            The fall of CEG-TEK and the end of MG Premium Ltd.’s copyright trolling DMCA settlement campaign:

            There is a lot of history in what ended up killing CEG-TEK’s DMCA settlement business, but to keep things simple, many ISPs got together and created the Six Strikes Anti-Piracy System where the ISPs stopped forwarding CEG-TEK’s settlement demand letters (cutting off MG Premium Ltd.’s ability to collect settlement payments).

            Instead of forwarding the DMCA settlement demand letter, under the Six Strikes System, ISPs simply notified their customer that copyright infringement had occurred on their internet connection, and if it did not stop, they would share their identity with the copyright holder (exposing that internet user to a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court for $150,000 per instance of infringement).

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

            The immediate result was that big ISPs were no longer forwarding CEG-TEK’s settlement demand letters. CEG-TEK then expanded the list of ISPs that agreed to forward its DMCA settlement demand letters, but in the end, to no avail.

            While the Six Strikes System was meant to support the copyright holders’ interests by sharing user information with them, instead it killed the business of the copyright enforcement companies. It also caused other non-member ISPs to also start refusing to comply with the DMCA rules [as companies such as CEG-TEK and MG Premium Ltd. were exploiting them] by refusing to forward settlement demand letters in their entirety.

            Most notable of these ISPs was COX Communications, which was eventually sued by BMG for refusing to send over DMCA notices to its subscribers. There is no doubt a lot to write about the BMG v. Cox lawsuit, but the focus in this article is on MG Premium Ltd., CEG-TEK’s old client.

            The Six Strikes System eventually ended (as far as I know), but before this occurred, the idea of sending DMCA letters to internet account users became a useless endeavor.

            The last time I spoke to CEG-TEK, they were waiting for the outcome of the BMG v. Cox lawsuit to determine whether they could continue their proprietary DMCA settlement demand letter “adult film copyright enforcement” business, or whether they would sell it to the highest bidder.

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

            I suspected at one point that Malibu Media LLC or other prolific copyright trolls would buy CEG-TEK’s DMCA settlement website and proprietary technology, but due to circumstances of Malibu Media LLC filing lawsuits against its own attorney Keith Lipscomb (the attorney running all of the Malibu Media LLC adult film lawsuits across the US), the sale to Malibu Media LLC never happened. (In full disclosure and in hindsight, CEG-TEK would never have sold their business model to Malibu Media LLC based solely on the fact that CEG-TEK tried its best to keep its operations legitimate and Malibu Media LLC had a bad reputation).

            Instead, the CEG-TEK company is gathering dust and happily, no MG Premium Ltd. settlement demand letters have been sent out [to US internet] users since 2016.

            WHAT NOW?

            So where do we go from here? Honestly, at this moment, nowhere. The BMG lawsuit ended with COX settling the claims against it (giving DMCA settlement demand letters from companies such as CEG-TEK and Rightscorp (music) some “teeth” — because now copyright owners could force ISPs to shut down the internet accounts of those accused of copyright infringement — but those who were running CEG-TEK already moved on to other business ventures.

            CEG-TEK is in the dustbin, for the moment, adult film company Malibu Media LLC lawsuits have stopped because Malibu Media LLC again is in litigation with their new attorneys, and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases are floundering like a fish-out-of-water with some federal court rulings killing their business method of suing accused downloaders for copyright infringement in federal court.

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

            The new tactic of “shaking down” large websites hosting pirated content.

            No doubt the new tactic of going after the large websites hosting copyrighted content is a very profitable idea for the adult film copyright holders. Instead of shaking down end-users (downloaders) for a few hundred dollars per video, they can shake down significantly deeper pockets — the adult film websites hosting “free” adult film content [and, consequently making millions of dollars in advertising revenue]… and the adult film movie copyright holders want every penny of that revenue.

            I am seeing the same trend on the movie front. I understand that movie companies have been going after the websites that are hosting copyrighted movie content… first The Pirate Bay… and most recently, IceFilms.info (currently down, and possibly down forever).

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

            My Thoughts: Staying Away From Downloaders is a Good Thing for Downloaders.

            If the movie companies and the adult film companies can succeed in shutting down the website owners who host the unlicensed copyrighted movies AND they stop trying to sue and extort thousands of dollars from each accused internet user who was observed downloading the copyrighted movies, this would be a good outcome.

            Of course, millions of users who rely on pirated movies and TV shows would be temporarily unable to access their movies without paying some cable company provider or subscription-based providers such as Hulu, Disney+, Netflix, etc., but at least the focus of the copyright holders will be in the right place — trying to stop the AVAILABILITY of pirated content.

            …but “a scorpion cannot act in any way other than a scorpion.”

            And yet, out comes the jaded part of me which laughs when I consider that “a scorpion cannot act in any way other than a scorpion.” MG Premium Ltd., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and other movie copyright trolls are not going to change who they are. They may shed their skin and change their tactics momentarily (perhaps now moving from tracking accused downloaders on Bittorrent to tracking them using Cloudflare or Google Analytics), but they will not stop going after the most profitable source of revenue… the collective deep pockets of those accused of downloading their copyrighted films.

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

            If you are old enough to get the “Little Shop of Horrors” reference, maybe giving the venus fly trap “a drop of blood” at a time to keep it momentarily satiated will stay the coming copyright infringement lawsuits (the “drop of blood” = each movie website who pays the copyright holders a multi-million dollar settlement).

            But eventually, I have NO DOUBT that the words “FEED ME SEYMOUR!” will once again begin to ring in the halls of the federal courts across the US as new lawsuits are filed against accused downloaders yet again.

            This time, however, I suspect that the copyright trolls will have changed their skin. They will no longer sue accused internet users who used BITTTORENT to download their copyrighted videos, but rather, they will use big-tech companies such as Cloudflare and Google as partners in their “Anti-Piracy” campaign to sue each IP address who visited a particular website and who streamed a particular video on a particular date.

            Comparing the Little Shop of Horrors' Venus Fly Trap (Audrey II) to MG Premium Ltd. and their desire for a "drop of blood."
            Comparing the Little Shop of Horrors’ Venus Fly Trap (Audrey II) to MG Premium Ltd. and their desire for a “drop of blood.”

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


            [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about MG Premium Ltd. or anything else I have written here, you can e-mail me at [email protected], you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your circumstances, 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