Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.

An article about Manny Film LLC lawsuits shifts towards Defense Attorney Tamaroff who once represented defendants but became a copyright troll.

Manny Copyright Troll

PERSONAL NOTE: I started writing this article about the Manny Pacquiao film lawsuits, and the more I read about the cases, the more upset I got. The gist of the article was originally going to be that the same plaintiff “copyright troll” attorneys who have been filing cases against John Doe Defendants for their Malibu Media LLC client are the same attorneys for the many Manny Film LLC cases filed across the U.S.  Thus, we will be able to predict when representing clients what they will be doing with these lawsuits.

However, there is a real story here with the Manny Film LLC lawsuits, and that story is how the copyright trolls have succeeded in luring those who I considered my peers (fellow defense attorneys) to switch sides to the plaintiff “copyright troll” side of these abusive lawsuits and start suing the very same group of people they once built their reputation swearing to protect. That’s the real story.

Imagine you are downloading the “Top Ten Pirated Movies” from TorrentFreak… Exodus: Gods and Kings… The Hobbit… Fifty Shades of Grey… the newest Hunger Games… and you say, “oh yeah, let me pull that crappy looking movie that is also here, Manny (2014). Maybe it will be the new Rocky.”

How upset would you be after you wasted 88 minutes of your life that you will never get back, and you realize that critics HATED the film? How much more upset would you be when you receive a subpoena notice in the mail from your ISP that you have been sued in federal court for the piracy of …not Fifty Shades of Grey… not the Hobbit or Hunger Games… but for that Manny Pacquiao film?!? How much more upset would you be when you find out that the copyright holder / corporate entity for that Manny Pacquiao film, “Manny Film LLC,” has hired Lipscomb & Eisenberg, the law firm behind ALL of the copyright troll attorneys who have been filing the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits all across the U.S.?

Then, how would you feel if you found out that the local attorneys hired by Lipscomb generally don’t play fair when discovery is requested, or when a valid defense is asserted? And when you learn that all of the Malibu Media dirty little secrets that their digital forensics are flawed (just as Manny Film LLC’s forensics are probably equally as flawed), how would you feel then when they block your attempts at discovering the truth of their operation?  Then, when you decided to make a reasonable offer to settle the claims against you, how would you feel when the plaintiff attorneys reject your reasonable offer, and instead they offer you an INCOME-BASED SETTLEMENT — a settlement NOT based on the fair market value of the movie you downloaded, but rather a settlement based on your neighborhood’s median income based on public information and property values in your zip code?

Yep, I could imagine you’d be a bit upset.

Let’s make this a bit more personal.  As of writing this article, it appears as if over 150 cases have been filed so far in four (4) states — New Jersey, Ohio, and notably, Florida and Pennsylvania.  The plaintiff attorneys in the Manny Film LLC  cases are the same attorneys that you will find for the Malibu Media lawsuits, and thus we already have an idea of what to expect from each character:

Yousef Faroniya is handling the Ohio lawsuits. He’s the one who doesn’t like speaking to people over the phone.

Keith Lipscomb himself is the attorney handling the Florida lawsuits (although I suspect he’s the kingpin behind all of the lawsuits filed in every state).

Jordan Rushie is handling the New Jersey lawsuits (I half expected him to take the PA lawsuits as well since PA is his backyard, but Lipscomb’s local counsel Chris Fiore [who successfully filed many cases against John Doe Defendants and is best known for Malibu Media’s first “win” in the PA courts under what are known as the Malibu Media Bellwether cases] already was there as a copyright troll for Keith Lipscomb). The interesting part about Jordan is that he’s a “switch-hitter.” One day, he’ll represent a defendant, and the next day, he’ll represent a copyright troll. Perhaps he likes boxing, or maybe with the dissociation of his partnership with Leo Mulvihill at the Fishtown lawyers, he’s looking to either make a name for himself, and teaming up with the largest of the copyright trolls is a way to get everyone’s attention.

What bothers me about Jordan Rushie playing plaintiff is that I suspect that he is an apprentice of Marc Randazza (I expect Marc has mentored him quite well since they started working together in 2012). Thus, anyone who knew the then-innocent Jordan Rushie from before the partnership (you know, the guy who posted on twitter comments and even made a YouTube video about his leather briefcase, and asking the Twitter world which bag looked most professional so that he can look good when he shows up in court) will likely see a very different and more seasoned Jordan Rushie with these lawsuits.

Since I mentioned Marc’s name, Marc Randazza was the plaintiff attorney for the Liberty Media Holdings, LLC (most notably, Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. John Does 1-441 where he broke the mold of how far a copyright troll is willing to push a lawsuit, where while most copyright trolls only huff and bluff about naming and serving defendants, Marc didn’t even threaten to do so — he just did it. His settlements were also significantly higher than the average and included questionable stipulated settlements. Jordan Rushie in 2012 became his local counsel, and no doubt, the schooling Marc hopefully has given him will make Jordan a formidable attorney to anyone who downloaded that Manny movie.

Lastly, I don’t know if I read this correctly, but I think (UPDATE: I did, and I am very upset about this) I also saw that David Tamaroff and Daniel Tamaroff of their Tamaroff & Tamaroff Law Firm were the plaintiff attorneys for all of the Florida Middle District cases. This is not only upsetting — this is a betrayal, as David and his brother Daniel have spent so much money, time, and effort trying to build their practice on the DEFENSE side of things. Why they would ruin their reputation and start representing the copyright troll side of the lawsuits is beyond me. Don’t they realize that copyright trolling is a slippery slope, and eventually it leads to the copyright troll losing his law license?!? All I could say to them is, “Tread carefully. Trolling is a slippery slope, especially with the company of folks you’ve aligned yourselves with.”

There you go. The Manny film. Quite honestly, who cares even a little bit about the film. The people behind the Manny film obviously have crooked morals, as they have chosen Lipscomb and the Malibu Media gang to use their copyrighted film to extort money from what will be countless internet users. I wonder how many of those who will be the accused downloaders even watched the film that they downloaded, and if so, I wonder whether they recall the experience, and would they do it again if they knew what was going to happen to them next. AT LEAST when speaking to Malibu Media defendants, I sometimes get a guilty chuckle from the accused downloaders saying, “yeah, those were good videos.”

[HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE, AND INTERESTING FACT:) IN 2015, YOU CAN SEE THAT I SUSPECTED THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS FILING THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS WERE THE SAME ATTORNEYS FILING THE MALIBU MEDIA PORN-BASED LAWSUITS, BUT BACK THEN, I COULDN’T PUT MY FINGER ON IT.

COMMON THREAD: GUARDALEY. GUARDALEY WAS NOT ONLY THE FORENSIC COMPANY BEHIND THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS, BUT IT IS NOW COMING OUT THAT THEY WERE ALSO BEHIND OF THE MAINSTREAM MOVIE LAWSUITS FILED ACROSS THE U.S., LIKELY — EVEN THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS I WROTE ABOUT HERE.]


FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: 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.

shalta boook now cta

Filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (NJD)
Plaintiff Jordan Rushie sometimes misspelled on the court record as, “Jordan Rusie of Flynn Wirkus Young PC”

Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01497)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01498)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01529)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01530)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01531)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01533)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01534)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01539)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01564)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-01565)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01482)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01483)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01484)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01487)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01488)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01495)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01503)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01504)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01517)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01518)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01520)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01521)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01522)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01523)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01528)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01532)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01535)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01536)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01537)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01538)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01540)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01541)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01542)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01489)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01490)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01545)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01552)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01553)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01554)
Manny Film LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-01557)

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED)
Plaintiff Attorney: Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01157)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01156)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01158)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01159)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01163)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01164)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01165)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01166)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01167)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01168)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01170)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01171)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01172)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01173)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01174)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01175)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01176)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01178)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01179)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-01180)

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (OHND)
Plaintiff Attorney: Yousef Faroniya

Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00465)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00466)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00467)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00463)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00464)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00461)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00462)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00451)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00460)
Manny Film, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-00444)

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (FLMD)
Plaintiff Attorney: Daniel F. Tamaroff & David F. Tamaroff of Tamaroff & Tamaroff

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00262)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No.3:15-cv-00263 )
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00265)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00266)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00366)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00368)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00370)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00371)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00373)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00374)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00377)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00378)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00380)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00381)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00382)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:15-cv-00264)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00365)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00367)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00369)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00372)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00375)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 6:15-cv-00379)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00506)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00507)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00508)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00509)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00510)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00495)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00496)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00497)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00498)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00499)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00500)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00501)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00502)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:15-cv-00145)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00503)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00504)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:15-cv-00505)

Filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida (FLSD)
Plaintiff Attorney: M. Keith Lipscomb of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PLLC

Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60454)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.175.83 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60455)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.249.236.20 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60456)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.242.147.5 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20923)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.26.2.226 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80306)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80307)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20924)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80301)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80302)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.177.255 (Case No. 9:15-cv-80303)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.74.122.227 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20920)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.110.203.201 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20921)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.226.21 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60444)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.176.99.53 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60445)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 66.229.140.101 (Case No. 0:15-cv-60446)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60447)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20905)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80298)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60448)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20907)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:15-cv-80297)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60453)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60438)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60440)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60441)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 0:15-cv-60442)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.56.69 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20894)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 174.61.157.43 (Case No. 1:15-cv-20895)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20896)
Manny Film LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-20899)

18 thoughts on “Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.”

    • In the context of this article, if you were not using a VPN, AND you downloaded this film via bittorrent, then everyone with whom you transferred the file to and downloaded from could know your true IP address (and thus, you could be the subject of a lawsuit when the attorney files a lawsuit and asks the judge to force the ISP to disclose the identity of the subscriber who was assigned that IP address on that date and time). A VPN would hide your IP address, so unless there is something called a DNS Leak, there is less of a chance of being “seen” or “caught” downloading.

      Obviously this is a legal blog and using bittorrent to download copyrighted videos is a real no-no. That being said, if you were choosing a VPN for privacy purposes, you would be looking for one which does not keep logs on your activities. That way, should you accidentally come into contact with a bittorrent swarm which is monitored by the copyright holder (or companies hired to enforce said copyright), your real IP address (and thus your identity) would be hidden from view.

      Reply
  1. Hi Rob! Great article and you didn’t even “pull a punch” or two. OK bad joke. 🙂 But still probably better than this movie that costs “Millions” of dollars to make. It seems awful suspicious that a movie that got such a rotten review somehow was leaked onto BitTorrent before its official release.

    What a neat idea: pre-screening the movie tell the owner that it sucks. So what do you do??? You have someone on the “inside” leak it onto BitTorrent. You then hire the sleaziest BT Copyright Trolls to try to recoup all that money you spent. Well based off the two previous movies (A Good Man & Puncture Wounds) Lipscomb and crew are working, “bomb” movies or direct-to-DVD titles may be their next golden cow.

    I don’t know if you saw that for now Colorado may not be a Lipscomb stronghold anymore. Jason Kotzker appears to have moved on.

    Lastly, have you seen who is the “expert” or “technician” they are using to get early discovery? I would be surprised if it is Daniel Macek.

    DTD 🙂

    Reply
  2. I often sympathize with these attorneys who have found a “client” that timely pays their invoices in full on time. Malpractice insurance, mandatory Continuing Legal Education courses, state bar renewal fees, and too many office and operating costs and expenses to mention are enough to make you wonder why you got into this profession in the first place, and make you wonder why you stay in the profession.

    How could you turn down the lure of reliable BitTorrent Plaintiff money? I, myself, have one definitive reason. His name is Delvan Neville. If you are a defense attorney in BitTorrent cases and don’t talk to Delvan, then, I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t be handling these cases. And if you have switched sides after retaining an expert who has filled you in on what zeh Jermuns actually do to initiate these cases, then, ethically and professionally speaking, you have to be a Piece Of Shit. Just like Tinder’s servers, Excipio’s servers only have so much room.

    The Bigger Piece Of Shit is zeh at-tunneece fur zeh Jermuns who never asked or asks any questions about vut effiduntz zeh Jermuns axe-shul-lee hov tuh shah zat eh lee-gall infringement hoz awe-curds. Or, who asked, got the right answer, and decided, fuck it, I’m gonna do it anyway. In other words, you’re either ignorant and violating your ethical responsibilities or you’re purposely violating your ethical responsibilities.

    Reply
  3. Let’s look at the numbers. How many cases Tamaroffs will be able to file in a single jurisdiction? 20? 30? First, they need to continue saying with a straight face that they are after “only the most egregious infringers,” but it’s a different matter.

    Lipscomb & Co ask $7,400. I guess it is easily negotiated down to $5,000.

    So, 50 cases, with a settlement rate 50% (it is lower, but I want to get the upper estimate) yields $5,000 x 15 = 75,000. What is the ransom cut. Say, it’s 30% (I have the exact number for a different troll’s stooge, but can’t find it right away).

    So, $23K.

    This is the price of your dignity, David.
    This is the price of your integrity, Daniel.

    Reply
  4. They call me a terrorist, a psychopath, and some try to silence me speaking out about these travesties. It speaks volumes about the credibility of these upstanding examples of the legal profession.

    We will continue tilting at the windmills.
    We will educate your targets about the flaws to kill your settlement rates.
    We will tell the world about the shoddy cases.
    We will find every little dark secret, and shine a light upon it.
    We will take delight ripping apart your dreams of easy money.

    I’ve been at this as long as anyone in the game, and I am just getting warmed up. There are more of us than ever before, all watching & taking notes. Troll titans have fallen in our wake, and they told themselves they were smarter than those meddling kids from the internet just like you are now.
    The smart money is on us meddling kids from the internet, we have a really good win record.
    Steele, Duffy, Gibbs, Stone, Randazza and so many other locals who were left holding the bag. Ask Nazrine how that is working out for him, it got so bad that he had to bang on the desk and scream racism as a distraction.

    This is how trolling ends, not with a whimper but with banging on the desk looking for any possible out… no matter how outrageous. You lick your wounds, and then have to deal with the sanctions and those who enforce those pesky ethics rules.

    Oh and to borrow a phrase…
    Expect Us.

    Reply
  5. Using FCT numbers and going according to what #Prenda trolls cut was 15% of settlements.defaults,,,the rest of course going to Steele and Duffy. Don’t know what Lipscomb gets to “manage” them all – but even at a full 15% FCT example results of 23k drops significantly and one has to wonder ‘WHY? Get the seeder – it wasn’t a JD, but someone in the process of making the documentary to be able to leak it before release. Deja vu business plan on making money on a movie that wouldn’t make any upon release?

    Reply
  6. I remember Rushie’s briefcase blog. Inspires me to blog on the awesomeness of my Michael Kors Travel Tote. However, I will still happily remain on the defense side of BitTorrent cases.

    Reply
  7. so one of my close friend is actually one of the guys who are being filed against. what should does anyone what should he do? he seems so distraught. he’s already unemployed and looking for a job. I cant imagine how he would go about going to pay for all the fees.

    Reply
    • Believe it or not, many of the Manny Film targets have (in my experience) been in the exactly the same situation. I suppose these are Lipscomb’s unintended consequences that he sued a bunch of people, and didn’t get the “rich folk” he expected to.

      Reply
      • It seems to me that new “non porn” troll endeavors were a total failure for Lipscomb and the Germans. In the current state of awareness and availability of good advice, the “business” is not as lucrative as in the past. I observe too many dismissals w/o prejudice indicating that the gamble of going ahead with single-infringement lawsuits is statistically a loss.

        One Poplar Oak lawsuit (J. Rushie), in which defendant in his/her Motion to Quash admitted sharing, was dismissed without prejudice yesterday, 3 weeks after the troll learned the defendant’s identity (I have a tentative plan to cover this story). Telling.

        Currently the only two strategies that make the profit margin positive and reasonably large are:

        1) Lumping defendants together, albeit in smaller groups. The majority of Guardaley/Voltage suits explore this route.

        2) Alleging infringement of a copyright-in-suit, thus raising stakes dramatically. This is the Malibu model. Keith Lipscomb is really disturbed by one recent default judgment in Florida (the judge awarded only $6,000 for the entire “suit” (47 titles), essentially, and IMO rightfully, treating it as a single work for the statutory purposes). I would be surprised if Lipscomb didn’t file a motion for reconsideration: this ruling is a fatal blow to his cash cow (he, of course, did).

        Single-work, single-defendant lawsuits don’t work anymore. At least their profitability is too low for such an ambitious troll as Lipscomb. Thus, I predict that this experiment will fade away giving way to a new sleaze our Miami “genius.” Which one? We don’t know yet.

        Reply
  8. My ISP shut down my internet yesterday because of CEG TEK International had filed that my IP address was flagged as downloading copyrighted material. Well, when I called Suddenlink, they told me to change my password, it was probably a hack. We also checked all the IP addresses in my house and none matched. They said CEG would most likely not pursue, if I tell them we changed the password and that was not my IP address. Well, that’s not what I got from CEG. They want me to pay for all 8 Porno downloads that we did NOT download. The girl did tell me to look for the Torrent software on my 15 yr old sons laptop, since he’s a gamer. Sure enough, it was there, but had a date from a couple of months ago. These downloads that they are charging for were from June 17 & 18. If they know about this Torrent software issue, why not go after them? Why go after a 15 yr old kid who did nothing wrong. My main concern is, can they do anything? They are charging $300 for 8 items. She said they would settle for less. I told her I don’t have money to pay and really don’t understand how they can charge me since I don’t have that IP address. She said Suddenlink gave them my info saying it was registered to my account. Feeling really pissed and wondering if there’s a Class Action Lawsuit anywhere or maybe we should start one!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Skip to content