NY Judge asks Malibu the ‘is porn copyrightable’ question.

malibu-media-case-consolidations

Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York just did the right thing in denying “expedited discovery” which would allow Malibu Media, LLC to send a subpoena to the Time Warner Cable ISP, thus preventing Malibu Media from learning the identity of the John Doe Defendant.

The copyright troll blogosphere is no doubt about to erupt with this story — in fact, the Twitter feed is already bustling with comments from Sophisticated Jane Doe (@FightCopytrolls), Raul (@Raul15340965), and other bloggers. Bottom line, a United States District Court Judge just said “no” to allowing Malibu Media’s extortion scheme to proceed.*

Judges are the gatekeepers of the law, and the reason these cases have been allowed to fester and infest our legal system is because judges [until now] have been asleep. They have blindly allowed the plaintiff copyright trolls the ability to wreak havoc on the accused downloaders by allowing the copyright trolls access to them so that they can intimidate, harass, embarrass, and threaten to deplete all of the funds of the accused defendant’s [sometimes life] savings in order to avoid the costly alternative of litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit.

For the purposes of this article, I am focusing on two points which I found to be interesting in today’s Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04369; NYSD) ruling (see Judge’s order here).

RULING 1: OBSCENE PORNOGRAPHY MIGHT NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION.

This ruling (based on Judge Marrero’s Next Phase Distribution, Inc. v. John Does 1-27 (Case No. 284 F.R.D. 165, 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)) case is the “third rail” issue in copyright troll litigation. Do copyright rights extend to pornographic materials? What if they are considered “scenes a fair,” or scenes which contain the same “roles” and “characters” as in other films — are these considered copyrightable (keep the same story, scene, genre, and roles, but switch the actors)? Are these works considered art? And, what happens if the copyrighted film violates one or more obscenity laws — does that film still have copyright protection?

These are just questions, and to date, they are unresolved. However, the fact that Judge Hellerstein brought it up means that he is seriously considering whether this should be a basis to deny copyright infringement claims against John Doe Defendants.

Reference: See my 8/14/2012 article entitled, “How to make bittorrent cases go away once and for all…” (Reason 3)

RULING 2: MALIBU MEDIA ACCUSES A JOHN DOE DEFENDANT, BUT PROVIDES **NO EVIDENCE** THAT THE “JOHN DOE” DOWNLOADER IS THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. THUS, THERE IS **NO BASIS** FOR SUING THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OR IMPLICATING THE ACCOUNT HOLDER AS BEING THE “JOHN DOE” DOWNLOADER DEFENDANT IN THE LAWSUIT.

This has always been a blatantly simple, and yet tough argument to describe. But when you think of it, the simplicity — once it jumps out at you with the “aha!” moment — is charming and unforgettable.

In short, Malibu Media can prove that SOMEONE downloaded one or more of their titles. However, they do no prove (or even assert any evidence) to indicate that it was the account holder who downloaded the copyrighted film… so what legal basis does Malibu Media have to sue the account holder?? Judge’s answer: None.  In order to make a “prima facie” case that would convince a judge to rubber-stamp a subpoena permitting the copyright holders to force an ISP to turn over the identity of the account holder (whether or not he is the actual downloader), the copyright holder needs to provide some “link” identifying the actual downloader as being the account holder. No link is ever provided in Malibu Media’s pleadings, and thus in legal terms, the pleading “fails” and the copyright holder’s request for expedited discovery should be denied.

That’s it.  My two cents, for what it is worth.

Congratulations to District Judge Hellerstein for a brave and correct ruling on the law. Now if all of the other judges in the Eastern District of New York would fall in line with this ruling and abandon the “my court, my world, my rules” mentality, we can put an end to these cases once and for all.

Additional Reference:
Fight Copyright Trolls (SJD): Citing previous Malibu Media’s sheer abuse of court process, New York judge denies early discovery

*UPDATE (7/7, 6:30am): I am surprised that there are not more articles on this topic.  This should be all over the news for other NY judges (and judges in other federal district courts) to see.  Unfortunately, if other judges do not see [and act on] this ruling, then it gathers dust and it has little-to-no effect on future Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits. …and the scheme continues unhindered.


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

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

    shalta boook now cta

    OTHER RECENT MALIBU MEDIA (NYSD) CASES:
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04713)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04717)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04720)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04725)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04728)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04729)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04730)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04731)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04735)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04736)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04738)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04732)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04733)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04734)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04741)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04742)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04743)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04739)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04740)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04744)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04745)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04367)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04374)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04370)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 7:15-cv-04377)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04368)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04369)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04371)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04373)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04378)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04380)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04381)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-04382)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03130)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03135)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03137)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03138)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03143)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03144)
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:15-cv-03134)

    Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases receive scrutiny from proactive federal judge.

    Florida Manny Film cases receive scrutiny from a proactive federal judge.

    3/17 UPDATE: Judge Matthewman filed the identical “order to show cause” as described in yesterday’s “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article. (Thanks to SJD @fightcopytrolls’ Twitter post [and link] for tipping me off to this trend.)

    What this means is that as of this afternoon, the judge has begun to scrutinize the other Manny Film, LLC cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court (this time, Case No. 9:15-cv-80298). This one is due April 1st, 2015. I would not be surprised if the judge continues to go down the list of “Manny Film” cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court and kills each one, one “order to show cause” at a time.

    It is also important to note that in my estimation, the Manny Film LLC lawsuits are “cut-and-paste” lawsuits copied from the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits filed across the United States.  Unfortunately for Keith Lipscomb (the mastermind behind each of the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, and now, the mastermind behind each and every Manny Film LLC lawsuit soon-to-be-filed across the U.S. District Courts), these ‘orders to show cause’ pose an existential threat to not only the Florida-based federal cases, but also to the other Manny Film LLC cases filed in the other federal district courts (upon which these Florida federal cases [when considered by the other federal judges] will be PERSUASIVE).

    EDUCATIONAL NOTE: Even if all of the Manny Film LLC cases go away, the “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article is still helpful to discuss the concept that “an IP address (even one tracked to a particular defendant’s address using “solid” geolocation software) is INSUFFICIENT to identify and sue the account holder as the defendant in a bittorrent copyright infringement lawsuit.” Using the geolocation data alone as their source of “evidence” to support their claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff cannot properly state that the defendant 1) lives in the district for venue purposes, and 2) the plaintiff arguably even “fails to state a claim” against the accused defendant (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) language) because such geolocation software “evidence” does not prove (or sufficiently state) that the accused defendant is the downloader.


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

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

      shalta boook now cta

      Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)

      Manny Black Eye

      It appears to me as if the Manny Film geolocatoin-based bittorrent piracy lawsuits in Southern Florida have just received their first black eye.

      The Federal District Court in Florida has been grappling these past few years with the question of whether geolocation software is sufficient to identify the accused downloader. In short, federal venue rules (according to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(a)) state (in the context of a bittorrent piracy lawsuit) that in order for a copyright holder to file a lawsuit against a John Doe Defendant, the copyright holder must assert that the accused John Doe Defendant a) lives in the federal district in which the lawsuit is filed, and b) that a substantial part of the downloading and/or uploading happened in the federal district. The purpose for this is so that the defendant is sued in the right court.

      However, in following the “bouncing ball” of the legal argument at play, the Florida federal court has realized that the plaintiff and all of its complicated geolocation software cannot prove the identity of any defendant. Not even one.

      The Manny Film plaintiff can prove an IP address was connected to a bittorrent swarm that was downloading and distributing an unlicensed copy of the copyrighted film. They can prove that the IP address can be traced to a location (e.g., the accused downloader’s house). However, there is a logical gap between knowing the location where the download happened, and knowing that the accused defendant [most frequently, the account holder] was the downloader.

      HERE’S THE KICKER… if the geolocation software cannot assert who the downloader is, how can the Manny Film LLC copyright holder assert 1) that the accused downloader was the one who was using the computer to download the copyrighted film (they have not placed him at the keyboard at the time of the download), and 2) if the Manny Film LLC copyright holder cannot bring any proof through their geolocation software — their only source of evidence — to determine who the accused downloader is, how can they competently state for the purposes of satisfying the venue requirement that the the accused downloader (whoever he or she might be) lives in the state in which the lawsuit is filed?

      “Judge, I don’t know who the downloader is, but if I did know, he would live in your district!” – Copyright Troll

      This brings me back to this nuanced argument where I was trying to frame it in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Here is an e-mail that I wrote on November 8th, 2012 (remember, our older articles are still relevant even today):

      I don’t know how to put this more plainly, and I HATE a “silver-bullet” argument, but I fail to see the weakness in a [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)] motion for failure to state a claim where the plaintiffs only know a) that an IP address downloaded the stuff, and b) that the named defendant is the account holder. It’s a fine point [which in my mind can be hammered home in the courts] but I understand the argument to be that assuming everything in the plaintiff’s complaint to be true, there is nothing that implicates the named defendant to be the person who did the download. In other words, there is no conclusive link [perhaps I need to do more research as to how strong the link needs to be to survive a 12(b)(6) motion] between the real defendant as referenced in the complaint [or who this person should be], and the named defendant [the ISP account holder].

      Two analogies — 1) someone makes an incriminating phone call; there is no proof that the person who pays the phone bill (subscriber) made the call; 2) someone’s car does damage — [barring the negligence claim, which other attorneys here have done a wonderful job of killing] is the owner liable for torts that are committed with his car if the plaintiff cannot prove that he was in the car when it caused the damage?

      In short, an IP address is NOT a person, and proving that an IP address did the download does not prove that the subscriber was the one who did the download. 

      So, turning back to the Manny Film LLC (Case No. 9:15-cv-80290) case in the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman references various Malibu Media LLC films lawsuit orders, and in turn orders the Manny Film LLC plaintiff to answer the same questions which killed the Malibu Media v. John Doe (Case No. 14-cv-20213) case and related cases.  In the Malibu Media, LLC 14-CV-20213 case, (just for completeness,) Judge Ungaro stated “there is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district.”

      The plaintiff has until March 31st, 2015 to do so, or else his Manny Film LLC cases filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida will all be in jeopardy (remember, a ruling in one case in a particular district is BINDING on other cases in that district).

      [HINDSIGHT: (2017 UPDATE, AND INTERESTING FACT:) LITTLE DID I KNOW BACK IN 2015 THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE ATTORNEYS FILING THE MANNY FILM LAWSUITS WERE THE SAME ATTORNEYS FILING THE MALIBU MEDIA PORN-BASED LAWSUITS.

      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 book now cta

        Also see: Manny Film LLC bittorrent lawsuits are really a story of defense attorney betrayal.” (3/13/2015)

        OTHER AFFECTED MANNY FILM LLC CASES:

        In the U.S. District Court for 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)

        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)

        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)

        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)

        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)

        Need to rehash some bittorrent concepts because they are just as relevant today as they were five years ago.

        Every few years it is important to rehash some older bittorrent concepts which are still relevant to today’s copyright infringement lawsuits.

        In July, 2010, this blog was started to address the at-the-time unknown problem of copyright trolling.  For years, myself and my staff wrote articles explaining the business model of copyright trolling, which at the time was an adaptation of patent trolling (where “patent trolls” would file [often frivolous] lawsuits against alleged infringers who refused to pay what appeared to be a “shakedown” of the patent holders [e.g., “pay us or else you will end up having to pay even more to defend the claims against you in a federal court”], even when the patent being asserted against the would-be infringer had absolutely nothing to do with the product the targeted company was producing).

        There were common threads between patent trolls and copyright trolls, and as the cases developed, there were common themes of how a copyright troll must act to make his model of extorting the public (the bittorrent internet users) profitable.  At the time, that included questions of 1) where and how can a copyright enforcement company or lawyer sue a group of defendants (personal jurisdiction), 2) how to link non-related downloaders into a cohesive set of defendants into a cohesive set of “John Doe Defendants,” (joinder, and my controversial strategy to force a copyright troll to sue the entire bittorrent swarm when a defendant is named and served) and 3) how to avoid risking the potential settlements from hundreds or thousands of accused bittorrent users by moving forward and “naming and serving” one or more defendants.  There were also time limits they faced based on a) how long the ISPs retained the records of which IP address was leased to which account holder / subscriber, b) statute of limitations on how long a copyright holder has to file a lawsuit, and c) how long a copyright troll attorney may keep a case alive before a judge imposes the time limits described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP Rule 4m, a.k.a. the “120 Day Rule”).

        Then, over the years, there arose a confusion under the discussions of “net neutrality” asking questions such as whether an internet service provider (ISP) was governed under the cable act, and if so, under what title.  The reason for this was that there were allegations that various ISPs were outright sharing the contact information of its subscribers without valid court orders to do so, thus violating the privacy rights of its subscribers.

        In sum, there were a lot of issues, and we tackled each one over the course of almost five years.  The goal was to educate the bittorrent user and the accused downloader about the issues so that they understand how to act, react, and in many cases, fight against a group of attorneys with questionable ethics.

        The problem is that these articles — the ones that have been so helpful to tens of thousands of accused defendants — these articles have been buried by the search engines because they are simply now aging and many articles are now many years old.  An accused defendant can no longer search for a “copyright troll” on Google and find any of my older articles.  [And, enterprising attorneys (and good for them) have put up websites containing SEO-based content full of keywords in hackneyed sentences, but devoid of useful content (e.g., the “contact our law firm, we can help you with your copyright troll lawsuit issue” type of website), while what I consider to be the “useful” content (not only mine, but content written by other attorneys in their blogs, and proactive users [really, trailblazers such as “Sophisticated Jane Doe” of FightCopyrightTrolls and “DieTrollDie”] in their respective blogs) is no longer accessible by typing the name of the particular copyright troll, issue, or case that has been recently filed.

        What I will be doing to remedy this as far as this blog is concerned — and I apologize up front to the thousands of you who get updated on each and every article that I or a staff member of mine writes — is that I need to rehash some of the “older” content on the educational topics that I have already covered in the blog ad nauseam.  The reason for this is that the older content explaining the legal concepts in terms of the bittorrent lawsuits (and now in terms of the DMCA letters being sent to subscribers through the ISPs) is just as relevant today as it was five years ago.  There has been little-to-no judicial or legal oversight of the copyright trolls from the attorney generals of each state and from the lawmakers (both federal and in each state), and the problem and issues surrounding “copyright trolling” is just as relevant today as it was almost five years ago.

        For these reasons, I need to violate my own preference not to repeat information or content that has already been described or hashed-out in previous articles (my opinion is that one article describing a topic is enough, and writing multiple articles containing the same topic “waters down” or “cheapens” the content of a website).  The reason I now feel the need to rehash some of the older topics is to re-teach those who have not yet been victimized by the copyright trolls, as my older articles are no longer found, even by those looking for that particular topic.

        ALSO.  Copyright trolls are now enjoying a seed of legitimacy by the courts, where once upon a time us defense attorneys were “winning” the cases by arguing concepts such as “an IP address does not equal a person,” or “my client had an open wireless router, it could have been anyone who downloaded this video,” the arguments themselves have also aged and are now increasingly being ignored by the courts, even though the arguments remain “an elephant in the room,” meaning, just as valid today as they were yesterday.  On the flip-side, faulty and failed arguments (e.g., “are you negligent if you let someone else use your internet connection to commit copyright infringement” [Answer: NO!]) are being reasserted by the copyright trolls, and to my utter disbelief, they are not immediately being dismissed by the judges as being a faulty argument.

        Copyright trolling has not changed in the past five years, and the successful arguments defending a case do not deserve to be ignored just because they have been used successfully by defendants in older lawsuits which too are aging.  Ignoring good case law is contrary to law, as successful arguments in one jurisdiction are binding on all other judges in that federal district, and are persuasive on cases in the federal districts in other cases.  Yet, I see more and more lawlessness in judges who ignore the case law from not only other jurisdictions, but from their own jurisdiction as well (creating a “split” in the court), and they are denying a John Doe defendant’s ability to assert what was a successful argument in another court (even one binding upon them in their own jurisdiction).

        In sum, judges are allowing plaintiff copyright holders to sue larger number of defendants each week, even though nothing has changed making this new trend permissible (in my opinion, whether 200 defendants were sued by a plaintiff attorney in one lawsuit or in ten cases [having 20 defendants in each case] filed in the same week still means that 200 defendants were sued; it does not matter that the plaintiff made the cases “appear” to be smaller, especially if they are implicating the same bittorrent swarm in each of the ten cases).

        Remember, the underlying copyright troll business model of “shakedown, extort thousands of dollars from each defendant, but avoid moving forward against anyone [but pretend that you are prepared to move to trial]” is still the same as it was five years ago.  It should not matter whether the content of the lawsuit is a Hollywood movie or an adult film.

        [2017 UPDATE: Carl Crowell has created a new entity called RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT which has reverse-engineered CEG-TEK’s proprietary DMCA copyright infringement notice system.  Many of you have visited CEG-TEK links thinking that RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT was CEG-TEK, but really they are an ‘evil twin’ competitor.  Since the two entities operate almost the same way, e.g., sending DMCA copyright infringement notices to the subscriber directly via the ISP, this article is also relevant to RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT.]


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

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

          shalta book now cta

          CA District Court Decides on the Definition of Copyright Infringement

          A California Court Defines BitTorrent Copyright Infringement. Many things just happened in the Central District of California which no doubt will affect many (if not all of the Ingenuity 13 LLC cases, along with all of the Guava cases, and the AF Holdings LLC) cases. In short, California is no longer a troll-friendly place to sue defendants for copyright infringement.

          Looking at Judge Otis Wright’s order yesterday in the Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:12-cv-08333) case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, we learn many new things about “the law of bittorrent use.” I’ll go over these in separate headers.

          RULE 1. IN ORDER TO SUE A DEFENDANT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MUST PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT DOWNLOADED THE ENTIRE COPYRIGHTED VIDEO.

          I’ve always dumbed copyright infringement down into two elements: 1) “Access” to the copyrighted file, and 2) “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY” to the copyrighted work.

          Here according to the judge, a plaintiff catching a downloader in the act of downloading a file is no evidence that the file was actually downloaded. According to yesterday’s ruling, even a downloader downloading a viewable portion (e.g., a few second snippet of a copyrighted video) would still NOT be guilty of copyright infringement until the amount of the file downloaded rises to a “substantial similarity” to the original copyrighted work. In traditional copyright law, this means that copyright infringement happens when the downloaded file becomes substantially a “copy” of the entire original work.

          Us lawyers have been bouncing around ideas as to what we think a judge might rule constitutes copyright infringement with regard to internet downloading and bittorrent use, and so we have been playing with the possibility that maybe having a viewable portion of the file downloaded might be sufficient, but NO. Sticking to black-and-white copyright law, the “substantial similarity” element applies in copyright law to bittorrent downloads as well (at least now in California federal courts), and according to this ruling, a plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the entire copyrighted video (not a fragment, a snippet, or a snapshot) was downloaded. This would absolve roughly 99% of accused downloaders across the U.S. who started to download a file, decided not to complete the download, and who got sued anyway.

          RULE 2. A “SNAPSHOT OBSERVATION” OF AN IP ADDRESS ENGAGED IN DOWNLOADING AT THAT MOMENT IS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

          Here, all the evidence a copyright troll plaintiff has on a suspected defendant is that at a particular date and time (a “timestamp”), that particular IP address was engaged in the downloading of a particular copyrighted file.

          Here, a “snapshot” of an IP address correlated with evidence from the subscriber’s internet service provider (“ISP”) [that it was the subscriber who was leased that IP address during the date and time the alleged activity took place] is insufficient proof that the download actually took place. The defendant could have merely entered the swarm and could be in queue to download his first byte of data. The defendant could be 10% done with the download and could have in his possession an unviewable fragment of the copyrighted video — hardly enough to rise to the level of “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY” that is required in order to find a defendant guilty of copyright infringement. And, yet at the same time, that same snapshot could refer to a defendant having a download which is 99% complete.  A snapshot of an IP address in a bittorrent swarm is simply not conclusive that the downloader infringed the copyright.

          The analogy the judge gives is taking a “snapshot” of a child reaching for a candy bar. In order to find someone guilty of copyright infringement, a plaintiff needs to prove that it is “more likely than not” that activity rising to the level of copyright infringement occurred. A snapshot places the defendant at the “scene of the crime.” It does not convict him for the unlawful act itself, and usually this is all the evidence a plaintiff copyright troll compiles when tracking a bittorrent swarm.

          RULE 3. BEFORE SUING A DEFENDANT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, YOU MUST DO A “REASONABLE INVESTIGATION” TO DETERMINE THAT IT WAS THE NAMED DEFENDANT WHO DID THE DOWNLOAD, AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE WITH ACCESS TO HIS INTERNET CONNECTION.

          We have known for a while that the Prenda Law Inc. model of naming defendants is 1) find out who lives in the household, 2) name the prepubescent male member of the family as the defendant. I am sad to say that the Malibu Media, LLC and the Lipscomb cases appear to be following the same trend with their exculpatory letter “scare” strategy.  I am very happy to see a judge object to this tactic.

          I want to point out that EVERY LAWSUIT ACROSS THE U.S. where the copyright troll (plaintiff) has named the ISP subscriber as the defendant with no further investigation suffers from this same flaw. We have been saying for months that being an ISP subscriber (and coincidentally the one implicated as the defendant in these cases) does not mean that you were the one who did the download (nor were you responsible for all activities that took place on your internet connection).

          The judge described steps a plaintiff could take to rule out the possibility that it was not someone other than the defendant who did the download. For example, the plaintiff could drive up to the defendant’s house and see if there is wireless access (to eliminate the defense that it was a neighbor); they could track multiple instances of downloading and correlate them with times and dates the defendant was home; etc. etc. etc.

          There is so much more on this topic that I could discuss that in my opinion could kill every copyright troll lawsuit out there. In sum, merely citing that an IP address assigned to the alleged infringer was engaged in an unlawful act does not mean that it was the ISP subscriber (the one paying the bills) who was engaged in that unlawful act. Failing to take that extra step of “putting the ISP subscriber at the keyboard at the time of the download” (or offering evidence to prove that it was the ISP subscriber himself who did the download, and not a neighbor or someone else in his household) would be fatal to any lawsuit.

          IN SUM, this was a great decision, and I look forward to it being adopted by federal courts across the country. But, before everyone starts calling and assuming that this is “the law,” I want to point out that in 99% of the states across the U.S., what exactly constitutes copyright infringement when it comes to internet downloading via peer-to-peer networks is still largely undefined.

          As of yesterday, this order is now considered “the law” or more accurately “case law” which is binding in the California federal courts. However, as to the federal courts of other states, this ruling is merely “persuasive” (which effectively means “suggestive”). A judge of any other state can read this ruling and agree, or disagree. Obviously my hope is that judges in other states will read this opinion and adopt the ruling in their own cases, but it is not “the law” until 1) Congress passes a statute which the Senate ratifies, and the President signs it into law, or 2) judges in each state rule in accordance with this opinion, making this “case law” one state at a time.

          For more on this topic, Sophisticated Jane Doe wrote a great write-up on this case in her “Judge Otis Wright is fed up with Brett Gibbs’ and Prenda’s frauds, hints at incarceration” article. Anyone associated with the AF Holdings, LLC cases (or any of the others filed by Prenda Law Inc. [or their new “Anti-Piracy Law Group” entity]) should take notice of this ruling, and should file in their own cases what is known as a “JUDICIAL NOTICE” informing each judge of this order.

          Lastly, no doubt Brett Gibbs might be in some serious legal trouble, and he might even face jail time for his actions in these cases for fraud upon the court. But, I hope the court recognizes that Brett Gibbs (as destructive as he has been to thousands of families over the past 2+ years) is merely local counsel to the larger “Prenda Law Inc.” entity who is run by players such as John Steele and his partners in his former Steele|Hansmeier PLLC firm.


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

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

            shalta book now cta