Tag Archives: ME2 Productions Inc.

New York ME2 Productions Settlement Letters Sent by Bryan DeMatteo

Bryan N DeMatteo is the New York attorney sending settlement demand letters to accused John Doe Defendants in the New York ME2 Productions, Inc. bittorrent lawsuits (a.k.a. the New York Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits).  These settlement letters from the ME2 Production attorney are asking for a settlement of $5,600, which in my opinion is absurd.

As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, I am competent to speak about Bryan DeMatteo’s lawsuits because I was representing bittorrent clients in 2012 when the case law was first paved.

Let me be clear about this.  I am competent to speak about the New York lawsuits because I have been licensed as a New York Attorney for the last 10 years.  I also have history here, because I was representing clients in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits of 2012 when all of the good case law was created.

This good case law slowly destroyed every time an innocent defendant listens to a “settlement factory” attorney (usually out-of-state) who convinces them to settle, even though they didn’t do it.  Every voluntary dismissal on paper from an innocent defendant who settled gives Bryan DeMatteo’s cases credibility in the eyes of the judges because it makes judges believe that he has correctly sued the “right” defendant.

SIDE NOTE:  I am aware that some attorney has called me a “Western out of state defense attorney,” but don’t be fooled — I am born and raised in New York, and New York was the first state in which I first became a licensed attorney.  New York is known to be one of the hardest state bars to pass.  Let me speak clearly just so there is no confusion — I AM AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TEN YEARS LATER, STILL IN GOOD STANDING — I am not some out of state defense attorney who is looking to get admitted (“pro hac”) to the US District Court one case at a time.  And, just so it is said, I have nothing wrong with out-of-state attorneys who get admitted “pro hac” on a case-by-case basis to represent one client for one case, as long as they represent their clients COMPETENTLY.

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

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASE RESOURCES

The TorrentLawyer blog has become a giant with over 200+ articles on the various cases in which our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has worked on.  If you have come to this page, you likely received a settlement demand letter from Bryan N. DeMatteo asking for $5,600 (or, whatever he is asking for at the moment; some attorneys are asking for $7,500, and others are asking for $2,500).  Either way, you missed the deadline to file a motion to quash (which is fine), and your ISP handed over your information to the plaintiff attorney.  Now you are facing another deadline — DeMatteo’s deadline — which is probably some date coming immediately, as in tomorrow.

You want to know your options, and *this article* is more of an advanced article describing a historical view of the case law which has been achieved in the New York Southern and Eastern District Courts (in 2012), versus the 2017 cases in which Bryan DeMatteo is seeking to “undo” the achievements we have achieved in the fight against copyright trolling, and why things at the moment are in his favor based on the circumstances.

To learn about the New York ME2 Productions lawsuits, read these cases in this order:

  1. “Just The Facts” — a short to-the-point article about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases and what you can do about them,
  2. “An In-Depth FAQ about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases” to understand everything you need to know about who is suing you,
  3. The article about your plaintiff attorney, Bryan N DeMatteo (read it to learn about the plaintiff, not the history of the second circuit), and
  4. The timeline of Anonymity in these bittorrent lawsuits — as a John Doe, you are still anonymous from the court (even though Bryan DeMatteo is sending you settlement demand letters).

Then, if you need to speak to me or have questions:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

How is Bryan N DeMatteo trying to legitimize his ME2 Productions (Mechanic: Resurrection movie) cases?

Earlier this morning, I wrote that “Bryan DeMatteo is facing an uphill battle to legitimize his “movie” bittorrent cases.”  In order to clarify what he is doing, please allow me to elaborate.  Bryan N DeMatteo is seeking to undo some of the progress we made in 2012 in the Digital Sin, Inc. cases.  Digital Sin, Inc. was a bittorrent-based copyright infringement set of lawsuits against internet users who went onto bittorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay and KickAssTorrents (“KAT”) to download adult films.  Because Bryan N DeMatteo’s cases deal with “movies” rather than “adult films,” it appears to me as if he is seeking to separate out movie companies (as legitimate) from the adult film companies (as illegitimate) who sued hundreds of downloaders for EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

2012 Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo and his 2017 New York ME2 Productions cases

The difference between the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases and the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases is that most defendants did NOT settle.

The difference between the Digital Sin, Inc. and other adult film lawsuits that plagued the federal courts in 2012 and the 2017 “movie” lawsuits is that back then, most defendants did NOT pay settlements.  They either fought their cases, or they hired an attorney such as myself in what I referred to as an “ignore” route representation, where I would open up the line of communication between my client and the “copyright troll” attorney to convince that attorney that my client wasn’t the one who did the download (and thus would not be settling).

With hundreds of potential defendants in one lawsuit (e.g., Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-240), this made it appear as if almost nobody was settling the claims against them.  New York judges viewed these cases with suspicion, and correctly diagnosed them with the inherent faults and flaws that even today’s bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases suffer from.  Namely, improper joinder, insufficient evidence to prove copyright infringement, etc.

However, in the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases, a high percentage of defendants ARE settling the claims against them (even if they did not do the download).

Today the cases no longer have 200+ defendants in each case (and in 2012, this was considered “small” because there were cases across the US that had 2,000+ John Doe Defendants filed in ONE lawsuit).  Today, cases average between 1-20 “John Doe” defendants.  Bryan N. DeMatteo lists the various defendants by their accused IP address, even though I remember seeing case law stating that “an IP address is not a person.

So, as far as I am concerned, Bryan DeMatteo is calling the ME2 Productions, Inc. John Doe Defendants by another name, but don’t be deceived, they are still John Doe Defendants and have the same legal status as an unnamed defendant with a “John Doe” placeholder.

New York ME2 Productions settlement demand letters sent by Bryan DeMatteo
JESHOOTS / Pixabay

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

The Consequence of More Defendants Settling Cases is Legitimacy Given to Movie Download Lawsuits, UNDOING our work in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases.

The CONSEQUENCE of today’s smaller cases combined with the fact that plaintiff attorneys are happy to name and serve defendants is that the number of accused defendants who settle are higher (likely because “settlement factory” attorneys push defendants into settling when they should not settle).

As a result, instead of having a small handful of defendants who settle in a large case with hundreds of defendants, the HIGHER PERCENTAGE of defendants settling the claims against them (just to avoid being dragged though discovery) makes it look to the federal judge like the plaintiff’s movie cases are valid when in fact they suffer from EXACTLY THE SAME DEFECTS as the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases suffered from.

In Summary, Bryan DeMatteo’s bittorrent lawsuits *will* succeed if there is a PERCEPTION by the court that he is succeeding.

In sum, the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. downloaders used bittorrent to download the adult films.  Similarly, the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. accused downloaders used Popcorn Time software or Showbox software [which uses bittorrent to stream the copyrighted movies to the viewers, often unbeknownst to the downloader].  Either way you look at it, the lawsuits from 2012 and 2017 are identical and should be subject to the same restrictions and new case law achieved in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits.

However, if there is a PERCEPTION by the New York Judges that a high percentage of defendants are settling the claims against them, then this will make them believe that Bryan DeMatteo has done something different from the previous defendants.  Namely, a higher settlement rate suggests that the DeMatteo has sued the right defendants.  This is an unacceptable outcome, but one which I believe we are looking at for the time being given the circumstances of bittorrent lawsuits in their current form.

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

Who are the New York Southern & Eastern District Judges Presiding Over the ME2 Productions, Inc. Lawsuits?

The New York District Judges presiding over the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits include Judge Brian Cogan, Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Judge Denise Cote, Judge Edgardo Ramos, Judge Frederic Block, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, Judge Louis Stanton, Judge Margo Brodie, and Judge Paul Gardephe.  If you search for most of their names (with the exception of Judge Ramos, who oversaw the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits for my clients in 2012 — Jason Kotzker was the NY “copyright troll” attorney at the time, for those of you who have followed the blog over the years), almost NONE of the names will show up as having anything to do with the bittorrent cases.

In short, so far, DeMatteo has gotten lucky (except for NYSD Judge Ramos re: Case No. 1:17-cv-02284, which I expect to be dismissed immediately after Bryan DeMatteo reads this article [you’re welcome]), as none of the federal judges were involved in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. case consolidations.  However, the results from the Digital Sin, Inc. case is “law” (or more accurately, “case law”), which is BINDING on even these federal judges when they adjudicate the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits.

CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

  • SMS YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
  • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
  • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


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.

New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

Why would copyright trolls show evidence of ‘other downloaded movies’ if they have evidence of infringement?

ANSWER: Insufficient or non-existent evidence.

Copyright trolls often surprise me by the lengths they will go to prove that a particular “John Doe” defendant downloaded a particular movie. Because the underlying copyright infringement cases likely cannot prove copyright infringement, instead, copyright troll attorneys will spy into the internet connections of their accused defendants and determine what other movies, videos, or content that accused downloader allegedly downloaded. They use those additional downloads as ‘character evidence’ to assert that the defendant downloaded the accused movie. (Next article, I will describe how they are likely doing it.)

By showing character evidence of ‘other downloaded movies,’ copyright trolls prove that the accused “John Doe” Defendant has the personality or ‘character’ of being a habitual infringer (a ‘pirate’).  This character evidence shows that the defendant is familiar with piracy tools and illegal methods of acquiring movies and videos from bittorrent websites (e.g., The Pirate Bay). By demonstrating to the court that “someone from that same IP address downloaded these other movies,” the copyright troll seeks to prove that “the accused defendant must have also downloaded this movie as well.”

Copyright Trolls Use Other The Pirate Bay Downloads to demonstrate character evidence to infringe their movie copyright.

[NOTE TO THE READER: WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ IS A GREAT ARTICLE, BUT IT NEEDS A ROADMAP TO UNDERSTAND THE FLOW OF IT.]

HERE IS THE ROADMAP:

  1. INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT OF ‘CHARACTER EVIDENCE’ (A LEGAL TERM), AND DESCRIBE WHY EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IS INADMISSIBLE TO PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
  2. INQUIRE WHY PLAINTIFF WOULD TAKE THE EXTRA STEP OF SHOWING ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IF HE HAS SOLID EVIDENCE OF INFRINGEMENT.
  3. DISCUSS THE NEBULOUS ‘PCAP FILE’ WHICH CAN PROVE INFRINGEMENT, NOTE THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS ACCESS TO THIS FILE, AND YET IT IS MISSING FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S CASES.
  4. SUB-TOPIC: THE EVIDENCE THE PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY HAS IS “SNAPSHOT EVIDENCE.” COURTS REJECTED SNAPSHOT EVIDENCE AS BEING INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
  5. (I RETURN TO THE MISSING PCAP EVIDENCE AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY MISDIRECTS THE COURT BY REFERRING TO A SOFTWARE REPORT, BUT GLOSSING OVER THE PCAP EVIDENCE).
  6. END THE ARTICLE BY COMMENTING THAT SHOWING ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ TO A DEFENDANT IS AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY IN SCARING HIM TO AGREE TO SETTLE THE CASE.

1. EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IS INADMISSIBLE CHARACTER EVIDENCE.

In the eyes of the law, ANY CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER MOVIES OR TITLES’ DOWNLOADED BY THE JOHN DOE DEFENDANT IS INADMISSIBLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT DOWNLOADED THE MOVIE TITLE FOR WHICH THAT DEFENDANT WAS SUED. Malibu Media, LLC tried using character evidence and failed. For a while, they were listing other movie titles and illegal downloads that accused defendant participated in, and the courts reprimanded their efforts.

Specifically because Malibu Media attempted to admit character evidence into their complaints, in the Western District of Wisconsin, Judge Stephen L. Crocker consolidated each of Malibu Media LLC’s cases.  Here, the judge ruled that character evidence of ‘other titles allegedly downloaded’ was not only inadmissible, but it was prejudicial to the defendant’s case (see attached order).

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”), evidence of a person’s character to prove a consistent act with that character is called ‘character evidence,’ which is inadmissible to prove copyright infringement. (See the Federal Rules of Evidence, §404 on Character Evidence).

2. WHY WOULD COPYRIGHT TROLLS USE CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER DOWNLOADED TITLES’ WHEN THEY CAN PROVE INFRINGEMENT USING THE PCAP FILE?

Why a copyright troll would resort to using ‘character evidence’ of ‘other titles downloaded’ to prove that the downloader must have downloaded this title is puzzling.  The copyright holders DO have evidence of infringement, don’t they?

3. EVIDENCE OF INFRINGEMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE PCAP FILE.

Perhaps the reason why the attorney is seeking to find “other titles” an accused defendant downloaded is that copyright trolls do not actually have evidence that the defendant downloaded this movie.

For the technical-minded, this evidence of copyright infringement would be found in a “PCAP file.” Copyright holders have this file, but they will never release to the courts. This PCAP file would indicate whether a downloader merely clicked on a link and connected to a bittorrent swarm WITH THE INTENT* to download, view, or stream a movie, or whether the accused defendant actually copied a substantial watchable portion of the movie. (*NOTE: a defendant who had ‘INTENT’ to commit a copyright infringement cannot be found guilty of ‘willful’ copyright infringement if the download or the viewing never actually took place.)  The PCAP file is hidden from the courts and is never introduced to prove that the defendant downloaded the movie. Instead of documenting actual evidence of infringement, the copyright troll attorneys find “other titles” that the defendant allegedly downloaded.

4. HOW TROLLS REPLACE PCAP EVIDENCE WITH ‘SNAPSHOT’ EVIDENCE.

The omission of the PCAP evidence is relevant to an accused defendant in a bittorrent-based movie lawsuit.  The reason for this is because courts are misled into thinking that a report containing a list of IP addresses of accused downloaders at some ‘snapshot’ or time period by proprietary Peer-to-Peer surveillance software is sufficient to prove infringement.  However, the so-called ‘SNAPSHOT’ EVIDENCE of infringement (described below) might demonstrate only that the accused John Doe Defendant was present downloading a bittorrent file at a particular date and time.  ‘Snapshot’ evidence of infringement has been rejected by the courts as not being sufficient to prove copyright infringement.

Further, the companies that do the ‘snapshot’ tracking of the bittorrent networks — IPP International, and here in the Texas-based cases, MaverickEye UG, all appear to be shell companies of Guardaley.  For those who are new to the site, Guardaley is the German company our firm has been investigating to find the connection between almost every copyright infringement case hitting the US courts.  Guardaley has been the common thread between each lawsuit, regardless of whether the copyrighted material is pornographic (as in the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits), or whether it is a mainstream movie.

For current defendants, the ‘snapshot’ evidence problem as I will describe it below likely applies to each of the “Mechanic:Resurrection” movie lawsuits (ME2 Productions), each of the “I.T.” movie lawsuits (I.T. Productions), each of the “Mr. Cook” movie lawsuits (Cook Productions), and literally every other movie lawsuit filed in the last seven years, as listed on Carl Crowell’s list of Guardaley clients.

Character Evidence of 'Other Movies Downloaded' To Prove The Download of THIS movie.

4A. SUB-TOPIC: WHY “SNAPSHOT EVIDENCE” IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Source: Judge Otis Wright’s 2013 order from 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.

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.  This is 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.

5. RETURNING TO THE OMISSION OF PCAP EVIDENCE IN PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION. WHY THEY TURN TO ‘CHARACTER EVIDENCE’ OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ WHEN CONFRONTING A DEFENDANT

Instead of providing the PCAP file (which can prove or disprove whether actual infringement happened), the copyright holders have some expert witness file some declaration stating that they have viewed the reports generated by the bittorrent surveillance software.   That expert witness declares that they have verified that the IP address list created by that software matches the list of defendants who are accused as “John Doe” defendants in this case.

[Curiously, even copyright troll attorneys list themselves as expert witnesses to show that they viewed the software printout.  I don’t know why an attorney would do this, because this makes the plaintiff attorney a discoverable witness in discovery. Here in the Texas ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does lawsuits, we see plaintiff attorney Gary Fischman’s declaration stating exactly what I have described:

Gary Fischman Declaration Regarding Maverickeye UG (Guardaley) P2P swarm surveillance software report. by Cashman Law Firm, PLLC on Scribd

As a defense attorney, I am puzzled why the plaintiff attorneys often try to prove their case with inadmissible character evidence (“other downloaded titles”).  I understand that copyright infringement in the context of a bittorrent swarm can be proved by the PCAP file (e.g., stating that the movie was 100% downloaded).

Thus, it logically makes sense that the attorney simply DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF INFRINGEMENT.  This could be why he goes to such lengths to prove that the downloader downloaded the other titles.

6. NEVERTHELESS, SHOWING CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IS STILL AN EFFECTIVE TACTIC.

From the copyright troll’s perspective, the goal is not to ‘nail’ each “John Doe” Defendant and make them liable for the $150,000 in statutory damages. Rather, a copyright troll seeks to elicit a settlement of a few thousand dollars from each “John Doe” defendant. 

Thus if the copyright troll isn’t interested in proving copyright infringement, but rather wishes to scare the bejeebies out of the accused defendant who actually downloaded those additional titles, then showing that defendant the list of ‘other titles downloaded’ *is* an effective tactic to manipulate them to do whatever the plaintiff demands of them, even if that means paying a multi-thousand dollar settlement.

IN SUM: WHICH ONE IS IT?

So which is it?  Does the plaintiff actually lack evidence of infringement as I have suggested by the missing PCAP file and the misdirection in the declarations filed with the court?  Or, does the copyright troll want to use the so-called ‘character evidence’ of ‘other titles downloaded’ to demonstrate to you (the John Doe Defendant) that you must have been the one who did the download of the movie (and thus you should pay him)?

My opinion: it is both.


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.