Copyright Trolls should be considered Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) because they do not create the videos giving them copyrights they sue to enforce.
Who is the “Real Party in Interest” in the Strike Three Holdings movie lawsuits?
Last night, I set out to explain the differences between the recent Strike Three Holdings ISP subpoena lawsuits and the Malibu Media lawsuits, but the similarities ended up haunting me. Seeing yet again the makings of another Non-Practicing Entity copyright holder who is playing what is starting to look like a “corporate shell game,” I am again weighed down in wondering whether Strike 3 Holdings movie lawsuits (think, “Tushy.com [NSFW],” “Blacked.com [NSFW],” and “Vixen.com [NSFW]”) is really the old wolf — Malibu Media LLC — in sheep’s clothing.
What bothers me about each of these movie (or here, “adult film”) cases is the slick non-transparency. Are these Non-Practicing Entities? If you look up who the copyright holder is, who is actually the party filing the lawsuit (legally, the “real party in interest,”) and who the interested parties are in the lawsuit, you might start getting as concerned as I am about these lawsuits.
Attorney “Kidneys” about these Non-Practicing Entities.
From a lawyer’s perspective (my own attorney “kidneys”), it really bothers me that Non-Practicing Entity lawyers LIE to judges and courts now when they file lawsuits. Maybe this has always been the case, and what do I know — I’ve only been a lawyer active in my field for ten years now — but law school took SO MANY STEPS to teach us to be moral and ethical. In order to be eligible to take the New York bar exam, we not only had to pass a [frankly, invasive] character and fitness review, but we needed to pass an ethics exam (the MPRE). In that ethics exam, almost every answer to the exam was, “be ethical, turn that lawyer in to the authorities.” This is what caused me to delve quite early into the legal malpractice field.
Our Legal System is BROKEN by Non-Practicing Entities, and the attorneys who represent unethical clients.
But our legal system breaks when a small few attorneys allow their Non-Practicing Entity clients to engage in deception, distortion, and outright lies, as I suspect is already happening with the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits. Looking at the selection of each of the new lawyers that have been chosen to file cases, I can already see the outcome and how each of the cases will play out based on that particular lawyer’s proclivities and skillset.
Some of these lawyers are “new guys,” or “fresh meat” (as I jokingly call them) — not because I can take advantage of their ignorance of the law (or at least the ignorance of how copyright law is applied differently in each of the federal courts across the US), but because I know that they are local counsel to Non-Practicing Entities — entities who are centralized (and likely criminal). Thus, these Non-Practicing Entities and their attorneys will act as “empty shells” who follow the dictates those higher-up in the Non-Practicing Entity chain… as we have seen before.
SIDE NOTE: Kudos to those local counsel who chose the ethical path, eventually.
Unrelated but relevant, I must note that a number of former “copyright troll” attorneys who have been local counsel to other Non-Practicing Entities are no longer “in the game,” so to speak. They no longer file copyright infringement lawsuits for their masters, and they stood up and said “no” when their Non-Practicing Entity clients asked them to take part in activities that would have cost them their law licenses.
I do take pride in commending these attorneys in taking a stand against their morally corrupt clients, and in a few cases, I know personally of a few attorneys who backed out of being local counsel and who likely saved their law licenses as a result.
Because many of these local counsel at one point were “fresh meat,” they took the copyright monetization (Non-Practicing Entity) client [I’ll describe the “NPE” term later] thinking that this would bring in needed revenue to their law firm. They thought they would learn a lot, and they rationalized that they were on the “right side of the law.”
This continued until they realized that they were representing a corrupted client, and then they were in too deep to drop them as a client.
Eventually, the copyright monetization (Non-Practicing Entity) client turned on them (think, “honor among thieves,“) and told them to do something unethical. Risking loss of what became their entire law firm’s focus, they were forced to continue on their path hoping that they would never be caught by the state bar.
Eventually, in one particular case, their client stopped paying them their own commissions and they were left working for a client who was cheating them. I have spoken attorneys such as these on a number of occasions (many of these attorneys are the subject of past articles), and I hope to have contributed to their decision to leave their masters as a battered wife would leave her husband.
I am also happy to share that I have been screamed at by a number of attorneys who direct lawsuits (most notably, John Steele of Prenda Law Inc., now disbarred, and who is pictured at the top of this article) “for speaking to and advising his local counsel” as to their rights when their own Non-Practicing Entity client (Steele) put them in a precarious position. In sum (and this was supposed to be a side note), not all local counsel are bad people. However, at the moment while Non-Practicing Entities are still suing defendants for copyright infringement, they know I believe they are on the wrong side of the law, and here is why.
Why the law requires the ENFORCEMENT OF TRANSPARENCY in copyright infringement / bittorrent-based lawsuits.
The point of this article is that the law requires transparency and disclosure when filing lawsuits, and judges tend to rely on the filings of the plaintiff attorneys (in an honest world, those representing the copyright holder). However, when copyright monetization entities (e.g., RightsEnforcement, etc.) step as a buffer entity in between the copyright holder and the defendant, this creates a disparity in favor of the local “empty shell” attorney filing identical documents (serially, or over-and-over) on behalf of his “boss” (the attorney who is running the copyright troll lawsuit campaigns for each of his copyright holder clients). As a result, the individual accused John Doe Defendant is harmed by this disparity by being thrown into trying to defend against an elaborate copyright enforcement scheme which could ultimately cost him his entire life savings.
DISCLOSURE of Non-Practicing Entities can lead to an equal playing field.
I feel strongly that a copyright monetization company should openly and honestly disclose exactly who they are, what benefit the actual copyright holder is getting from the lawsuit, and who else has an interest in the outcome of the litigation. At least then, the judge could understand who else this Non-Practicing Entity / monetization company is representing, and he could “tame” them and their tactics so that the accused downloaders (the “victims” of what will end up being a settlement extortion scheme) will at least have an equal playing field in order to defend themselves and the claims against them.
I don’t wear the pope hat.
And while writing this, I don’t want you to think that I am wearing the pope hat. I started my law career on the wrong side of the law. As a brand new attorney, I worked for a company that catered to Non-Practicing Entities — shell companies, all who ended up being one “Intellectual Ventures,” now a prolific patent troll.
I observed the Non-Practicing Entity “shell companies” they used, and the games they played to purchase patents (or at least the rights to enforce them), only to turn from a harmless company to a patent troll with sharp teeth.
Needless to say, Intellectual Ventures turned “evil” (so to speak), and started enforcing their patents to “force” (I want to use the word extort) companies almost-remotely-maybe-infringing that patent into accepting a license so that Intellectual Ventures could take a mafia-share royalty off of each of that company’s profits. So long as Intellectual Ventures (under their RPX Corp entity) received “tribute payments” in the form of a “membership fee” for entrance into their patent troll organization, they would not be sued by the patent holder (or the “Non-Practicing Entity” patent troll conglomerate organization who held the patents).
In short, I learned how to defend against copyright trolls by working on behalf a powerful patent troll [and if you want to read the articles I wrote on that topic and the RPX Corp (what Intellectual Ventures became), please feel free to visit my articles from 2008 on the topic]. I wasn’t very active at the time in blogging, but the articles are still interesting to read.
Why NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) STATUS should be applied to copyright trolls.
What is relevant to my experiences with Intellectual Ventures (and later, RPX Corp) was the concept of “Non-Practicing Entities,” or “NPEs.” In patent litigation, a non-practicing entity is a corporate entity who enforces patents which it did not create. Shortly after patent trolls and NPEs made a killing in the federal courts, the rules changed to make these kinds of lawsuits unprofitable. I believe that the same “Non-Practicing Entity (NPE)” status should be applied in the federal courts to copyright holders as well.
AND HERE IS WHY.
My point: The copyright law gives copyright holders rights to enforce their copyrights. The purpose of these rights are to benefit the copyright holders (to reward their creativity, their ingenuity, and their contribution to the arts). When a slime and base organization comes in and purchases those copyright rights to benefit financially from the rights due the copyright holders, the law should not allow those Non-Practicing Entities to benefit as if they are the copyright holders.
WHY COPYRIGHT TROLL NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM COPYRIGHT LAWS.
Copyright Troll Non-Practicing Entities never contributed anything to the arts. They do not benefit society. They do not benefit the copyright holders (who are often cheated by them or only receive a small piece of what could be theirs under the copyright laws). They do not benefit the actors, writers, or artists who created the copyrighted work. Rather, Non-Practicing Entities make their attorneys wealthy and they target and destroy the lives and the savings of thousands of households each year, separating the working class from their hard earned savings. So I ask you — should NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) STATUS be applied to bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits who are deceptively managed by these NON-PRACTICING ENTITY (NPE) conglomerates who only serves to monetize the copyrights of others for their own benefit?
RECENT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES (*UPDATED* AS OF 2/25/2020)
CALIFORNIA:
Recent Cases filed in the California Central District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case Nos. 8:19-cv-02431, 2:19-cv-10671, 2:19-cv-10672, 2:19-cv-10677, 2:20-cv-00042)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.49.233.148 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10673)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.84.181.123 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10674)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.173.187.226 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01730)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.221.26 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01736)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.191.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00034)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.65.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00024)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.151.253 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00238)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.39.241 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00975)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.248.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01003)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.80.177.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00998)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.84.62.40 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01001)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Recent Cases filed in the California Northern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.70.230 (Case No. 4:19-cv-08231)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213 (Case No. 3:19-cv-08239)
Recent Cases filed in the California Southern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 3:19-cv-02452, 3:19-cv-02488, 3:20-cv-00209, 3:20-cv-00308, Case No. 3:20-cv-00067, 3:20-cv-00068)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)
CONNECTICUT:
Recent Case filed in the Connecticut District Court (as of 2/25.2020) Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00100)
FLORIDA:
Recent Cases filed in the Florida Middle District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 35.138.167.172 (Case No. 8:19-cv-03100)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:19-cv-03143)
Recent Case filed in the Florida Southern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:20-cv-20499, 1:20-cv-20503, 1:20-cv-20517, 1:20-cv-20516, 1:20-cv-20506, 1:20-cv-20647)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
ILLINOIS:
Recent Cases filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:19-cv-08148, 1:19-cv-08163, 1:20-cv-00773, 1:20-cv-01243, 1:20-cv-01301)
…v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.124.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00161)
…v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 108.225.112 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00482)
MICHIGAN:
Recent Cases filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
…v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 108.244.198.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10098)
…v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10143)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
NEVADA:
Recent Cases filed in the Nevada District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DOE IP Address 70.170.50.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00372)
Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DO IP Address 72.193.217.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00373)
NEW JERSEY:
Recent Case filed in the New Jersey District Court (as of 2/25/2020) Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)
NEW YORK:
Recent Cases filed in the New York Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 67.245.246.132 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07256)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00526)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Recent Cases filed in the New York Southern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case Nos. 1:19-cv-11466, 1:19-cv-11464, 1:20-cv-01435, 1:20-cv-01528, 1:20-cv-01529, 1:20-cv-01525, 1:20-cv-00554, 1:20-cv-00819)
Recent Case filed in the New York Western District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:20-cv-06113)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Recent Case filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 5:19-cv-06010)
VIRGINIA:
Recent Case filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (as of 2/25/2020)
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.
Here is the current (updated) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1
Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05.
State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC024647000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003737000005.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
OTHER ARTICLES WRITTEN ON THE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC LAWSUITS.
Below are articles we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have written on the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC plaintiff:
“Just The Facts: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC,” written on 11/5/2017
“Everything you need to know in one page about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (“Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen brand”) adult movie lawsuits and ISP subpoenas,” written on 11/5/2017
“HUMOR: Did Strike 3 Just Call Their Defendant “John Doe Infringer”?” written on 2/20/2020
“Why incorrect attorneys are listed on Strike 3 Holdings LLC case dockets,” written on 5/3/2019
“How Similar are Strike 3 Holdings and Malibu Media Lawsuits?” written on 11/15/2017
“Why Copyright Troll Non-Practicing Entities Should NOT Benefit From Copyright Laws,” written on 11/15/2017
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
ARTICLES WRITTEN ABOUT THE 2019-2020 “MIAMI-DADE STRIKE 3” FLORIDA COUNTY COURT CASES:
INITIAL ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW THEY ARE USING THE STATE COURTS TO UNMASK DEFENDANTS’ IDENTITIES.:
“Strike 3 Holdings is NOT suing Miami-Dade County defendants for copyright infringement,” written on 10/31/2019
FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE EXPOSING THE ATTORNEYS BEHIND THE SCHEME
“Strike 3 Holdings Attorneys in Miami-Dade Florida County Have a “Behind The Scenes” Shadow,” written on 1/20/2020
RECENT ARTICLE EXPLAINING HOW DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE LURING DEFENDANTS IN WITH A “BAIT AND SWITCH” WHICH ENDS UP FORCING THEM TO SETTLE OR BE SUED.
“Why filing a motion to quash in a Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida case might not be the correct approach,” written on 2/10/2020
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
—
[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].
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.