Does 1-244: is the entire complaint bogus?

Posted: June 16, 2011 by SJD in Sperlein
Tags: , , , , , , ,

I started re-reading IO Group v. Does 1-244 court filings in order to document numerous deceptions by IO Group’s council, Mr. Sperlein. To my astonishment, I immediately discovered a major discrepancy. Not in the middle of the list, but at the very top: Doe #1.

Check yourselves:

Docket 1, Complaint. Filed 08/18/10. Page 6:

22. Defendant Doe 1, without authorization, reproduced Plaintiff’s registered work Full Access (U.S. registration No. PA 1-670-544) and distributed it on May 5, 2010 from the IP address 99.147.204.85.

The same IP and date were listed in the subpoena to AT&T.

Docket 41, First Amended Complaint. Filed 05/24/11. Page 9:

35. At some time prior to April 9, 2010, Defendant MARIUSZ PRALAT, without authorization, reproduced Plaintiff’s registered work Breakers by downloading the digital file identified as Hash 23025B1F57308A2C154A4E78CD1CC36F from various eDonkey peers. Pralat placed the file in his “share folder” making it available for immediate, as well as, future downloading by other eDonkey2000 peers including the remaining Defendants. On April 9, 2010 at 13:27:36 GMT, Plaintiff’s investigators documented that an eDonkey peer offered Hash 23025B1F57308A2C154A4E78CD1CC36F for other eDonkey peers to download. Plaintiff’s investigators documented that the eDonkey peer connected to the Internet using the AT&T controlled ip address 99.147.204.85. AT&T later identified Mariusz Pralat as the subscriber to whom it had assigned the ip address at that date and time. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the file 23025B1F57308A2C154A4E78CD1CC36F remained in Pralat’s share folder after Plaintiff’s investigators initially recorded it, thereby making it available for the remaining Defendants and other peers to download.

WTF? Same IP address, same Doe #1. Why the hell are the titles different? Why are the dates different by almost a month? It is not likely that a dynamic IP stays unchanged for such a long period of time. Doesn’t it suggest that the entire claim is bogus? Does not it suggest that titles and times were arbitrarily assigned, IPs were semi-randomly generated and there was no actual infringement? First I did not believe in the honeypot theory, but now I’m giving it a second thought.

Sperlein will probably try to claim that it was a mistake, a typo. Hogwash. When the amended complaint was filed, I was somehow puzzled by the defendants naming pattern: Doe #1, then a gap, and then closely located Does from 26 to 36. If you look at the complaint, Does are arranged by movie title, so assigning “Breakers” to Doe #1 does not make any sense, and no way it could happen because of an honest mistake. Something is really, really wrong.

I’ll keep digging.

About these ads
Comments
  1. anon says:

    If you can please file a counter suit and request discovery on his collection methods. As I said before you should doubt that he even has collection methods in the first place. Point this out to the judge in your case, inform him or her that IPs are finite, reference the IP specification itself that explains how they are put together. If you can counter sue bring this up to the judge in that case as well.

    • Revealing collection methodology is a natural demand, but I cannot file any suits. Judge unambiguously said that I couldn’t proceed under my assumed name. And I’m not going to reveal my identity, at least unless I’m dismissed with perjury.

  2. anon says:

    I took a moment and did a whois look up on doe 1’s IP it resolves to Texas. The city of Dallas. Yet he or she was sued in california.

    • First Sperlein willfully misled the Court that one can’t determine IP location prior to discovery, but when he realized that even a kindergarten student would laugh at this statement, he started pressing a bizarre conspiracy argument to sue people regardless of jurisdictions. Hope that the judge won’t buy it. I’ll write my thoughts on this topic soon.

      As for the actual locations, I listed all of them in my court filing (Docket 38). You may find them on the Doe Detailed page.

  3. anon says:

    I disagree with the IP staying unchanged for so long. When all of these big lawsuits started coming out, I looked to see if my IP was on the list (not because I downloaded anything, but you never know if there is a mistake), I had to hunt down my IP from months ago by looking through my email headers, I had one ip for 5 months almost and one for 3 days, it all depends on the up time of your modem.

    • Ok, I changed the wording from “no way” to “not likely”. I still believe that a month long uptime is rather an exception. I’ll analyze my own recent uptimes and see if I was wrong.
      Still, this does not explain the discrepancy in two court documents.

      • anon says:

        I agree with your claim, I was just pointing out that an IP can stay the same for as long as your modem doesn’t reset or get reset. It all depends on the ISP and how many people in your area have the same ISP. I don’t doubt the honey pot scheme at all. More importantly, I think these lawsuits are just more scare tactics. There is no way the plaintiffs want these to get into court, think of everything they have to give up.

        They will have to make public their scheme and how they track people, release to source code for their tracking platforms, you could subpoena the entire company that did the tracking and all of their equipment and software. Worst they could win, then lose an appeal and have a precedent set, THAT WOULD DESTROY THEIR BUSINESS MODEL! I think the few lawsuits they have filed are well thought out and target people who are easy to target.

        • And that’s good that you’ve pointed to my incorrect claim. I may be biased against trolls, but it is an emotional bias, not factual. I don’t want to fall lower than them by using lies (like they do) to advance my arguments.

          Obtaining tracking methods may be impossible, since IO Group employs a German company, Media Protect (BTW the same company ACS:Law employed). But refusal to disclose detection technology will work to our advantage.

  4. CurrentlybeingsuedbyDGSPERLEIN says:

    I have studied this post you have made, and to my surprised, most of these is surprising similar to what is written on my letter. I do wish you continue and please stop DGSPERLEIN. Thank you very much for your information.

  5. CurrentlybeingsuedbyDGSPERLEIN says:

    Just checked some more on this, I checked dates on what I got with what you got. And here’s a thing, they aren’t going to be able to use” Honest mistake “anymore. They are backing up several complaints every month or so, it is June 6 2011 , and these files are said to be on(for me) May 24 2010, YES 2010. This letter was sent to me almost just about half a month ago, you tracked a IP address that is used by a lot of people, sued them and falsely accuse. We can own their asses.

  6. Anonymous says:

    its strange his address is a post office box and wants payment through paypal or mailed to him, yes i got 1 of these letters too.

  7. Anonymous says:

    my letter stated xxx 2010 too? noooo, REALLY? this guy is a total swine and making alot $$$ off this crap.

  8. Anonymous says:

    so what to do, im seeing an attorney today, im innocent, i wasnt even home nor was my pc even turned on
    at the time of this occurrance in his letter, i was at work, however i did discover months back that neighbors
    having been using / had access to my wireless modem too, found wep key was disabled as well, i now unplug
    my modem and only plug it in when i check my email or check ebay. plus i dont have $$$ either, im currently in b*kpcy and wages are being garnished directly from my paycheck (thanks for the paycuts to the company i work for!!)’

  9. Anonymous says:

    is anyone getting phone calls? i have been called from this same guy that keeps threatening me (he has an India accent and i have his phone # on caller id now) same guy every time he has threatened my mom on the answering machine and 4 times on my cell phone voice mail, think it has anything to do with Sperlein hiring someone to do this? the guy says
    that i have a ‘criminal record’ and legal matter against my name and social security # then the last one stated on voice mail he says my moms name and that i dont return his call he will come chase me and my mother down.
    this all started around the time i got sperleins’ first letter.

    • This is a totally different scam, and it has nothing to do with our trolls. There are many reports about someone with heavy Indian accent tries to coerce people to revealing their personal details by threatening them with lawsuits. Apparently they somehow obtained some of your details but not enough to steal your money, so they try to get everything to be able to authorize a transaction. Detailed information is here.

      Though this scam has nothing to do with copyright trolling, it may be an inspiration: threats to sue proved to be quite effective.

  10. Anonymous says:

    hi! this last message on my home phone this same guy was threatening my mother this time, he stated that she is hiding me and that he will pursue and chase me down (obviously he is reading this on a computer screen or paper that was pre-printed) bad accent too, he left a different number other than the one he called from (the last 4 or 5 times he called it was unknown and left a voice mail, this recent one it logged his Phone # from Burnet, TX)

    i gave my bankruptcy attorney the letters and of course they didnt bother listening to me all they do is just file
    it in with my current bankruptcy but yet that would mean (to him that im pleading guilty which i am clearly not
    would it be best to ignore him right now and any other letter he sends should i just write return to sender and
    not open it? this guy needs to know i am in bankruptcy, i have no money, my wages are being garnished and
    i only have enough for gas and food. i have no assets for him to take, house in bankruptcy so is the car and he
    cant take none of that.

  11. Anonymous says:

    alright THAT TROLL (MR. S)WILL BE OFF MY BACK SOON!! BWAHHAH!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s