An overlooked troll lawsuit: “Baseprotect UG, Ltd. v. John Does 1-X”

Posted: September 4, 2011 by SJD in Lesser trolls
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

I want to bring to your attention a rather unusual copyright troll lawsuit that is not covered by press yet, “Baseprotect UG, Ltd. v. John Does 1-X”, 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD, filed in the New Jersey District Court.

This lawsuit differs from others in many ways, but the main difference is that the plaintiff is not a copyright holder of the movie that was allegedly shared, but a German IP-harvesting technology company Baseprotect. There is no indication that copyright was transferred in full to the latter. Plaintiff asserts that his standing to sue is based on an agreement with the movie producer to… be allowed to share the movie on p2p networks! Sounds like a Righthaven-style fraud to me (see the entire agreement at the bottom of the complaint below).

It’s not a secret that German IP-harvesting companies are in many cases the actual bosses of the ongoing scam. Lawyer firms that use speculative invoicing tactics try to make an impression that they hired those IP-harvesting companies on behalf of movie makers “victimized by piracy,” but it is actually the other way around. Stopping piracy was never a goal for the trolls. Even more — if piracy is somehow magically stopped, all the conspirators (a law firm, an IP-harvesting company and a rightholder) would lose an easy source of cash. So they are far from willing to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.


Bonnie C Clark

In my opinion, this lawsuit is doomed and will fall apart soon. I already mentioned that most likely plaintiff does not have standing to sue, but there are many other problems here as well. While other trolls proved to be inventive and able to change their tactics as judges invalidate particular maneuvers, such as improper jurisdiction and questionable joinder, lawyer Bonnie C. Park of The McDaniel Law Firm seemingly did not do her homework diligently and made every mistake that any clever copyright troll would avoid these days. This lawsuit lumps together defendants from different jurisdictions and from different providers. In addition, it is hard to believe that all the 1449 defendants used the same swarm.

Another oddity that I noticed is the fact that an obscure Polish movie “Weekend” that has a single very unfavorable review on IMDB caused such a great interest among US bittorrent users. My strong suspicion is that people confused it with the award-winning English movie, not released to theaters and media yet, also titled “Weekend.” I guess the con artists from Baseprotect did not have particularly hard time convincing a virtually unknown Polish film co-op to participate in a get-rich-quick scheme and capitalize on this coincidence. [Update: the case docket shows that many movants bear Polish surnames, so my guess may be incorrect. It looks like this move is popular among Polish-speaking community. IMDB ratings and reviews may not reflect the actual popularity of a certain movie.]

Although this particular extortion attempt is late and sloppy and the downfall of speculative invoicing in USA has already started, some folks will inevitably succumb to scary extortion letters and will unnecessarily part with a couple of grands, if/when ISPs provide defendant names to the lawyers. So sad.

I want to conclude this post on a bright note. This particular lawsuit is good news overall: such a brazenly fraudulent assault against common sense accelerates the process of washing off carefully applied make-up of righteousness from the ugly, greedy faces of other copyright trolls.

Update

If you are a victim of this lawsuit, look at this post: it answers many questions I usually receive. Though there is basically nothing new there, the relevant information (otherwise dispersed over posts and comments) is concisely put together by DieTrollDie. Actually, victims of other lawsuits will find this post helpful too.

In addition to this lawsuit, Jay McDaniel fired a couple more extortion campaigns, including

  • Baseprotect UG, Ltd. v. John Does 1-X (2:11-cv-02021-DMC -JAD) — dismissed 11/15/2012.
  • BASEPROTECT USA, INC. v. SWARM # 06159132D21BBC88ED40B6E51278879F2725243F et al (2:11-cv-07288-SDW-MCA) — dismissed 11/15/2012.
  • BASEPROTECT USA, INC. v. SWARM # 1277D1F87FA9C4F28D43D2C07E9EF6816E366ED1 et al (2:11-cv-07289-SDW-MCA) — dismissed 2/28/2013.
  • Baseprotect USA, Inc. v. Swarm # 2FB37F51EE4580E804848C519A227B03 et al (2:11-cv-07290-SDW-MCA) — dismissed 11/15/2012.
  • Baseprotect USA, Inc. v. Swarm # 6F3E88FE60CA4A30467E1F93EEDE61B787BFCE07 et al (2:11-cv-07291-SDW-MCA) — dismissed 11/15/2012.
  • Baseprotect USA, Inc. v. Swarm # C32E92D72464FFCA072C0BFAC77C5AD7F7584036 et al (2:11-cv-07292-SDW-MCA) — dismissed 2/28/2013.
Dismissed
  • All the Baseprotect cases, including the subject of this post, were dismissed on 2/28/2013 or earlier.
About these ads
Comments
  1. Baxter says:

    Before going to bed, I would like to share the following document with you for your reference and for forwarding to court.
    And just in case, the Judge orders to disclose how much money is extorted or rather is planned to be extorted from Does…the Does can just email some information on this topic. :-)

    http://pdfcast.org/pdf/schutt-waetke-baseprotect-service-contract

    As no attorney will admit how profitable p2p settlements are and “that the copyright laws are being used as part of a massive collection scheme”, the Does can again help to provide this information.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Further evidence:

    1. An Interview with the “Thomas Hein”, Key Account Manager at DigiProtect:

    http://pdfcast.org/pdf/digiprotect-interview-mit-thomas-hein
    ————————————————————————————-

    2. Framework benchmark agrrement between DigiProtect and John Stagliano Inc. (Evil Angel):

    http://pdfcast.org/pdf/framework-benmark-agreement-digiprotect-evil-angel
    ————————————————————————————-
    3. Digirights Solutions and their “business model”:

    http://view.txtbear.com/70913/folie-1/
    http://dontknow.me/at/?http://www.webfact-test.de/hc/english/ppt/praesentation_en_gesamt.ppt

    Digirights Solutions is a company actually founded by DigiProtect. Look at the information from the (german) register of companies:

    –> http://pdfcast.org/pdf/digirights-hr-auszug

    This Presentation was quite a big thing over here in Europe (unfortunately it changed nothing, so many people just seem to be just stupid to see the facts!).
    I emphasize this on purpose, because I am convinced that we are only a small step away from convincing Judges like Mr. Zimmerman.
    ————————————————————————————-

    Judge Zimmerman said or rather wrote the following, which sounds to me that a little bit of uncertainty might be left:

    “If all this is correct, it raises questions of whether this film was produced for commercial purposes or for purposes of generating litigation and settlements.
    [...]
    If all the concerns about these mass Doe lawsuits are true,
    [..]”

    Dear Judge Zimmerman, here you go:

    1. Please take a look at the presentation above, describing the business model of those copyright trolls. (“Turn Piracy Into Profit”).
    2. Please check, if you also notice that they admit/advertize the following: “Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable Than Legal Sales”
    3. Further proof of authenticity: http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloads-150x-more-profitable-than-legal-sales-091009/
    4. And another proof of authenticity and sth. to laugh:


    ————————————————————————————-
    Alright, it’s getting pretty late now…tired! See ya, Baxter

    ________________________________

    P.S. @all:
    Please share the documents, if you think it’s worth it. Please forward to other boards. Send it to court, to EFF, to your local press etc. Spread it! Let’s use the power of the internet and make it a global issue…for THEM! ;-) . People need to be informed about the truth. Let’s open their eyes!

    P.P.S. @all, a question:
    If the attorney refuses to tell court the demanded facts, I ask myself what the tax authority would say… If you look at the leaked contracts (see above) the attorney and the “anti-piracy-tech”-company get the most of the money.
    As I am not that familiar with the U.S. tax law, you should think and decide for yourself if an investigation with regards to this could make sense and the attorney in trouble.
    Here comes the global part: Those “anti-piracy”-blabla-compays usually have several locations all over the world. Perfect for washing money, right?
    Speaking of… Check this out: Royal Bank of Scotland Transaction details ACS Law: You’ll notice the names “Digiprotect” and “Digirights”

    http://pdfcast.org/pdf/bank-statement-acs-law
    ————————————————————————————-
    It’s time to strike back and kick some asses!

  2. Un says:

    I have just received letter from ISP so I have few more weeks left. Just happens to be that case was filled in the state where I live. Should I still try to quash it? Should I hire lawyer and try to settle with them? Can you suggest what I should do please?

  3. DieTrollDie says:

    Un, please read the various post on this Blog and others (mine is DieTrollDie). Tons of good information. As far what you should do????? That of course has to be your choice. Unless you want to give the Trolls your money for nothing, I would suggest you fight it. You can also send me some extra free cash if you have it. It only cost you some time and postage to file a motion to quash/modify with the Court (also sending a copy to the troll). The judge may accept your motion and the troll will not find out your personal information. What is the case number? Email me if you don’t want to post it. My email is doerayme2011@hotmail.com. There are some good motion examples here and I have one also. Just have to tailor it for your case/situation.

    DieTrollDoe :)
    http://dietrolldie.wordpress.com

    • Thanks for answering to the commenters – I’m pretty busy at work these days. Buy the way I added you to this blog’s user list – that way I hope your comments won’t wait for approval – I have no idea why it happens sometimes (and a lot with your comments!), I set my blog comments settings to maximum openness.

  4. DieTrollDie says:

    Here are some comments I made to a John Doe on this case – I thought it might be of value to the other 1448 John Does associated with this case.
    —————————————————————-

    Your situation is not bad, but you are still the subject of a Federal civil court case. What the Copyright Troll plans to do is try and obtain your name, address, telephone number, etc., from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (your Internet Service Provider (ISP)). After they obtain your information, you can expect the following:

    You will receive a letter from:
    THE McDANIEL LAW FIRM, PC
    54 Main Street
    Hackensack, New Jersey 0760 1

    The letter will say something to the affect that your IP address was observed downloading/sharing a copyright protected movie. They will claim you had knowledge that the offense occurred or that if you didn’t your were negligent and still liable for the infringement. They will offer you the chance to settle with them for a couple thousand dollars (I would assume $2-3 thousand). If you choose to settle, they will remove your from the court case and keep you name out of the public. They will point out that if you fight them in court, it is likely to cost you far more money that what they want. They will give a telephone number to call and discuss the matter.

    If you call them (I highly discourage this), they will try to get as much information from you on your particular situation. They will try to get you to admit that you or your family or friends did this and are liable. ANYTHING you say to them will be used against you OR they will use it to prepare counter arguments. The Copyright Trolls only want you to settle and pay them money. This is a money making scam they are part of – And they are abusing the courts to do this. How much money – if you figure $2,000 for all the John Does in this case, they could make up to $2,898,000.00 (1449 John Does X $2000).

    If you do not contact them, you will start to receive telephone calls and email messages from them. Each one will be more and more forceful with the threat of being named in a Federal law suit and having to pay thousands of dollars to defend yourself. My recommendations are to ignore the calls and emails. If you talk to them, tell them to stop calling and you plan to hire a lawyer to fight this.
    ———————-

    Here are some facts for you.

    1. Copyright infringement is a Federal crime 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. It has a statue of limitation of 3 years. So 3 years from Date/Month 2011 (Date/Month 2014) will be when they cannot go after you for this alleged crime.

    2. This case was filed in New Jersey. You live in XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX (Different State)? Right? Am I close? (GEO-IP look-up is easy). The point I’m making is the Federal Court in NJ has NO jurisdiction over you. The Troll knows this and don’t care – they will still say “PAY UP NOW!” If they ever named you personally in the NJ court, you would make a motion to dismiss because of improper jurisdiction – case dismissed. Please note that the Troll still can file a case against you in the court that covers your location (State). They are unlikely to do this because it costs them money to file a new case, and they have to find a lawyer in your jurisdiction to take handle it for them. The more they have to do, the less money they make.

    3. The case this Troll filed is basically copied from earlier Copyright Troll law suits that have been failing in Washington DC, Northern District of IL, and the the Northern District of CA. The problem they have is there are so many John Does in each case, the Trolls can not show they ALL acted in concert together – thus they are improperly joined. It is NOT the nature of BitTorrent to have that many downloaders and seeders at one time. Also some judges are seeing this activity for what it is – a “fishing expedition” to get subscriber information from the ISPs. None of the multiple Trolls out there have gone ahead and taken anyone to court who fights. There have been a couple “default” judgments against people who ignore an official court summons. The Trolls don’t want to fight – if they lose, that sets the stage for more court battles and less settlements paid to them.

    4. File a Motion to Quash & a Motion to Dismiss with the NJ court. There are examples on my Blog and others. File it anonymously and bring up the following points
    – Improper joinder of all the Does due to multiple jurisdiction not covered by the NJ court
    – Improper joinder of all the Does due to NO information showing that ALL the Does acted in concert – the list of IP addresses they have doesn’t show who acted together and the nature of BitTorrant does support their claim of that many Does.
    – Failure to conduct enough of an investigation to show who actually did this – The IP address alone does not equal guilt. It could have been a system that was compromised by malware (infected) or hacked; an “Open” Wifi or a poorly secured Internet Access Point (IAP); a neighbor using a persons Wifi without permission; or a guest using the IAP and conducting illegal activity without the owners knowledge.

    5. To file the Motions (and the certificate of service), you need to send copies to the following address:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
    I’m not sure which court to mail it (Trenton, Newark, or Camden)
    Here is Trenton
    Clarkson S. Fisher Building
    & U.S. Courthouse
    402 East State Street Room 2020
    Trenton, NJ 08608

    THE MCDANIEL LAW FIRM, PC
    54 Main Street
    Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

    6. You then need to fax a copy of the Motions to your ISP, so they will not give out your personal information until a judge rules on your motion.

    The judge may decide to ignore or disregard your motion, but at least you have tried. More and more judges are seeing these cases for what they are worth and they understand that if a Troll sees their jurisdiction as friendly, they will file more cases with them. At least your motion will inform the judge of what is going on and it will also tie up the Troll in responding to it – costs them time and money.

    I know it may seem daunting, but don’t give up!

    DieTrollDie :)

  5. Lukas says:

    Hi,
    I have a Polish friend who just received this suit notice from Comcast. I would like to help him file the Motions to Quash and Dismiss anonymously so that he doesn’t feed the troll $$$ but at the same time doesn’t waste money on a local lawyer (IL) to do it for him. Can you help me with this issue?

  6. PolkaDotTiger says:

    Just received this case notice from Comcast . Asking for help too, please.

    BTW, I use only eDonkey network, never torrent.

  7. DieTrollDie says:

    I did some work on a draft motion to quash and motion to dismiss for this case. It is located at my Blog – https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/draft-motion-to-quash-motion-to-dismiss-baseprotect-ug-ltd-v-does-1-x-new-jersey-case-no-211-cv-03621-ccc-jad-the-mcdaniel-law-firm/

    I will also add the motion and exhibits to my Motions page.

    Have a good day.

    DieTrollDie :)

  8. Monkey says:

    so how will comcast know to not release my info if I submit motion on behalf of john does not including my # and/or IP address…?

  9. DieTrollDie says:

    That is a valid concern. COMCAST and many other ISPs only want to do as little as possible to stay on the good side of the court. If COMCAST had any guts, they would hold out on releasing any of the subscriber information until the judge ruled on the motion. I heard from one Doe that COMCAST asked him to write his IP address on the motion he faxed to them – so they would hold his back. If they do release the other IP addresses and not yours, the Troll is likely to figure out what IP submitted the motion. If they do, what may happen? The Troll may do nothing or they may dismiss you with out prejudice to possibly file a single case against you later. I know that is not what anyone wants to hear, but remeber these guys have not actually gone after anyone in court. They want to scare people into paying so the bad situation goes away.

  10. Monkey says:

    “I heard from one Doe that COMCAST asked him to write his IP address on the motion he faxed to them – so they would hold his back.”

    – how would comcast know which Joe faxed a motion if that Joe did not include the IP address on the faxed motion in the first place?

    This is getting more and more unclear…

    Monkey

  11. Monkey says:

    Am I the only one sending a motion and fighting against trolls? Come on people, make some noise. Let’s send as many motions as we can…let’s work together…

    Q: What should I use for the return address on the envelope?

    Thanks guys for all your HELP!

  12. Nick35 says:

    I think we need a good step by step instruction to do that without an attorney.

  13. DieTrollDie says:

    Well one of the Doe in this case sent me a copy of a court order on this case.
    Order – http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/baseprotect_03621_nj_courordert.pdf

    The order states that Plaintiff has withdrawn the subpoena on this case and is required to serve the movant with a copy of the order. The order mention one specific IP address that filed a motion to quash. I haven’t looked at PACER to determine what exactly happened, but something is up . I’m not sure if the withdrawal of the subpoena is for all Does or just the one on this order.

    Is anyone following this case?

    DieTrollDie :)

  14. JOHN # @#@$@$ says:

    CALLED COMCAST AND THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION REGARDING SUBPOENA BEING WITHDRAWN
    I GUESS IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE ABOVE DOE > I HOPE THEY ARE NOT GOING AFTER HIM INDIVIDUALLY

  15. JOHN # @#@$@$ says:

    No.

  16. Mr Handy says:

    Hi there,
    as far as I know (being a bit involved in the case, but not “sued”) the Subpoena was rather general in its content. The one I was shown is directed to Suddenlink and it orders the ISP to:

    “produce the Mc Daniels the names, the physical adresses only of the Internet account owners identified by IP addresses and date and time of use listed in the sheldue attached hereto as Exhibit A”

    What’s more the court erected the terms of the Order (attached to the subpoena as Exhibit B).

    Unfortunately I have no access to the exhibits. The terms of Order may consist of useful info but who knows.

    Conclusion is that every ISP got its own Subpoena, so the withdrawal of the subpoena might concern the IPs of the certain ISP.

  17. hank says:

    so… did anyone else get granted a motion to quash?
    die troll die… 7 days is up … what did the plaintiff send to your “friend”?

    if they are withdrawing individual subpoena’s , that good… i guess they have enoug people to go after who did not submit
    i guess people are off the hook if they send a motion in .. or are they?
    should i ?… the clock is ticking away on this .

  18. Mr Handy says:

    Please enlighten me on one issue –
    – are those motions to quash the IP revealing subpoenas limited in time somehow?

    Since, for this time, no one is personally identified in the court trial, it would be impossible to “count the time” in aspect of starting point.

  19. hank says:

    comcast will release info on 10/29 – morning

  20. john doe says:

    Can all 1400 of does expect a letter now that infor has been released? or will the troll save paper? How soon? Did anyone receive anything yet ?

    Also, should i cancel comcast now to avoid any other possible trolling. I figured if I dropped comcast, i am basically off their grid and tey cannot send me info in the furure.

    • Canceling Comcast account will achieve nothing: they still have your info and will contact you via mail. And if you are a defendant in this particular case, I would relax and do nothing: this is the weakest trolling case, which will fall apart as soon as it enters argument phase, therefore it will never happen.

  21. steve says:

    What does this mean I found this on one of the docket websites >

    11/4/2011 – 13 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by BASEPROTECT UG, LTD. (MCDANIEL, JAY) (Entered: 11/04/2011)

    • DieTrollDie says:

      You have to pull up the actual document, but it appears the Troll dismissed one of the Does. If it was “with prejudice,” the Doe settled with the Troll. If it was “without prejudice,” the troll is removing the Doe in question and reserving the right to refile against them individually. This Doe may have filed a motion to dismiss and the Troll is trying to scare them.

      DieTrollDie :)

    • 3 latest dismissals were without prejudice. DTD is correct – scare tactics. Those 3 are from different states: IL, PA, FL

      Look at my latest twits :)

      fightcopytrolls FightCopyrightTrolls
      Predatory #copyright trolling lawsuit by @MCDLawPC and German fraudsters Baseprotect has 107 documents in the docket. ia700700.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.u…

      Way to go, guys! Overwhelm trolls with motions: they are losing.

  22. george doe says:

    What is going on with this lawsuit? Info has been released almost three weeks ago and as a John Doe I still have not received any info. Has anyone out there been contacted?
    I have a feelig that people are going to be named individually soon.

  23. steve says:

    new development . what does this mean?

    SUMMONS ISSUED as to SWARM # 1277D1F87FA9C4F28D43D2C07E9EF6816E366ED1 Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. Issued By *LEROY DUNBAR* (ld, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

  24. steve says:

    actually all this
    4 AO121 Copyright Form filed. REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS FORM MAILED TO Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20559 re 1 Complaint (ld, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
    12/19/2011 3 SUMMONS ISSUED as to SWARM # 1277D1F87FA9C4F28D43D2C07E9EF6816E366ED1 Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. Issued By *LEROY DUNBAR* (ld, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
    12/15/2011 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by BASEPROTECT USA, INC. identifying Baseprotect GmbH, Ltd. as Corporate Parent.. (ld, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
    12/15/2011 1 COMPLAINT against JOHN DOES 1-X, SWARM # 1277D1F87FA9C4F28D43D2C07E9EF6816E366ED1 ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4085370.) JURY DEMAND., filed by BASEPROTECT USA, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ld, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

    • DoeDoe says:

      On Dec. 15 Baseprotect filed two more suits for the same movie – “Weekend”, copyright owned by some Polish company (adult? or not? – have no clue) – for the alleged infringements occurring some time in October and November. The defendants are from all over the US, about 80-100 between the both suits.

  25. Anonymous says:

    steve,

    I have finally looked up into what that SUMMONS ISSUED is. Nothing to worry about, it appears to be just a template of summons to be issued to Does when they are named – no implications at this point in time.

    Of further notice, Baseprotect filed total of 5 cases on Dec. 15. They are all related to different swarms tied to the same title – Weekend – some Polish comedy flick.

  26. ftt says:

    Why would anyone download this movie knowing the the proverbial S#$T hit the fan back in June?
    or maybe thie didn’t?

    So now the troll will have a fresh batch of Does to work on. C’est la vie.

    I think the the summons is for the ISP’s, not future named DOE’s.

    I guess they wised up after all the MTQ’s came in and decided to focus around swarms this time around. We will see their startegy here.

    Also, it appears that now they actually own the copyright which is an update from the top of this page.

    Lastly, they went INC. so Righthaven it is !

  27. DoeDoe says:

    The summons are for the future named Does (if it ever gets there), not ISPs. Again, I haven’t checked all the cases, but in one I looked into it was a summons template that is typically sent over to a defendant (in which case, ISPs fall away automatically).

    And it does not look like the have the copyright this time, either. They attached an application for copyright to the complaint, which to me says they are still lacking the actual copyright. Strangely enough, the application is dated some time March 2011, and it had been pending for quite some time now…

    P.S. And I don’t really agree with the very first statement. Think about how much you knew about these cases before you got your ISP notice or call from trolls. I never even knew that RIAA was going after the music downloaders long ago. I never did anything like this, and before I was hit with the notice from my ISP, I never even knew of the existence of sites where you can get a sh**load of esoteric and expensive stuff for absolutely free. Ironically, now I know, and it’s tempting :)

  28. doe says:

    Are the new Dec 15 lawsuits/summons templates issued for infringment occuring for october to november or the does on which they already have info back from June?

  29. doe says:

    If its for new infrigment like doe doe says, how will they know who to name as individuals if all they have are Does 1-X?

  30. DoeDoe says:

    doe,

    (1) All five cases appear to target infringements in October-November.

    (2) And don’t get me wrong – No summons were issued. Only a template summons form was filed by the plaintiff counsel for future use. I think these summons are unusable until they are ready to name anyone in the case. If they go there (which is a big IF), then they will use these summons templates. Once again, I think there is no use for them right now, unless plaintiff lawyers want to bill extra 6 mins to the client…

  31. doe says:

    doe doe thanks !

    I get what you are saying, but again, how will they know who to name if* / when* they choose to use the template if they never summoned the ISP to release info for nov-oct. violations?

  32. DoeDoe says:

    doe,

    From my non-legal understanding, no summons ever go to ISPs because they are not intended defendants in this case. What they request the court to do is to subpoena ISPs requiring them to disclose info about their subscribers. Once the court grants that motion to subpoena ISPs, internet providers will have to comply and deliver the info to the plaintiff. Does will likely get a notification of this from their ISPs giving them some time to file motions etc. But, once the deadline has passed and the info is turned over to the plaintiff, the latter is free to amend the complaint and name people. That’s when they would use the summons – they will fill out the name/address of the defendant section and serve the NAMED defendants with those official court papers. They cannot serve Does, but nothing stops them from serving named defendants (other than the risk of unraveling their whole moneymaking scheme)…

    Hope this helps. For further reading, I would suggest DieTrollDie’s article “Don’t Panic” (you can find it on his blog).

  33. Ciacho says:

    It looks like Verizon issued my info to them because I started getting letter asking for money. I’ve never received anything by a certified mail. Does it matter? How can anyone send you something important by regular mail? They said I downloaded a Polish movie “Ciacho”, however my friend got the same for the “Weekend”. He called them and they settled for $500 from $2000 I guess. I talked to my lawyer and he offered to settle for $300 for $300. Which is $600 total. What do you guys do in this case? Just wait?

  34. dave says:

    I am not sure what you are saying.

    Your friend talked to the troll himself after he got a letter asking for 2000$ for downloading “Weekend” and the troll accepted 500$ as settlement? Did he have a layer he paid as well?

    Then your got a letter asking for 2000$ for “Ciacho” (Polish movie?) and your lawyer called and offered 300$ and charged you 300$ for services. DId troll accept?

    Elaborate. Can you scan in the settlement letter, or send it to dietrolldie blog for community to see?

    If you downloaded the movie (you said you did) then settling is your best option. ASAP

  35. Anonymous says:

    Per top of the page … I beleieve you are misleading your readers.
    Cezary 10 Co. issued Baseprotect a license (copyright acts) for a period of one year.
    McDaniel Firm absolutely have grounds to sue based as representatives of the Plaintiff who is lisensed the copyright.

    • Righthaven also claimed that it had right to sue, but courts disagreed. The agreement in this case seems fishy at best, and I don’t “mislead” anyone by articulating my personal opinion. It’s up to experts to discuss the (in)validity of my claims, and I never lied that I’m an expert.

      • Anonymous says:

        SJD

        Not claiming you have lied, I appologize if I have offended you What make this case interesting is that I believe the license is still pending approval from the U.S copyright agencies.

        Here is the thing, after Baseprotect license agreement expires in a year and is not renewed by the Cezary 10, the question becomes who holds the copyright license in the U.S which Baseprotect “supposedly” applied for (back in March I beleive)? Will the copyright expire along with the license agreement? From the litigative standpoint this may be tricky. Perhaps they do not have ground to sue? Doe’s… good luck.

        • You did not offend me, no. I understand that everyone here is frustrated, so I adjust. The question about standing is a tricky one, and scumbags deliberately used pretty vague language. Copyright registration question is an interesting avenue to explore, and I hope that some professional IP attorney from the defense side will explore it.

  36. Anonymous says:

    All this porn talk on this webpage is tiring… Stelle this, Duffy that, while a real killer menace slides under the radar unnoticed. This is a lawsuit that could set some huge precedents for all these porn cases.

    • So be my guest, elaborate, explain, discuss…

      Any precedent is possible when a lawsuit is actually litigated, and we are yet to see that given the Guardaley’s “evidence” … I personally don’t believe that “the second most interesting person in the world” is smarter than pornotrolls and can have a serious impact on the development of trolling plaque epidemic.

  37. Raul says:

    I think the question is: Can a foreign corporation maintain a copyright infringement action for a non-copyrighted film (Cezary 10’s application is pending but no one has yet to produce a certificate of registration), which it did not create, based on its alleged license to distribute the film over the internet? I don’t think so based upon what I have read about the Righthaven mess BUT New Jersey seems to follow the “application” approach as opposed to the “registration” approach when it comes to standing so it all boils down to whether a license can confer standing to maintain a troll lawsuit. Just on the grounds of sound public policy, this frivolous lawsuit should be killed.

    • Anonymous says:

      Cezary 10 is a Polish production firm. Cezary Pazura (owner) applied for a copyright in the US and it is pedning. Is this correct Raul?

      Cezary is pending, therefore Baseprotect has a license and not the copyright. Case closed.
      Righthaves past practice
      Additionally:

      So, C10 license the film distribution rights and any claims in regards to violations out to Baseprotect in exchange for 20 % of the cut.

      I have not seen any legit copies of the film on the Jackowo or Greenpoint store shelves. SO much for distribution. I assume they set up a honeypot and logged the IP’s, distribution GUARDLEY way that is. Could this be entrapment? Now that data has been released, how about profiling Polish IP owners. One could argue this as well to raise doubt.

      So now this Guardley enterprise hires the NINJA lawyer to handle the “market”. BTW …In the agreement is states that they are responsible for not only P2P violations but also streaming sites etc..>
      Hey JAY you claims to be out to stop the “thiefs” and bring consequnces, here is a fact showing how reputable and honorable you really are
      ‘TILL THIS DAY THIS MOVIE CAN BE WATCHED ON YOUTUBE FOR FREE!

      Anyway if you look at the dates of the license agreement. It was not signed utill JULY with the lawsuit being filed in JUNE. In the exhibit there is some kind of an Addendum moving a date back to MARCH. HOW SHADY! Lets raise some doubt here.

      Its a shame that many of the victims are probably Polish immigrants with limited English who probably will get intimidated into settling. SHAME really how the system is being exploited by this “reputable” law firm.

      Byles KILER, teraz pierdol sie Czarus!

  38. Anonymous says:

    has it been 120 days yet?
    is there a template for a dismissal based on not being named yet?

  39. MelonGua says:

    Living in Germany, i just received a lovely letter today from a lawyers office Demanding 800 euros for an episode of Walking Dead. Troll company Guardaley Ltd. gave them the info, after searching for info about this so called company I ended up on this website. I don’t get why a company like that can exist? And that my Internet provider is such a p***y, that they gave them the info right away. Then to make it stranger, if I phone the court that told Telefonica Germany(owner of Alice and O2) to give up my info, I myself have no right to see the info? But a random company may?

    • Anonymous says:

      I thought Guardeley had their “evidence” tossed out as shit by the German court system, and that’s why they partnered up with law firms in the UK, US and Canada to go trolling abroad.

      Are any German firms seriously pursuing people? These are probably the same empty threats we get here.

  40. MelonGua says:

    They have two addy’s here in Europe, a mailbox in England and a house in Karlsruhe Germany.
    A media company here claiming to own the rights to the episode contracted them to troll, scary stuff.

  41. Monkey says:

    What is the status on this case? Anyone please!!! Is this case still active? Are people still harassed by troll? :-(

    • Raul says:

      It looks like the lawsuit is still active with Troll Park dropping Does who object to the third party subpoena. Here is the docket to date http://ia700700.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.njd.260956/gov.uscourts.njd.260956.docket.html

      • Bonnie Park is the attorney on the record, but she is fresh after the college, and the real culprit is her boss Jay “Ninja troll” McDaniels. That’s so sad a young lady now has a frivolous lawsuit staining her carrier. Don’t think she had a choice. An old dog basically abused her ingenuousness.

        • Rid the Trolls says:

          Don’t believe she is so innocent. Many people know have had dealings with her and she a cruel, calculating, jealous and insecure woman cannot work with anyone but Jay. From what I hear, 13 people have either resigned or been fired for ridiculous reasons because of her. People I know worked for that law firm for years and they were done dirty. If they treat their employees like this, what makes you think they won’t do their clients wrong? The Firm unprofessional and illegal doesn’t even begin to cover it. They do low life work like this and prey on the unfortunatle because of Jay’s indebtedness to the IRS. They have plenty of lawsuits against them. They even claim to have a bogus office in New York but just pay another company to forward their mail and occasionally throw them a couple of bucks to “rent an office” for meeting potential clients.

  42. nicks says:

    as a point of interest, has anyone actually settled with kermit’s and his girl? How much?

  43. stacy says:

    Does anyone know what the latest “text of proposed order” on this case is related to? It looks beefy with 29 pages (largest on the docket thus far). I wonder if this case will finally go down in flames?

  44. lolek says:

    looks like ninja is making some sort of moves>
    ” ORDER that the Internet Service Providers listed in Exhibit A attached to this Order shall provide a copy of this Order to each John Doe defendant listed herein who has notified their Internet Service Provider that they filed a Motion to Quash or to Dismiss or to Sever in this Court. Each John Doe Defendant listed in Exhibit A that has previously submitted a motion to this Court seeking relief as stated above shall disclose their IP addresses and ECF motion filing number only to Pltf’s counsel; etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 6/22/12. (sr, ) (Entered: 06/25/2012)”

    Dickson … so true !

    • greg says:

      Does anyone has a example of letter that could be send to the Plaintiff disclosing my IP address and ECF motion filing number? I’m not sure what I’m suppose to send in. Thanks

  45. greg says:

    Does anyone was already in court?

  46. JohnhelpingAnna says:

    I am helping my friend with this case. My friend is on the same page as Greg – she received a letter to provide my IP address and ECF motion filing number? Does anyone has a example of letter that could be send to the Plaintiff disclosing her IP address and ECF motion filing number? Where can I find ECF motion number? Should she send it or simply just ignore it? Should she hire a lawyer and try to settle with them? Can you suggest what is the best approach right now?

  47. [...] mit Guardeley zusammen??? Da war doch mal was… Fehler bei der IP Ermittlung Hab ich gefunden An overlooked troll lawsuit: “Baseprotect UG, Ltd. v. John Does 1-X” | Fight Copyright Trolls ist zwar alles in Denglisch aber man kann's [...]

  48. jak says:

    DISMISSED !!!!! :)

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