This is the first post by a long-time reader (and valuable contributor to the discussions) Raul. I hope he will be back soon to share more of his thoughts in the form of another (and another) blog post.

Disclaimer: This post in a way constitutes legal advice but is being submitted for discussion purposes only.

I wanted to write my first post and try to keep it simple about the case entitled Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John Doe currently pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois (complaint is embedded below). Don’t let the title deceive you : this is not a lawsuit against a single malicious hacker, but a mere fishing expedition, which has a sole goal to obtain contact information of 6,500 Internet users and start extortion racket. Naming one person and burying hundreds, and (like in this case) thousands, of subscribers in a complaint is one of the new sleazy tactics employed by trolls in order to deceive both courts and public.

Who is Lightspeed Media Corporation?


Pornographer Steve Jones

Lightspeed Media Corporation (LMC) is a pornography enterprise located at 4402 N. Arcadia Drive, Phoenix Arizona 85018 (remember this). It is owned by Steve Jones, a former computer consultant who, along with his wife,

…publishes photos and videos of youthful models, and has long used terms such as “barely legal” and “barely 18″ in its marketing. Users pay between $30 and $40 a month, depending on how many sites they want to access.”

(According to Wall Street Journal.)

Today Steve Jones charges (NSFW link) either $34.95 or $39.95.

Who is LMC’s troll?


Former judge Michael O’Malley

LMC is being represented by an attorney affiliated¹ with Prenda Law by the name of Michael O’ Malley, who until August 2010 was a judge in the court where this lawsuit is pending. Undoubtedly he is on friendly terms with the judge who has been assigned to this case in what American Tort Reform Foundation has identified as being in the top list of “judicial hellholes” in the USA.

 

 

Who is LMC’s Forensic Computer Expert?

Quick answer: Steve Jones. According to the complaint at paragraph 14,

Plaintiff retained Arcadia Data Security Consultants, LLC (“Arcadia”) to identify IP addresses associated with hackers that use hacked passwords and the Internet to access Plaintiff’s private website and content.

[to do this] Arcadia used forensic software named Trader Hacker and Intruder Evidence Finder 2.0 (T.H.I.E.F.) to detect hacking, unauthorized access, and password sharing activity on Plaintiff’s websites.


Arcadia‘s
address is 4402 N. Arcadia Drive, Phoenix Arizona 85018, which is the same address for LMC. Arcadia’s sole member is Steve Jones (likewise Matthew P. Collins is the Organizer of Arcadia and Attorney of Record for LMC).


A million-dollar mansion at 4402 N. Arcadia Drive

Furthermore, guess who owns, markets and likely commissioned the creation of the forensic software? Yup, Steve Jones (www.arcadiasecurity.com ²). So a more accurate statement of paragraph 14 would be “Plaintiff’s principal, Steve Jones, retained Steve Jones to use Steve Jones’s forensic software to identify…”. No reports, investigations or testimony would be admissible in an honest court because they would be found to have been issued or given by a “biased expert” or one who has a financial interest in the outcome of the lawsuit.

What is the Amount of Money Involved In This Lawsuit?

LMC is claiming damages in excess of $100,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs. Back to reality, Buffy the Pirate Hunter (a.k.a. John Steele) has threatened to sue individuals and if that is the case then, in my opinion, LMC’s damages would be the cost of a lost monthly membership ($34.95 – $39.95) if a case actually went to trial.

What of Earth is Going on With Count I of the Complaint?

LMC’s troll is bringing lawsuit in a state court based upon a federal statute known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) on the ground that John Doe and his 6,500 co-conspirators used hacked passwords to access his websites (how this could happen to a former computer consultant who has been working in online porno business since 1999 is beyond me). On its face it looks a little scary but I do not believe the troll has pleaded a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss. This is because to make such a case the troll has to prove that his client sustained “damage” or “loss” of at least $5,000 which I think is not realistic.

The CFAA states that “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information and “loss” means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service. In plain English and within the context of this lawsuit it means that the Troll has to show that LMC spent at least $5,000 to repair and/or re-secure his websites. The complaint claims it can reach this amount “in the form of actual damages, statutory damages, and reputational injury” but there are no statutory damages contained in the CFAA and as to reputational injuries to a pornographer that uses models/actresses who are barely 18… good luck with that.

What About the state claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and civil Conspiracy?

The simpler ones (conversion and unjust enrichment) are arguably valid but the damages are small ($34.95 – $39.95). The other two causes of action (breach of Contract and civil conspiracy), in my opinion, are laughable under the circumstances of this lawsuit.

 

I will keep an eye on these cases and, if the need arises, write a post about personal jurisdiction and removal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the meantime, do not feed the trolls.

Thanks to On2ndthought for unearthing some interesting facts presented in this post.

Notes

A resource and discussion page dedicated to Lightspeed “hacking” cases.

4/16/2012: A follow-up post: Attorney’s opinion: Lightspeed’s claim is a farce.
5/5/2012: Another follow-up post by Raul: Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John Doe: a quick follow-up Q & A.

Here is an interesting blog post about St. Clair county and its public servants.


¹Pay attention to the address where deposition is set to take place: this is the official Prenda Law headquarters (a.k.a Troll Central).

² Initially I linked to www.arcadiasecurity.com, but it was brought to my attention that Steve Jones redirects to a Google image search for “gay love”. Is this how a mature individual behaves? You decide. Update: now it redirects to the Facebook main page; also, Steve Jones’s name is not listed in the domain name registration anymore: don’t worry, we have plenty of screenshots.

About these ads
Comments
  1. littlefoot says:

    Oh, also does anyone know if prenda is active in OR?

    • Raul says:

      No they are not. I, for one, am not aware of any trolls in the beautiful state of OR. My son goes to snowboarding camp on Mt. Hood every summer and returns with the most beautiful pictures.

  2. Anonymous says:

    This forum seems really nice. I wish I came here last week when I got my letter. I did

  3. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone know if they have lawyers in Alabama?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Just got a letter in CT today and have until May 24 to file a motion to quash or vacate with respect to the ISP handing over the info. Similar sentiments to Doe in NH several posts above. Anybody know how well Prenda is connected in CT? Thanks! Like littlefoot says, this blog has somewhat put my mind at ease

    • doecumb says:

      There’s a quick general way to search. It’s not complete. It ONLY covers Federal courts. It’s not necessarily up to date for an individual case. It’s an overview and quick start. It can sometimes help to track a single case, if the listing is kept current.

      Go to RFC Express.

      http://www.rfcexpress.com/index.asp

      On the bottom right, there is a box titled “Search lawsuits”. Uncheck the “patent” and “trademark” boxes and leave “copyright” checked. Under the “filed in” drop down menu, select your state’s court(s). Some states (with larger populations) have more than one court so you’ll have to repeat search for each separate court.

      Search back page by page. Look for cases that are v. John Does or v. John Doe or v. swarm or v. hash mark. Generally these cases don’t go back farther than mid-2010.

      If you try this search for a high troll state, like California (such as its Northern or Southern District), you’ll begin to notice the frequent porn studio troll plaintiffs, including:

      Lightspeed Media Corporation, Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, K-Beech, AF Holdings, Boy Racer, Digital Sin,First Time Videos, Hard Drive Productions, Pacific Century International, Berlin Media Art, MCGIP, LLC, NuCorp, Zero Tolerance, MCGIP, LLC, Third Degree Films, Millennium TGA, Inc, CP Productions Inc, Pink Lotus Entertainment, LLC, Millennium TGS, Inc, VPR Internationale, Evasive Angles, Inc, Diabolic Video Productions, Inc, Sunlust Pictures, LLC, Bubble Gum Productions, LLC, Heartbreaker Productions, Inc., Future Blue, Inc.

      Unfortunately it’s a large group of greedy plaintiffs & lawyers twisting legal process & demanding payments through fear.

      The business names are hiding the studio names and real names of the owners. There’s a lot of overlap here. Some owners have multiple businesses/studios. A few lawyers top the pyramid, work for many porn plaintiffs and run a network of local lawyers to file papers in one state.

    • doecumb says:

      On review at RFC, I see no porn copyright troll cases in CT.

      I can’t predict future plans of trolls. Trolls have shown bad faith and misrepresentation in the past. I’d guess they want to go for high yield places for them, with many targets, easy court filing. For example, Montana, with respect, has 20 copyright cases total listed on RFC over 18 years.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for the Info…I checked too. The only John Doe defendant cases I saw as far as back as 2009 were two where Microsoft was the plaintiff. I realize this whole mess has to do with the fact that O’Malley (former judge in St. Clair County) somehow got it into the state court in IL looking for people in that district where the original hacker is (but plan to use obtained names elsewhere to harass). But they’re basing their accusations based on federal statute, so under normal circumstances, shouldn’t all these be federal suits in federal courts? What are the chances that cases like this would be in CT state court (or any other state court for that matter)?

        • doecumb says:

          AFAIK, copyright law is primarily a Federal matter. AFAIK, litigation for alleged copyright infringement itself would go on in a Federal courtroom.

          The state (county courts in a state system) cases have been backdoor attempts (questionable use of state legal process) for trolls to get “discovery” of Doe name & contact information.

          99.9% of troll money in this scam “AFAIK” comes from “settlements” from Does after troll “demands”. All trolls need for this is discovery.

          Trolls seem to search for new tricks as the older tricks fail. I have not seen reports of state-level cases for copyright infringement (not discovery of infringement) in state courts. I suppose you could check with the state library or an intellectual property attorney in the state to see if a loophole has been found & exploited in the past.

          This is not legal advice and is only for discussion purposes.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Long story short, I talked to the Prenda Lawyer in Fl a few days ago and they said if I paid $4,000 they would tell my ISP that they didn’t need my info. Does this sound legit?(yes I am innocent)

    • Anonymous says:

      Sounds like extortion to me.

      • Raul says:

        Do not pay the ransom. In my opinion, even if they sued you (they will not) and you let them take it to a default judgement (unliklely) the fiinal judgement would be less than $500 as they cannot prove the damages claimed.

    • doecumb says:

      I don’t know if this is a trick question by a troll pretending to be a Doe.

      It is said many places on this site and others: Do Not Speak to the Trolls. There is little possibility for good and much possibility for bad.

      Is it legit ? Prenda will “legitimately” take your money for a false allegation. If the non-disclosure agreement is written in Prenda’s favor, a Doe may be even left open to repeat threat for the same (false) allegation.

      Read the FAQ’s & Resources at EFF, DTD, and here

      https://www.eff.org/pages/frequently-asked-questions-subpoena-targets

      http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/

      It will take time and effort to educate yourself but it is far better than wasting time and money feeding the trolls.

      • Anonymous says:

        I am not a troll. Just stupid. I sent an email to Raul via his other website.

        • Anonymous says:

          No disrespect meant. We’ve all had to learn a lot for these situations, even very capable copyright attorneys. The trolls try to pounce on fear, lack of information, and good will. We have to be careful, to assist people caught up in the mess.

  6. anon says:

    I got a letter today. I am identified by an IP address a date and a time. The date is july of last year. The IP address listed next to the date/time is my current IP address. I know for a fact I have not retained the same IP address for 11 months. Should I contact comcast legal and ask why they are using my current IP address as legal justification to disclose my identity based on infringement that occurred on the same IP address 11 months ago when it isn’t possible I’ve kept the IP that long?

    • doecumb says:

      In short yes, you should contact the legal department of your ISP. You can ask them these and other questions. You can also call them back if there are questions later.

      You can ask them if your account has a dynamic IP address, and if it is likely that exact IP address would be repeated one year after an alleged event. You can probably ask the IP technical support in a separate call, and compare answers.

      You can also ask how long IP address records are generally kept. AFAIK, an ISP keeping records more than 1 year without special cause is unusual. However, lack of evidence (and complete lack of a case) has not stopped trolls from demanding loot before.

      This is not legal advice and is only for discussion purposes.

  7. Anonymous says:

    From what I understand this isn’t the first time Lightspeed/Prenda have done this. How did those cases turn out? Was anyone sued individually? If so, how much did they get? If/when they get my name and info does my full name become public record in regards to this case? This really sucks. I am another victim of open wi-fi. I thought it was secured all this time.

    • doecumb says:

      There is a separate discussion for John Steele and his gang (Formerly Steele Hansmeier, now Prenda Law). http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier/

      As you can read here and other places, the Lightspeed cases are even worse nonsense than the torrent cases. A “conspiracy” of password use is even more imaginary.

      AFAIK, there have been no trials in the Lightspeed garbage cases. To get an overview of the Prenda/Steele track record in going to trial, you can look at this post:

      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/03/01/prenda-law-makes-the-classified-number-of-actually-served-defendants-public/

      On blogs, Mr. Steele or a sympathizer claims this is about to change, after allegations for 300,000 Does.

      AFAIK, for a Doe’s name to enter public record, the Doe would have to be named, which involves the troll filing papers and paying a fee in the Doe’s jurisdiction. There is an overview of steps in legal process here:

      http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/

      Going forward requires time and money for the trolls as well as a Doe. As Raul mentions, if the final judgement award is small, it would be poor business for the trolls.

      This is not legal advice and is only for discussion purposes.

    • Anonymous says:

      the florida case filed on feb 14th 2012 is the first password hacking case from lsm(or anyone else) as far as i know so there is no real history of how THESE cases turn out. (there is a ton of history on the bittorrent cases)

      as far as your info being on public record, that can only happen if they name and serve you personally with a subpoena, just having your info released to the troll DOES NOT put your name on the publick record.

      alost of people seem to be confused about the process, the letter from your ISP is a subpoena to THEM, not you, the lawyers for lsm will most likely not be able to serve YOU for a case in a state that is different from your own.

      • Anonymous says:

        I believe the St Clair case in Illinois was filed before the FL case but it hasn’t fully played out yet…

  8. jager says:

    are the new letters that are being sent out the same case or is it a different one filed on a later date? Any does who just received their letter please answer….i am worried i might be getting sent another later after what just happened…though people on this site are really helpful thanks

  9. Anonymous says:

    How do these people prioritize who to sue outright vs offering settlements. Do they negotiate with settlement amounts? How long after the ISP forks over the info will the phone calls and snail-mail begin? Seems to be 2-3 weeks from what I’ve read. If it doesn’t go to court, how long can one expect the “harassment” to last? Do they move on if they think they wont get something from you, or does it typically last throughout the statute of limitations (3 years from the alleged infringement) no matter what?

  10. Anon says:

    Is July now the earliest date of infringement?

  11. Anonymous says:

    I’m in the case number 11-L-683 from St. Clair and I was on their website trying to get info on the case and I keep getting an error. I’m not from Illinois and I am wondering what I should do. Any advice would be great because there is a lot to go through on here and I am very nervous.

    • jager says:

      relax you are just caught up in this mess just like the rest of us…i got a letter too and after reading on this site, i have calmed down and gathered my mind…i still have a lot of questions but most of the things i am completely solid about.

      1. if you want contact the local subpoena defense lawyers in Illinois through the eff.org website. at the least they can give you some information.

      2. If you have the money you can file a MTQ the subpoena, but in this case the judge favors the trolls and most likely it would get denied, what i was suggested by an attorney i spoke to.

      3. Most likely the trolls will get your info…name and address and phone and than begin to harass you to settle with them 2k to 3k…check out the dietrolldie.com website

      4. In extreme cases they will actually single you out and name you in your jurisdiction and sue, than even than they have to prove you did it, I am a victim of not knowing how these router things work and now i am caught up in this. Though i am prepared for anything to prove my innocence.

      5. what i hear most of the does on this website and previous cases is that most does did nothing and are just dealing with the harassment. if you get sued than its time to hire and attorney and fight (most likely not).

  12. terry says:

    I can’t understand why the ISP aren’t pushing back. If you are paying @50/month (heck, I’ve got a triple play package at $150+/month). If 5000 people switch providers – that’s a major lose of revenue to the original ISP (and cost to new ISP for set up as a truck roll is @90 per customer), not to mention the cost of sending legal documents. I know that Comcast really watches ‘churn’ (turnover). And on this posting, seems like they many of us are Comcast customers.

    And if this guy wins once, what stops him (and others) from doing it again. It’s down right bullyism. At what point do the ISP providers put their foot down because of the impact to them.

    I reached out to an executive at Comcast.. waiting to hear back. Next step will be to local news and or Brian Roberts, CEO if Comcast.

    • Yes and no. I agree that ISPs don’t do enough, though we can’t say they do nothing at all. In this particular case ISPs filed motions but lost due to the corrupt nature of St. Clair court. No matter how smart ISPs’ attorneys would be, if the opposing counsel is a former judge from the same, one of the most corrupt in US, court, what would you expect?

      There are some victories though. Recently trolls tried to use a new avenue (rule 27) to get IP addresses via “petition”. That would open a wide loophole for an unprecedented abuse. Understanding the danger, many ISPs converged to fight, and won.

      Currently we witness another Armageddon in DC, where many providers confront Prenda, and I hope that they will prevail, and this victory will be the sweetest one, as the judge on that case is an infamous Beryl Howell, a shameless hypocrite, who should have excused herself at the very beginning due to the conflict of interests. This case is so important that the papa troll Steele has crawled from under the bridge and applied to appear pro hac vice: inarticulate and undereducated Paul Duffy is definitely no match for EFF and ACLU who filed briefs there. Steele is not a match as well, but since his hubris serves as a pair of corks in his ears when common sense speaks, he does not know about it. Don’t tell him.

    • John Doe #1311 says:

      1# Most people will not switch providers, that’s just the way people are.
      2# If Steve wins money, he and other pornographers will keep doing this over and over till the money stops. If you pay, your name will be put on a suckers list and every day you will get a new scammer looking for money to keep your name out of the public eyes.

  13. AmericanSoldier says:

    Just got my letter yesterday via UPS. I live in WA state and have til the 24th of May to file an MTQ or Comcast is releasing my personal information. Don’t really know if this is “legit”, but from what I’ve read so far it sounds like a scam. I havn’t done anything wrong but this scares me in more ways than one. I can’t afford a lawyer and don’t know what to do. My question is, if my personal information is revealed, will my employer found out about this? I’m an American Soldier…

    • jager says:

      no your employer will not find out…they will attempt to settle with you fro about 2k to 3k and threaten to file a suit in your state. If they do (most likely not) than you have to go to court and try to fight. In that stage than it is public record i believe but i am not sure though. I only know most of this from reading all of the articles and comments on this website.

      • Anonymous says:

        I thought it becomes public record once an ISP released the subscriber info. I am debating whether or not settle before my ISP releases my info in 20 days. The main reason being the fear of my info become public record. If it wont become publice record until I am(if it happens) sued in my local jurisdication then I may have time to wait to see if I can get a lower settlement amount. I am sure at the expense of letters and phone calls.

        • jager says:

          hold on i will make sure to ask others but i am positive its not public info until they name you and sue you in your jurisdiction. At this point they are still attempting to settle and it hurts their case if your info is already public. This is how they get most of the settlement before discovery and after discovery.

        • Anonymous says:

          your info is not on public record unless you are served an actual subpoena for a suit against you. most likely in your own jurisdiction

    • doecumb says:

      This has happened before. Soldiers have extra resources to respond to Trolls, added to the others described here. There is something called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that gives extra protection.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicemembers_Civil_Relief_Act

      Check out the discussion here:

      http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/nu-image–inc–v–does-1-3-932–court-case-number–626931.html

      There may be a JAG officer or reservist in your network who could assist. (You’d have to check on details of confidentiality in that system, if needed) JAG officers have very difficult cases sometimes. They might like the opportunity to clearly take on clearly bad trolls.

      Soldiers make especially poor targets for trolls. Trolls may not know about a soldier’s deployment. And it’s a terrible PR risk for trolls. Will a judge look kindly on a soldier serving the nation or a porn purveyor?

  14. jager says:

    Raul. i wanted to know how long does the “harassment” typically last? Other doe asked the question but i m curious too. Thanks

    • Anonymous says:

      Unless you’re dismissed with prejudice, the statute of limitations is 3 years. I’ve got Lutz trying to crawl up my ass and make a nest. He still calls me twice a week even though I was dismissed without prejudice almost half a year ago. They’re full of shit though but I’m getting tired of having to screen ALL of my calls on my land line (thank God Steele didn’t get ahold of my cell number).

  15. Anon says:

    I wonder if this is the last wave of fillings. Remember, according to Steele Comcast has to release 80% of the info by June 12th and the rest two weeks latter. What is frustrating about this case is the inability to verify what anybody is saying due to the lack of information from the courts. Of the wave of subpoenas that came in yesterday, do the dates June 12th or June 26th appears in your documents? To the people that received the documents earlier, which date did you get?

    • NHDoe says:

      I got my letter yesterday. The dates: I’m supposed to file something by May 24, or Comcast will release my information on the following day. The court order says Comcast will produce 80% of the subscriber info by June 12, and final compliance by June 26. It says the court will hear any motions related to the order on July 20.

      As I understand it, if I file a motion to quash or a motion to dismiss, Comcast can’t release my info until after the hearing on July 20. Right?

      I read somewhere — maybe on this blog — that a motion to dismiss might have a better chance of success than a motion to quash, simply on the basis that I am out of their jurisdiction. Any thoughts on that?

  16. NHDoe says:

    Good pertinent video, in case people haven’t seen it: http://youtu.be/WWGvXucbvT4

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes, good, but…
        Though viewers without background may not know it, the video understates the extreme bad actions of the trolls. For instance, an initial settlement offer by trolls of $1500 is way low compared to anything recent. Some cases involve not dozens but hundreds or thousands of Does.

        Some troll schemes not only “put the video on the internet”, they probably intentionally seed torrents for the sole purpose of making claims. By no coincidence, in some troll cases their so-called tracking began the day after copyright registration was arranged.

        Beyond a “waste of judicial resources”, several hundred thousand households have already plagued with these scams. Tens of millions of hours of people’s time has been wasted by greedy trolls. If the number of case filings continue at current rates or increases, the entire Federal civil court system will stop working.

    • Sonic says:

      Really good post. thanks!

  17. [...] comments Anonymous on Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John Doe: a quick Q & ANHDoe on Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John Doe: a quick Q & AAnonymous on District [...]

  18. Anonymous says:

    Correction my email was not sent to Raul. It was sent to the owner of dietrolldie.com

  19. Anonymous says:

    Also a soldier and wife got a letter for this case. Deadline passed for our ISP to release so it looks like she’ll get to deal with the harassment while I’m away. Leaving for Afghan soon but looks like I’m going to fight the wrong people… we have plenty of enemies threatening us right here at home.

    Many people have access to our wireless. We have many houses close by, a community pool and parking lot, all right in front of the house. It could be any of dozens of people. Everybody with a cell phone that has wireless access (pretty much all of the smartphones now) that have been over have our wireless access password.

    Computer also had a nasty virus that pretty much took it over, maybe that was related too, who knows.

    Really wish this would get major media exposure, maybe a good 60 minutes or Frontline episode to really dig into it.

  20. Anonymous says:

    yikes – careful with justanswer.com

    Check out the answer (and the lawyer was paid for answering) the question! In cahoots with Prenda? No recommendation to get a real lawyer. Just call Prenda and negotiate!

    http://www.justanswer.com/law/6mjb4-i-named-lawsuit-lightspeed-media-corporation.html

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes. I have seen a few like sites where the common view is to settle as it is cheaper. Many of these lawyers have only a limited understanding of what is going on here. They figure that if Plaintiff is bringing this action, there must be some chance it would actually go to trial.

      DTD :)

    • Raul says:

      And the value of the answer was $58!? The actual value of an answer like that is the malpractice claim such a half-baked response like that would itself settle for.

      The reason why everyone is rallying together on this Lightspeed mess is because this is the largest porno troll enterprise so far. If collectively we can make it a horrible failure and bankrupt Prenda in the process, we will have mortally maimed trolling in the USA.

      So please do not settle regardless of the pressure. This is a crap lawsuit with very little actual damages. Prenda is trying to shame you into forking over a chunk of change that would be better spent on a nice vacation (just ask SJD, I did exactly that in Turks & Caicos).

      • justanswer is analogous to the myriad of online drug stores who operate on the verge of legality. Just do a quick search for “MShore” and you ‘ll see dozens of similarly named monemaking websites: eanswer.com, askalawyeroncall.com, rocketlawyer.com etc.

        And is it really customary for a lawyer to hide his identity? No contact info, no way to confront this lawyer.

        Avvo.com is a different story: many good lawyers answer there.

      • doecumb says:

        Yes, DTD. It’s surprising, especially after two years, how little even prestigious experienced lawyers know about these cases. I’ve spoken with some excellent nationally known copyright and I.P. lawyers and found myself doing the explaining.

        They don’t know that these are common cases, involving hundreds of thousands. Even after explanation, I’ve heard high powered lawyers make comparisons to very small frivolous lawsuit cases. They lack understanding of the scale and indecency (pun intended) of porn copyright trolls. They don’t know about the trolls misrepresentations, weak & non-existent evidence or about the extortionist scheme. The advice about settling may be well meaning, trying to help clients avoid entanglements. They don’t know trolls are cutthroat parasites who disgrace legal and creative process.

        As SJD notes, the blackmarket/graymarket generic advice does not approach the level of a thorough UNknowledgeable lawyer.

        • Raul says:

          That is what kills me. In our world you have a game changing event like Judge Brown’s ORR and yet no mention in the New York Law Journal?!

  21. Anonymous says:

    Here’s where I see the problem with settling in this particular case. They’re alleging that you accessed the Lightspeed website with a hacked password and even downloaded/redistributed content. So let’s say you settle for argument’s sake. They now also have your name associated with your IP address. If your wi-fi was unsecured and hacked passwords were used to access Lightspeed’s website via your wi-fi and IP address by someone else, then it’s not entirely unreasonable to assume that other hacked passwords may have been used to access other websites not owned by Lightspeed. Now, another plaintiff that is not related to Lightspeed retains Prenda and your IP address shows up with their “flawless” software. Do you get another settlement offer/demand from this new plaintiff for the same thing in the not too distant future?? They see that you paid up once for Lightspeed so what’s to Stop First Time Videos, or some of their other plaintiffs/clients from doing the same thing? The settlement letters seem to release individual defendants of all liability related to the client before the date of the settlement. However, does it prevent Prenda from acting as attorney for another entity (ie not affiliated with Lightspeed) to sue you for a similar thing in the near future if someone’s been using your wifi and accessing other sites with “hacked passwords” before the date of the settlement? My guess is not, and you’ve just shown the ability/willingness to pay up once and they know where to find you the second time! Is this Lightspeed case is the first to do the hacked password thing and will others will soon be following, or will that depend on how this one turns out?

    Lesson Learned: Secure your wifi and better yet, run ethernet cable to convenient locations in your dwelling if feasable, and turn off wifi altogether. At least this way (short of a virus), one knows who had access to his/her network should something like this ever go wrong again based on who’s been in the dwelling and had access to the wired ethernet port.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree with you 100%. This is going to get much worse. I am sure all of the major websites are doing a complete audit review of passwords used to access their sites. They will take action and not wait to see how things go for Lightspeed, This way they can get settlements.

  22. Anonymous says:

    most settlements include some form of a confidentiality agreement. if you are going to settle (and i don’t think you should) there are lawyers that will negotiate the settlement and prep the agreement for your best interests if you settle you should get a lawyer to draw up the agreement with air tight confidentiality clauses in them. that way if you get a demand letter from another one of their clients and they have not subpoena’d your info at least you can then sue the %$#@#$ out of them for violating the agreement. but like i said b4 i don’t think you should settle.

    (i am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice :-) )

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks for the feedback. Not planning to settle unless a lawyer representing my interests gives me good reason to do so. Your post illustrates my concern, though. Even with airtight confidentiality, a settlement doesn’t lessen the likelihood of other plaintiffs subpoena’ing my info with Prenda or some other troll IF someone else accessed other sites with hacked passwords via my IP/wi-fi (Wifi is now secured and I’ll run some ethernet cable this weekend).

      Once it starts, will the harassment last until the statute of limitations (SOL) is up on the main copyright claim (Claim 1), or will it go until the SOL passes on the claim with the longest limit?

      One other key question about SOL’s. Can the SOL of the federal copyright claim be extended to the length of the longest SOL claim (up to six years for contract breach depending on state), or are they separate? If they’re separate, don’t they lose the incentive to sue you once the threat of the big one (copyright) has passed, and hence the threats would stop?

      So you see my concern? Am I going to have to worry about other similar suits/subpoenas popping up? To me it seems like it’s all driven by the copyright claim because someone mentioned that the earliest date of accused infringement posted here was July 2011, and anything earlier than that wouldn’t give them much time to pursue/threaten the copyright claim, especially if you live in a state where they don’t have an affiliated troll. In other words, they won’t subpoena your ISP for any logged IP that’s > 1year old. Does that sound like it fits their MO? Since my accused date of download was in Dec 2011, I’d have 19 months to deal with Prenda/Lightspeed based on the copyright SOL, and I’d have to potentially be on the lookout for more subpoenas from other trolls/plaintiffs for the next 9-12 months if I go on the worst case assumption that my wifi was being used by someone else for similar purposes right up until this weekend. I just want life to go back to the way it was before I came home from work on Friday.

      Thanks to all again!

      • Anonymous says:

        I share your concerns about similar lawsuits. I just discovered my wi-fi was open. I am still trying to figure out how that could happen. Did it reset to default open or did someone hack my password? I have no idea how long my wi-fi was open. Well since October at least. That is when my IP was supposedly logged by Lightspeed. I have a question that could be relevant(maybe not). Do we know how many entries were supposedly made into this site by each Doe. I mean my supposed logging was in October, but couldn’t the person who stole my wi-fi signal also done so in September or July(or whenever). Does this lawsuit cover all possible enties in to the site(with a different IP address but same subscriber) or just the date that was highlighted by the ISP? Is there a chance of a double dip or triple dip settlement fee with this lawsuit? Just curious. Thanks to everyone for providing a lot of helpful information.

      • Raul says:

        Each claim has its own SoL which can be easily ascertained on a State by State basis by Googling. Few states have 6 year SoL for breach of contract. Once the SoL expires on a particular claim the claim is dead, the claim cannot be tacked onto another claim with a longer SoL. Hope this helps.

  23. kzw says:

    Has anyone noticed a discrepancy in dates? I had a lawyer point out to me that the motion for discovery before suit was filed in November, but that my date of alleged access is in December. Are they amending these motions on the fly? Why wouldn’t they protect their valuable assets if they were concerned about theft and not trying to build up an extortion racket?

  24. Look at the footnote 2.

    • Raul says:

      Thanks, freaking incredible. Time to start digging for a third Lightspeed post?

    • Anonymous says:

      footnote 2 for what?

      • Raul says:

        The main post above. Just discovered that Steve Jones has taken notice of this blog, as well as he should. This should be fun.

        • Anonymous says:

          Ahhhh – OK, didn’t see those. Thanks!

        • Every request to a web server contains a “referrer” field, i.e. the name of the site that hosts the clicked link. Therefore a web server can act based on this piece of information. Steve Jones wrote a simple script that redirect all requests to arcadiasecurity.com that come from fightcopyrighttrolls.com to another page, specifically a Google images search for “gay love”. I would expect this type of behavior from a 12 year old, not from… oh well…

          Test: first hover over the link below and make sure that it is indeed “www.arcadiasecurity.com”, then click on it if you are not at work or public place.

          Link to Arcadia Security.

          Now if you are skeptical — think that I trick you somehow — right-click on that link and copy to clipborard, them open a new tab/page and paste it into the address bar.

        • Anonymous says:

          As funny as the immature part of me finds that, doesn’t that just further put into question the integrity of the ONLY piece of evidence so far in this case, i.e. a list of 6500 IPs compiled by this “professional” software. Not that any of us found it credible to begin with, but couldn’t this just be used as additional proof of its invalidity?

        • Anonymous says:

          Gee, that’s pretty smart… so the so called security company that identified all of the Does in these lawsuits implements an example on their own corporate website just how easy it is to see where a web visitor comes from. So for example, if people were logging into their clients’ website using a compromised login, it would be helpful to know the previous web page/message board that was advertising that information so they could take action to get it shut down. Oh, wait… that wouldn’t be quite as “profitable”…

  25. Anonymous says:

    I received a phone call from Prenda today, threatening me about naming me in a Federal Case, because my settlement deadline was yesterday. On the letter they sent it was supposed to be May 2nd. So i guess this means im a target for them to take to court?

    • Anonymous says:

      How do they send the settlement letters? UPS, Fedex, USPS? I’m just curious.

    • No, you are just a target for extortion, as hundreds of thousands folks are. The scumbags don’t take anyone to court. Relax.

      • Raul says:

        Sorry my wife made me watch “American Idol” (she is invested in it, I do not give a crap). Back to trolls, SJD is right Prenda will try to cower you but the chances of them actually sueing you are minimal at best. I am already rethinking my first assumption that they have to sue someone to preserve their business model which the federal courts have thoroughly discredited. Maybe Prenda is so hubristic and dumb that they will not bother suing anyone? I am sure Randazza loves this legal tactic since Steele is borrowing and,consequently discrediting, Randanzza’s “theories” of liability. Keep it up Buffster, so far not impressed.

        • Anonymous says:

          Thanks To both You and SJD for the replies, I was not nor am i ever planning to settle, I’ll go to court if it comes to that, Im not educated in law but i find it hard to believe an Public IP is enough evidence for any Competent Court system to rule a Judgment in favor of Prenda

    • Anonymous says:

      Was this in relation to this case, or one of their other torrent case? Also, are you in a state where they already have a presence/affiliate?

    • Tracey says:

      My son a US marine got no warning & found out he is being sued yesterday 5/11. He is taking it to JAG but he is supposed to appear in court in Illinois at the end of the month. I’m trying to find a way to help him.

      • Anonymous says:

        Was your son actually named in a lawsuit by Lightspeed? I’m guessing not. I bet he received a letter from his ISP indicating his IP address was implicated in this lawsuit and that the plaintiff does not actually have his identity yet. The subpoena to appear is probably directed towards your son’s internet provider and not him. Definitely speak to a lawyer. Point the lawyer towards sites like this so they can familiarize themself with these types of cases and the scam these folks are perpetrating. DO NOT Speak to any of Lightspeed’s lawyers! Probably best not to use your real name on this board going forward as well.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I just received a letter today claiming my I.P was used. They hi-lighted my I.P…It’s not even mine.

  27. Bill says:

    Got my letter today via UPS. I have a question, what if my isp is not comcast? At the time in question, my isp was AT&T. Does that make a difference?

  28. Anonymous says:

    just got a letter today i have no idea what the heck is going on i live in TX should I lawyer up or just ignore. I can take the phone calls just can’t take getting served.

    • Anonymous2 says:

      Opinions vary on how protective working with a lawyer is, without being named and served. A lawyer could definitely protect against the harassment of calls and against misstatements to the trolls that might hurt a real case. Since many lawyers with troll fighting experience give free or low cost initial consultations, ask around. You can read many comments about how infrequently Prenda and trolls name & serve. Moving to discovery and trial is even more rare.

      FYI, The troll that’s been active recently Texas is Attorney Douglas M. McIntyre. He’s has filed 14 cases for porn purveyors in less than a year. The link to Prenda/Steele seems clear. Most of his “clients”
      (Combat Zone, Sunlust Pictures, Pacific Century International, Hard Drive Productions, First Time Videos, West Coast Productions, Bubble Gum Productions, and AF Holdings)
      are represented by Prenda associates in others states.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ok my only point of confusion is why would they actually bring a case against me. It seems that their case is so week so why serve any body and actually try to bring them to trial? If in trial the case would be thrown out? I just do not have the money or time for this, almost just makes me want to settle. – DOE in TX

    • Anonymous says:

      More information I got the letter via UPS from comcast today. I have to responde by May 31st

      • Anonymous says:

        I got a letter via UPS from Comcast today as well. I have to respond by May 31st. What should I do?

  29. Anonymous says:

    I got a letter from comcast today also. Have to respond by May 31st. I live in CA where there are “affiliates”. What to do? Would it be cheaper just to settle with Lightspeed or to get a lawyer? I don’t have much money.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I got a letter on via UPS from Comcast on 5/31/12. I also have until May 31st to respond. I live in PA. If you don’t respond and they send you the letters and calls will they do this till the day you die or they can only do it for a certain amount of time?

  31. Anon says:

    I wonder if this is the last wave of Comcast subpoenas? I’m trying to figure out how they are sending these out. It’s not by supposed infringement date or local. I wonder if it is by ip address? To the newest victims, without disclosing you ip address, does yor ip start with an early or late number? For example 16 or 98.

  32. Tracey says:

    My son ,who is a US Marine just received a lawsuit notice via UPS yesterday. These trolls at Lightspeed vs John Doe. He has never even been to this website. He is taking this to JAG soon but does anyone know of something else he can do because the notice says he must appear in Illinois at the end of the month. I want to also say thanks to everyone who contributes here. I never knew anything about this & am glad there was easy access to good information.

    • Raul says:

      Tracey,

      First off, please thank your son for the service he is giving our country. Secondly, your son does not have to appear in IL, that is were his ISP will turn over his personal identifying information if he does not make a motion to quash the suboeina by the end of the month. If you have not done so read bm follow up to this post http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/05/05/lightspeed-media-corporation-v-john-doe-a-quick-followup-q-a-2/ Lastly your son’s JAG officer will most definatley be able to help as servicemen are afforded certain extra protections not afforded civilians.

      • tlea says:

        Thanks so much for getting back to me. He is my only child & I am worried about him & any monies this may cost as he has a baby on the way. I will certainly let everyone know what happens after he sees the Jag officer.

        • Raul says:

          tlea,

          Relax it will all be fine, please read what doecumb commented on May 5:

          “This has happened before. Soldiers have extra resources to respond to Trolls, added to the others described here. There is something called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that gives extra protection.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicemembers_Civil_Relief_Act

          Check out the discussion here:

          http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/nu-image–inc–v–does-1-3-932–court-case-number–626931.html

          There may be a JAG officer or reservist in your network who could assist. (You’d have to check on details of confidentiality in that system, if needed) JAG officers have very difficult cases sometimes. They might like the opportunity to clearly take on clearly bad trolls.

          Soldiers make especially poor targets for trolls. Trolls may not know about a soldier’s deployment. And it’s a terrible PR risk for trolls. Will a judge look kindly on a soldier serving the nation or a porn purveyor?”

  33. SICIALIAN CAPO says:

    Can someone shed some light as to the total number of DOE’S that are involved in the password hacking case in Illinois Case 11-L-0683 ? I keep on seeing the reference to 6500 DOE’S. Is that the total number. Somebody please HELP & explain!!

  34. thomas922 says:

    How useful would it be to file a motion of severance?

  35. Anonymous says:

    The attorney I spoke to said that in the St Clair case 11-L-683, the court is not granting MTQ’s. I was thinking of hiring Ms. Dotson also but to pay 1,000 for filing a motion that is going to be denied?

  36. anon says:

    RAUL:
    In regard to the PW Hacking Case in Illinois 11-L-0683, the lawsuit refers to the DOE’S that simply used the hacked PW’S as co-conspirators. Is there a way to distinguish DOE’S that used the PW’s & only viewed the content without D/L anything from those DOE’S that did D/L content? Should one want to refute the accusation of D/L any content- who has this information. Is it part of the information (besides IP# , Date & Time) that Lightspeed’s Software revealed to him or does it come from the ISP provider(ie COMCAST) as to what each DOE would have D/L. From what I understand, Comcast is only turning over name & contact info to the trolls if you don’t file a MTQ, so when they contact the DOE’S to settle, how do they get & substantiate what they say you D/L. Also, are the settlement amounts that the DOE’S are being asked to pay reflective of what they D/L or is it a flat settlement rate across the board, even if you didn’t D/L anything.

    • Raul says:

      At this point we do not know if Steve Jones’ THIEF software can distinguish between those Does who downloaded and those Does who just viewed the content (allegedly). If they call (I have some doubts that they will) do not speak to them or just give them dietrolldie’s Richard Pryor Response. I think a commenter here reported that Prenda is asking for $4,000 to settle which is extortion and unrelated to the value, if any, of the allegedly downloaded or viewed content.

      • Anonymous says:

        no one will ever really know exactly what data steve-o’s theif software actually has because none of these cases will get to that point in any actuall court

        • doecumb says:

          It’s a big point. Other troll lies and tricks are usually discussed first.The “THIEF” software and ALL the other troll technology AFAIK has NEVER been tested by neutral evaluators. Its hardly been even discussed in real court proceedings. The trolls expect us to accept it because somehow it involves “computers”.

          Imagine if there were 300,000 speeding tickets issued, where a radar-type gun was used and this device could never be tested in any way. Those cases would be tossed. Radar is widely known, established, well tested concept. The troll tracking technique have no established method stated. Trolls are asking us to take their word in cases with reputations and (at least) 20 times more money at stake for each person. So far there is no checking their alleged tracking tools.

        • doecumb says:

          Troll alleged tracking software probably won’t be independently evaluated because:
          (1) It’s all downhill. The apparent authority of the software will never be higher than now. Every tool and its application has flaws. Major flaws would discredit the tool entirely.
          (2) Besides error, tracking software limitations will be known. It’s no coincidence that the “Exhibits” in the troll legal complaints give very little information: I.P. address, date & one time stamp.
          (2) Troll accomplices will cry that the software is “proprietary” and that trade secrets are being divulged. It’s double cry baby illogic: “We can’t defend our scam because you won’t let us hide our poor evidence”.
          (3) Part of testing requires knowing the motives of all involved. Troll “software” accomplices have some profit stake in the troll cases. Troll agents like Guardaley/Schulenberg & Schenk may be the real initiators of some troll cases or entire schemes.
          (4) The troll technologists themselves have no major good reputation. Their credentials may be minimal or suspect. Would the troll case declarations be using Jon Nicolini or Peter Hansmeier if they could get Linus Torvalds ?

        • DieTrollDie says:

          Doecumb,

          The software and author are unlikely to ever be evaluated or deposed in any sense. As stated, this software undoubtedly has flaws and there is an error rate. To believe it is better designed and written then Adobe or MS products is ridiculous. I’m not a coder by trade, but I do keep an eye out for all the various vulnerabilities and software security alerts that routinely come out. This software is using the “Security through Obscurity” model and it is a piss poor model. The proprietary nature can be dealt with, but there has to be independent testing to documents how it works and any issues/flaws it has. If you take a look at the main computer/network forensic software out right now, you will find it is independently tested and the authors address any issues brought up. Arcadia is a joke in this sense. Just like the Wong case, Plaintiff (lightspeed) will make a deal when he is pressured to disclose anything about this software. This software is nothing more than V 2.0 of the same type of crap paid for by Steele Hansmeier and run by Peter Hansmeier. It is only designed to help generate settlements, nothing more.

          DTD :)

        • Anonymous says:

          I make a living in QA, specifically for software and/or hardware that needs to be verified and validated in regards to complying with or being approved by the FDA. While not technically in the realm of 21 CFR 820 in all of its glory, I would be glad to review the specifications, requirements, design history, design review, test plans and any and all verification and validation activities associated with ensuring the program was working as intended.

          ‘Proprietary’ is the word programmers use when they don’t want to say ‘piece of shit’. And/or try to escape the long arm of the QA law.

          In other words, a piece of software that hasn’t been evaluated, or proven effective in a market, is worthless. No one (including courts) should take it seriously. Probably why these joke lawsuits only go through in corrupt buddy-buddy jurisdictions where the attorney is an ex-judge.

        • Flashlight says:

          Also the fact that Acadia is Lightspeed is Steve Jones means that Acadia has a financial interest in the lawsuit (contingent fee arrangement with Prenda) and the Doe data should befound to be inadmissable or so obviously biased as to be near worthless. Of course in the swamp of sleazy doings and judicial laziness which are the hallmarks of Judge LeChein’s courtroom (IMHO, of course) the rules of evidence fall to the rules of expediency. I wonder if Judge LeChein is up for reelection this year and needs some donations from the plaintiff bar?

  37. Anonymous says:

    I also received a notice from Comcast. Should I get a lawyer or wait it out?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Raul, just curious, what would be the benefit of hiring a lawyer if they are not granting MTQ’s?

    • Raul says:

      Because St. Clair is such a black hole, we have no idea whether MTQs are being granted or not. If the MTQ is not granted, there is at least one attorney who is planning on taking the denial up on appeal to a higher court.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Came home today from a short vacation and found this UPS envelope from Comcast. Yep, the LETTER. First time I’ve heard of Lightspeed Media Corp. I’m freaking out. Doing alot of reading since. Please keep advice coming…

  40. PERRY MASON says:

    RE: PW Hacking Case in Illinois 11-L-0683

    RAUL:
    Would it make sense that since the plantiff is skirting the joinder requirement by grouping all of the 6500 DOE’S together improperly to avoid paying the excessive filing fee that would result if filed separately ($350 VS $2,275,000), that all the DOE”S unite & hire a high-powered internet attorney defense team to act on their behalf to file an MTQ for the 6500 & an appeal to a higher court if denied. I’m sure with the enormous # of 6500 DOE’s as potential clients, the DOE’S might be able to get a reduced discounted rate from the attorneys for their services, not to mention the publicity & I think their voice as a combined group would have would have a greater impact on a higher court during the appeal process. The combined defense of 6500 DOE’S would possibly show the courts that all the defendants are on the same page in fighting this case. The combined group @ a discounted rate might also be able to get better representation from an experienced internet attorney that they wouldn’t be able to afford if they had to hire him as individual defendants. A high powered internet attorney would also be able to point out all the non-apparent holes in the plaintiff’s case. Organizing & uniting on the surface just seems that it would have a greater impact on the courts kinda along the “STRENGTH IN NUMBERS” theory. Just a little food for thought from an observer from afar!!
    .

    • Anonymous says:

      I’d be in on that – absolutely. I think Raul posted something on the concept a little while back. Really wish a lawyer could post on here and start this concept up.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Yep $4000 is what their letter said. Would probably have considered settling just to make it go away if it hadn’t been that much.

    It’s now cheaper to get an attorney. They are getting greedy and hurting their own scam…

    • Anonymous says:

      Was the settlement amount for just for the one alleged infringement, or would it release you (and any/all ip’s associated with you) from ANY potential infringement prior to the settlement date??

    • Anonymous says:

      So they already have your info and sent you a letter stating $4,000 to settle out of court?

      • Anonymous says:

        he probably did what i did and called the # listed in their letter b4 reading all the info online. when you call them they tell you 4,000 and if you ask for less they put you on hold “to talk with their clients” and the come back and say no less than $3400.

        • Anonymous says:

          No, I didn’t call them. My ISP released the info last month… so yes, they already have my info and sent me a letter stating $4K…

  42. goatcheese says:

    I wouldn’t settle for $3.40. I have received a wealth of info from this site, and I am grateful for it. I am 100% convinced the IP harvesting was an intentional set-up scam.

    • Anonymous says:

      This whole thing is so obviously completely corrupt, and they are dragging so many random people into it (from active military to who knows what else), that it’s hard to believe it won’t end up very badly for Lightspeed and Prenda.

  43. Anonymous says:

    i received a letter from my comcast releasing my name and address if i don’t file a Motion to Quash. I live in TX Should I ignore. Based on this site it appears they have no case at all. I have sense secured my network so this never happens to me again. I talked to a lawyer who offered to take all the phone calls and letters from prenda law for 350 so I don’t have to be bothered with the harassment. He will also keep up on the case to let me know the developments of it. Lawyer is in IL were the case is at. So would it be better just to ignore the calls and mail or does it put more at risk for them to take it further and file against me in TX by ignoring. Or will getting a lawyer based out of IL to intercept the calls put me more at risk for them to file against me in TX. I just want this to go away. But obviously im not going to settle since it appears they have no case.

    • Raul says:

      The price is right for using a local attorney as a shield and it is a good idea. Would you mind sharing his name and number as some of your co-Does maybe interested in this option as it is low cost, avoids the harassment and your chances of being named and served are almost non-existent.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Is there a MTQ template for the case in Illinois? I don’t have $ to hire an attorney, but I am thinking about submitting my own to hopefully delay things.

  45. MATLOCK says:

    RE: PW Hacking Case in Illinois 11-L-0683

    UNDERSTANDING LOST

    To obtain a civil remedy under CFAA, a plaintiff must satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of establishing a $5,000 loss. Doing so is not as straightforward as it may appear.

    But a “loss” under CFAA is not what lawyers generally understand to be damage or damages, each of which has a different meaning under CFAA. For example, stolen intellectual property, regardless of its value, does not count toward the $5,000 loss. Privacy invasions and personally identifiable information, regardless of how valuable, also do not constitute losses under CFAA.

    Instead, a loss must be a cost. It must be a reasonable cost to the victim to investigate, respond, or remedy the damage the violation caused to the data or computer, unless the case involves an interruption of service, which is relatively rare.

    One example of such a cost would be the fees a computer forensics firm charges to secure the violated computer, to investigate the damage caused to the computer and to restore the data.

    The lawyer also should retain a licensed computer forensics firm, which should do two things. First, it should secure the computers so the evidence will not be tainted. Securing the computers includes preventing anyone else from using the computer to investigate on his own. Second, the computer forensics firm should conduct a thorough investigation and perform the work necessary to respond to and remediate the problem. The computer forensics firm actually has to perform the work. Speculation about work that likely will be required in the future will be insufficient to constitute a loss.

    Who is LMC’s Forensic Computer Expert That Was Chosen To Investigate?

    Steve Jones. According to the complaint at paragraph 14, Plaintiff retained Arcadia Data Security Consultants, LLC (“Arcadia”) to identify IP addresses associated with hackers that use hacked passwords and the Internet to access Plaintiff’s private website and content.
    [to do this] Arcadia used forensic software named Trader Hacker and Intruder Evidence Finder 2.0 (T.H.I.E.F.) to detect hacking, unauthorized access, and password sharing activity on Plaintiff’s websites.

    An independent computer forensics firm should have been hired instead of using Plaintiff’s own company-ARCADIA DATA SECURITY CONSULTANTS. This created a conflict of interest because the Plaintiff’s computers must be secured so the evidence will not be tainted. Securing the computers includes preventing anyone else from using the computer to investigate on his own. Since Lightspeed & Arcadia are one & the same, NO INDEPENDENT & NEUTRAL COMPUTER FORENSICS FIRM SECURED THE PLANTIFF’S COMPUTERS TO INVESTIGATE THE DAMAGE NOR WAS ANY EFFORT MADE TO REMEDY THE DAMAGE. Instead Plantiff ACTUALLY PERFORMED THE INVESTGATIVE WORK on his own & HARVESTED THE IP’S. Therefore Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of a loss under CFAA.

    Should Plaintiff claim an interuption of service instead based on the premise that his paying customers were unable to access the site due to the PW sharing DOE’S, then DOE”S Defense Attorneys should ask for & subpeona, if necessary, the number of active memberships(without naming names) to the Lightspeed Websites. This will ascertain exactly how many members were actually affected by a service interuption. DOE’S DEFENSE ATTORNEY can easily verify the active membership number by reconciling the Membership Income derived by the Plaintiff to the Plantiff’s reported income on the Federal, State & Local TAX RETURNS filed by LMC. Plaintiff would therfore have to produce LMC’S Corporate Tax Returns to substantiate a loss based on an interuption of service @ the request of DOE’ S Defense Team.
    Keep in mind that the Lightspeed Websites supposedly have not been updated with NEW content in years, which usually is not helpful in maintaining existing members or attracting new members.

  46. Anonymous says:

    even when you copy and paste http://www.arcadiasecurity.com into your browser it still redirects to a google search for gay love, this must of just changed because google has a cashed copy of the site here http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xZsrgMWd8bkJ:www.arcadiasecurity.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    What does this mean. Are they trying to change the site so that it can appear more valid in the crooked court it is in now? Is this something somebody did to them or can they only redirect themselves?

    • Hmmm… I’m 99% sure that I tested this scenario: click on the link from the article -> gay love; copy-paste to a new tab -> arcadia security.

      So, either my memory betrays me, or someone is playing games I have no desire to be a part of.

    • BTW WHOIS for arcadiasecurity is private now. A bit too late: I have a screenshot. Cover your criminal tracks, Mr. Jones? Isn’t it similar to spoitation of evidence?

      • thomas922 says:

        I also have a copy of the page from the Arizona Corporation Commission that shows Steve Jones as a member of Arcadia Security LLC.

      • Anonymous says:

        I have found a website where there is a cahsed version of the older WHOIS record. I want to perserve it in such a way that it is admissible in court. Want to be ready in case of a lawsuit will a screen shot work just fine.

      • Anonymous says:

        I have a screenshot of of the azcc.gov page for arcadia on 5/9 showing Jones on as the sole member. I also took a screenie of the google cache page which shows the Thief 2.0 arcadia original blue and white logo and most of the text on the page before it was directed The Jpeg has a date stamp for today. Can somebody get proof that that link is now being directed to gay love google images?

        Defendent attorney in court would ask: “Why would a legit business man who’s sole purpose is to protect and defend his copyright material play these games?”

        I think we’ve gathered enough proof to show conflict of interest and how closely tied Jones is to Arcadia and THIEF and what intent is: to harvest rather than prevent :-)

        Somebody mentioned RICO in a previous post. What does it take to establish a required pattern for a multistate extortion ring???

        • IndianaDoe says:

          This may help. This is primarily a discussion of the definition of extortion and blackmail.
          United States v. Nardello – 393 U.S. 286 (1969)

        • D'oh! says:

          All true, and Lightspeed/Arcadia/Prenda have to know how weak their case is. Everything they do is designed to get contact info for Does so they can play their extortion games.

          They have zero intention of going to trial, because all the massive holes in their case would be exposed.

        • Raul says:

          I for one LOVE playing games with Steve Jones. The idiot keeps reacting to this blog and I find it hilarious. I hope his buddies in xbiz are witnessing his pathetic attempts to cover his lack of forethought which is going to sabotage his most recent attempt to extort money from his fellow citizens.

          Lets watch and see if the idiot reacts to this by removing his Arcadia Security THIEF ver 2 logo from this gfy.com comment and all comments at the forum: http://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17507589&postcount=8

          Concerned Does may wish to take a screenshot of the comment within the next 30 minutes or so.

          Jump washed up pornographer, Jump!

        • I’m still waiting for more information to come to confirm that it’s really Steve Jones playing games. I don’t want to be similar to yellow press and look stupid it it happens to be a hack, that someone cracked the password to the registrar.

        • juancarlosdeburbon says:

          I was the one who mentioned RICO and also Barratry.

          All of the evidence you need is here and at DTD. I am trying to organize it into a form letter to be sent to the US and State Attorney Generals. I encourage EVERYONE to write them and explain what’s going on. You don’t need and shouldn’t write as a Doe. Put your real name and address. Don’t worry they cannot and will not connect you to any of the cases pending. However, if they receive enough letters from real people they will start investigating cases in their venue, and there are enough Does to make a significant impression.

          Through public record I am going to establish a timeline of the Troll’s events. I am going to specifically list cases and courts. I will also demonstrate how the same IP address shows up in different courts even after being voluntarily dismissed in another court’s case. I will reference rulings and the Troll’s own actions of not pursuing legal action after discover but rather pursuing hostilities to force settlements.

          The trolls really didn’t think that they’d piss off a bunch of highly intellectual and motivated people on the internet. They thought this was going to look like shooting fish in a barrel. They didn’t think we’d get organized and gang up against them in the courts and then advocate that the States and Feds start pursuing them. It’s going to end ugly for the trolls and their attorneys. I am hoping at least for recovery of settlements and legal fees. Ultimately some of the attorneys would lose their licenses to practice or get sanctioned.

        • Raul says:

          So if you go over to gfy.com and locate any of Steve Lightspeed’s comments with his Arcadia Security THIEF ver 2 log and click on the logo it will also link to Google images of “Gay love”.

          Steve Jones,

          You are now officially a footnote in the history of xbiz. When you allow a blog to dictate your business decisions and make you hide a product that you were vigorously pimping until this blog made you hide it, you become a joke in this community and in xbiz. Do your Bros know that SJD has made you bend over in submission? This trolling crap caught the average American citizen unaware in 2010 but now… .

    • Anonymous says:

      I find it entertaining that the cached arcadia site even says that it is mainly focused on finding out who is “stealing,” as opposed to actually trying to prevent the access from happening. Just more proof that they just wanted to fuel their extortion scheme instead of protecting their crappy site.

      I have saved that page as well for records in the future if needed.

  47. NotADoe says:

    is anybody able to report on today’s meeting?
    05/14/2012 CAL:MOTION HEARING ADMINISTRATION csam

    also, if it does not turn out well, does anyone know if there’s a fee to file MTQ pro se?

    thanks

  48. Anonymous says:

    I wanted to leave this in fresh Reply. I have found an lawyer in IL that will handle all the harassment e-mails and phone calls from Prenda Law for $375 raul suggested that I leave his number and phone, checked with the lawyer and he said that is ok. Here is his contact info:

    Billy Joe Mills
    billy at firmequity dot com
    His website is: http://www.firmequity.com

    He is very very helpful.

  49. INSPECTOR CLUSEAU says:

    Here’s a link to an article about the lawsuit that includes a picture of the ARCADIA SECURITY SOFTWARE LOGO that appears to be an advertisement for hawking the software.

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