About

Who are copyright trolls?

The image is a gift from @WagTheCat to this site.

 

Copyright trolls are law firms or individual lawyers who adopted a lucrative scheme to profit from copyright infringement allegations through extortion. Copyright trolls represent holders of copyrights on movies (mostly pornography).

Troll lawyers or firms conspire with technological companies that monitor peer-to-peer (p2p) networks (BitTorrent or eDonkey2000) and find instances of alleged infringement. IP addresses, timestamps and file names are being recorded. Peer-to-peer networks survive because while downloading a file, a p2p client is also forced to upload already obtained pieces of that file to other participants, therefore trolls can claim not only illegal access to copyrighted works but also distribution. In some cases trolls themselves seed (upload) their client’s copyrighted works to p2p networks with the goal to entrap those who start sharing those works.

The next step is to match IP addresses to real people. For that purpose a troll files a lawsuit against John Does (judicial term for persons not yet known), lumping together many defendants, sometimes thousands, regardless of jurisdiction. Lumping together many people, trolls save on filing fees: a fee to file a civil lawsuit is $350; if they would file a lawsuit for each defendant separately, they would end up paying prohibitively large amount of money. Then they secure (obtain judge’s order for) a subpoena to the ISP that owns the recorded IP addresses. ISPs keep the records of dynamically assigned addresses at each moment and as such they can match IP + time stamp to a subscriber.

Once the names and contact information of subscribers accused in infringement are obtained, trolls send out virtually identical “litigation settlement” demand letters. These letters (and sometimes telephone calls) threaten defendants with costly lawsuits that can potentially result in as much as $150,000 statutory damage payments plus attorney fees. In addition, they threaten to raid your computer(s) in search for proof. To let this suit go away, trolls demand a couple of thousand dollars, increasing the amount if not paid promptly.

Profit is split among trolls, rightholders and companies that detected IPs.

It is not hard to see that this scheme is nothing else than extortion, where “settlement” is a euphemism of “ransom”. Given the settlement rate (30% and higher, especially in porno cases) this scheme is indeed lucrative, and in some cases can top the profit from a movie sale.

In most cases trolls have no intention of bringing their lawsuits to actual trial. The only goal is to obtain settlements — not judgments, which would require litigating and proving allegations. The only reason for bringing a case to a trial is to scare defendants and increase the pressure to settle.

It is not difficult to see immorality and flaws of this extortion scheme. I’ll cover only few points. Please read this blog and comments (as well as other Internet resources) to find out more.

1. Weak evidence. A recorded IP address is not equal to a person. There are many cases (open wireless network, IP spoofing, hacked connections, human error etc.) when innocent people are accused.

2. Perversion of the Law spirit. Mixing innocent people with those who indeed tried to obtain their clients’ works, trolls violate Blackstone’s formulation. Presumption of innocence is also trumped, as accused are required to proof their innocence.

3. Incentive to settle, even if innocent. Given the disproportionality of potential punishment and impeding attorney fees, it is cheaper and less time-consuming to settle than to litigate. In addition, fear to be named in a lawsuit and hence be associated with a porno case, which can ruin families and careers, creates an additional pressure. Consequently, many innocent people indeed opt to settle.

4. Due process violation. Defendants are not properly represented from the beginning. There is a catch-22 situation: in order to fight against a subpoena to ensure that the names won’t be revealed, those who chose to fight must reveal their names: courts do not allow anonymous parties to participate in the process. If an individual decides to fight openly, he becomes a target for selective prosecution by a troll: trolls need it to frighten others and discourage opposition.

5. Using heavy weaponry against unprepared individuals (inequality of arms). Lawyers possess substantial knowledge that they use against general public. Besides inducing fear to coerce settlements, they also engage in deceptive promises: suggesting that a defendant will be spared if he explains his innocence, they provoke self-incriminating statements and never hesitate to use defendant’s words against him.

6. Deceptive practices. In order to increase settlement rate, trolls resort to lies. They conceal important information from the Court. They make unrealistic and unnecessary threats to defendants. They grossly overstate the damages to copyright holders caused by infringement. As mentioned above, they provoke self-incriminating statements from not litigation-savvy defendants.

Read more on copyright trolls on EFF’s page and see their faces on Anons of Liberty site. This guest post guides through the history of speculative invoicing.

Why do I fight?

ArsTechnica ran a feature story about this site
and other “troll slayers” on 2/26/2013

Gill Sperlein rudely intruded my life in February 2011 when I received an email from AT&T saying that my identity was subpoenaed in relation to a gay pornography lawsuit. As any normal person, who never dealt with the law, I was stunned and upset. It took a while until I understood what a disgusting scam I was involved in as a victim. And for the record, I never shared IO Group’s filthy movies, not even heard about them.

Well, I’m a rational person, and some would expect me to act based on pure math, i.e. settle and forget. But I wouldn’t act rationally at the expense of dignity. I don’t want my name to be associated with gay pornography. I don’t want to send a message to the world that it is OK to blackmail innocent citizens.

I decided to file a motion to dismiss, and did it anonymously in a fear of retaliation. I did not expect much, but to my surprise, the court filed my motion, and Sperlein filed his opposition. I replied with detailed explanation of the scam. Again, I did not expect much, but hoped that the judge would read it and become aware of the real goal of lawsuits like this one — to extort money from defendants regardless of their guilt.

Seeing that the magistrate judge did not toss my anonymous filings, Sperlein requested to reassign the case to a district judge, and after that I filed another motion. This time my motion was struck on procedural grounds: it is not allowed to fight in a court anonymously. I had an option to file for a protective order, but decided not to: Sperlein’s goal is to get identities by any means, and a protective order is a joke — I would be known by initials, city and state. If eventually ISP delivers subpoenaed information and my location and initials are known, it will not be so hard to link my identity to the IP, and retaliation will follow. In addition, many requests for protective orders were denied in the past: some judges think that associating one’s name with gay pornography is a mere embarrassment, not a serious threat to one’s social and professional life. This may be true in San Francisco, but not in conservative states.

So I decided to start a blog to inform others about this fraud. I hope I helped some victims and inflicted some damage to troll’s business. I received many e-mails from people in similar predicaments and tried to do my best answering their questions. Reading e-mails and blog comments made me sure that my vision of what is going on is correct, and enraged me even more, especially when I read in a private email that one of Sperlein’s victims seriously considered suicide.

Judicial system is not inherently wrong, but it is very slow. Once a con artist finds a loophole in the law, he can inflict tremendous harm to society until judges eventually manage to seal this loophole when they finally realize that trolls use judicial system (hence taxpayer’s — yours — money) to enrich themselves, ruining families, lives, carriers in their quest for gold. I learned that one of the best weapons in the war against copyright trolls is publicity. So please help spread the word. E-mail, share, tweet about my posts, and follow me on Twitter.

My gravatar

Why lightning stroke? According to Wikipedia,

“A Scandinavian folk belief that lightning frightens away troll … the lack of trolls … in modern Scandinavia is explained as a result of the “accuracy and efficiency of the lightning strokes”.

Copyleft.

Comments
  1. rob8urcakes says:

    Brilliant and so accurate too. Thanks sjd.
    The only thing I thought was missing was links to relevant Court decisions and perhaps to a legal definitions website.

  2. Thank you. Unlike a regular post this page will be perfected over time. I should have updated it long time ago: newcomers usually click About, and it is imperative to explain them what I’m up to. From this prospective, your points are very valid: I have to look at this page via eyes of a person who never heard about this scam and not familiar with legal terms.

  3. John Doe says:

    This is a great website! It would be great if you can cover other cases like Patrick Collins, Inc.

    • Thank you. I would like to cover as many trolls as I can, but I’m not a professional blogger or investigative journalist: I have my life and not enough time for things much more interesting than fighting with scumbags.

      Saying that, if anyone points to some unique trolls’ wrongdoings or has interesting ideas, I will be glad to hear from you – I may find time for publishing an article, but conducting a research is too much for me. For example, the motion to quash template was contributed by our reader, and it did not take much time to publish and link to it.

  4. Please note that if you share any information with me, I will not share it with anyone without your permission. If you send me a threatening letter that you’ve received from a troll, or any other document, I’ll make sure to redact it so no identifiable information is visible: I’m savvy enough to take care about tags and other strings in a document body that potentially can reveal who the owner is.

    And I do like to see threatening letters from other trolls.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m curious as to what the outcome was in your case, I’d it still ongoing or did they drop it due to adverse publicity and your not falling for the scam.

    • De-facto I’m off the hook, only 2 defendants left on the case – Sperlein is pursuing default judgements against them. Given the current situation (I believe that now we witness a turning point for all the trolls), it is almost improbable that I would be named in another lawsuit, though officially I was not dismissed.

      Since I spent so much time and nerves on this issue, I continue doing my small part in downfall of US copyright trolls in US; even if I’m not in immediate jeopardy.

      Beside my troll, there are many other active ones, and people are still receiving extortion letters and pay out of fear and ignorance. In many cases people found this blog and changed their minds, and I’m happy about that.

    • X-Art - Colette says:

      Hi Everyone, We work really hard and spend tons of money to produce our movies. Why can’t you all just stop stealing them? We have 1000′s stolen from us every day. If we don’t fight back, what can we do to protect our ability to make a living? If you stole something you are wrong, please just don’t do it again. And if you like X-Art.com then feel free to join us, membership is just $19.95/month. If you join and email me your name and we have a suit against you I will ask our attorneys to consider this. Malibu Media is not a troll, we are protecting our constitutional rights. We are nice people and hope anyone reading this is too. Thank you! Love, Colette (partner and co-founder at Malibu Media LLC)

      [sjd: before jumping onto this offer, make sure to read my comment below.]

      • Raul says:

        You self -deluded, avaricious “person” who should know full well the fact that even if one individual is wrongly sued your “justification” is absurd and you are not “nice people” and you are the epitome of a copyright troll. http://ia700804.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.400181/gov.uscourts.flsd.400181.10.0.pdf The only reason you inflict this tidal wave of misery is so that your superficial spouse can buy you Gucci on St. Barts and such other expensive trifles as the most active copyright trolls in the USA. Congrats. http://ia600803.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.200997/gov.uscourts.mdd.200997.30.1.pdf

        • Raul says:

          BTW no one supports piracy but everyone opposes the exploitation of the anachronistic Copyright Act for overreaching financial gain. Most decent folks in xbiz view piracy as an unfortunate cost of doing business or, optimistically, as a form of advertising. Not you and Brig though, you see through your reptilian eyes a revenue stream for a fleet a Ferrari s or such other materialistic nonsense. I mean come on you are richer than 99.9 percent of US citizens and yet you sue the world for more filthy lucre. You ought to be ashamed.

      • pissed Off Doe says:

        Colette, why do you automatically assume that we all steal movies? Downloading someone else work is wrong, and you will not read anyone here condoning that.But what you guys do is plain extortion. We know you and your husband get about 10% of the shakedoen, but do you realize how much pain you cause to thousands? You have over 300 cases open so you and your scum trolls can collect names,and then extort 80 year old grandmas and immigrants. There are proper ways in protecting yourselves against piracy, and then there is what you and your scum troll friends do. And lol at the attempt in getting names via email, I guess your troll lipscum is having a hard time in harvesting that info for you..

      • Anonymous says:

        I’d be curious to know if you have seen any evidence at all that your litigation has actually made any difference at all in the piracy of your content. After all, that is what this is all about, right??

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Colette, Nice sales pitch – really??? It is really nice that you would “ask” your attorney (Lipscomb) to drop a case because someone signs up. Do you really believe Lipscomb is going to do that??? This is a business for them and you – plain and simple. You and the Trolls have a shotgun blast approach that you try to justify by claiming you are protecting your “rights” and “it is the only thing we can do.” What about the rights of the people who didn’t do this??? You seem to gloss over that fact – don’t you?? How can you say you are “nice” people while doing this? Do you really believe that every act of infringement was a lost sale? The old saying is true – Two wrongs don’t make it right. YOU Colette are part of the “Wrong” in this situation. Colette, why don’t you tell everyone here how much Mr. Fantalis (CO) was paid (by you or Lipscomb) to drop the counter-suit against you. Just because times are tough in the business (you don’t look like you are doing bad), you cannot justify your actions. The PA Bellwether case will be fun to watch.

        DTD :)

        • Ron Mexico says:

          Speaking of that bellwether case, I guess if Collette believes in “protecting her ability to make a living”, take a case through full trial. In my business, if something is “stolen” from me and I was in the right, I’d certainly be looking forward to my day in court to prove it.

        • Doe Re Me says:

          Wow, while we all already “knew” who was in charge of these lawsuits, Colette’s comment really verifies it. “Ask” your lawyer to drop the lawsuit that YOU have filed? Your lawyer works for YOU, and when YOU get counter sued and LOSE at trial (and it IS coming because whether you want to believe it or not, YOUR lawyer is suing innocent people by the thousands using YOUR name) then your lawyer will not be the one to take the fall, it will be YOU.

          Colette, I hope right now you are feeling a knot in your stomach and your blood pressure rise. I hope you have sleepless nights and panic attacks. Then multiply that by a hundred thousand you will feel some of the Karmic energy coming back to you that you have put out into the world.

        • X-Art - Colette says:

          We are going to be taking many cases to trial. I am looking forward to our day in court! There are trolls out there, but Malibu Media is not one of them. Defending our copyrights costs us money and time. We do not want to cause anyone hardship. It is just that people need to know that it is not legal to steal from artists via torrents. I feel like we are the only ones with the guts to take the abuse and stand up for ourselves. Believe me, the small amount of income from the lawsuits isn’t the reason we are defending ourselves. By the time the filing fees are paid and our time is spent on this, it costs us. If someone doesn’t stand up for what’s right, who will? Help me spread the word that people shouldn’t steal and all artists should be able to create without fear of people like Kim Dotcom! What do you guys think of him? All the best, Colette

        • SJD says:

          I think you have a real reading comprehension problem.

        • DieTrollDie says:

          Talk is cheap Collette. If YOU and the Troll were so ready yo go yo trial, what has stopped you alrrady?? Pure BS!!! One word – Fantalis. Prove it.

          DTD :)

        • Porno Doe says:

          “By the time the filing fees are paid and our time is spent on this, it costs us” Please do not forget that after these cases are all set and done and defendants start asking for their legal costs covered (I estimate $75K-$100K per defendant wrongfully accused) we will see who will be looking for the nearest GUCCI store. The only store you will be looking for is the nearest Pawn Shop!

          Because as everybody knows you did a lousy job setting up your LLC’s and Copyright transfers. And even if you did set them up right, you are still exposed with your personal assets.

        • Raul says:

          You have filed 400 lawsuits suing well over 6,000 U. S. citizens and only 2 have gone past the pleadings stage and into the discovery stage: Fantalis and Bellwether. Both of these cases went into discovery due to forces outside the control of Lipscomb. Fantalis was settled before any real discovery occurred and it looks as if Fiore/Lipscomb are in a panic with Bellwether. With these cold numbers and facts I’d have to say you are full of caviar and bullshit. Get back to your shopping at Gucci and Prada and try not to worry about the inevitable class action lawsuit.

        • pissed off Doe says:

          Colette, what a crock of shit. You and your trolls know exactly why you will never take any of the torrent cases to trial, you are the ones that uploaded the torrents in question on order to monitored them and harvest the ip addresses. At this moment you are the biggest troll out there, with over 300 cases suing 6000 people, with at lest 30% of false IP addresses. Keep suing single moms and foreigners, this will definitely stop the pirates from stealing your work.

      • SJD says:

        Colette, whatever you say, whatever you do, you will always be judged by the lowest denominator. You may save African babies from hunger, kudos to you, but if at the same time you are involved in a Mafioso-style shakedown, all your rightfulness goes down the drain.

        And your lowest denominator is pretty low. It may be tempting to close your eyes and ears, declare us pirates and thieves (which can’t be father from truth), but when people whose opinion counts start saying basically the same things as we do, it is hard to keep your eyes closed, isn’t it? Your misguided appearance is prompted by VioletBlue’s attention, right? She is an independent thinker, popular and influential, and she is hardly a victim of “misinformation” on our account. If you research a little more, you will be surprised that overwhelming majority of thinkers from every layer of the society (including adult business) essentially agrees with our position, not yours: all the “support” you hear is only because you want it to hear, and you deliberately brush off the opinion of the population in general. Wake up.

        Hell, your husband confessed to Adam that what you do is plain wrong! And yet you continue…

        To leave you alone, we demand nothing less than pulling off this shameful campaign and cutting the ties with Lipscomb and his gang. Otherwise, we will continue to shed the light on your predatory assault on the society and we will do everything legally and morally permitted to stop it.

        • SJD says:

          Also, no matter how I hate to make threats, FYI: reporting on these issues is only tip of the iceberg, much more is going on internally. I’m sure you are aware about the fact that Steele’s gang is now going down in flames: I assure you that the community was instrumental in this spectacular downfall in ways beyond mere reporting.

          Lipscomb is next.

      • Doe Re Me says:

        I for one am an innocent victim of your lawyers abuses. I have been terrorized by their threats and have now had to pay thousands of dollars (that i had to get a loan for) to defend myself. I have never downloaded any porno movie ever. The file does not and has never existed on my computer. Colette, you are WRONG. Your lawyers are WRONG. This has affected my health and well being and worse, it has affected my young children who have had to wonder why their mother is crying all of the time (because the fear of losing my house fighting a federal lawsuit is very real – not because I would lose but because paying an attorney is expensive and the idea that you guys would actually pay up in counter suit damages is implausible). Think about this when you are lounging by your pool or jet setting off on some fantastic vacation, my children didn’t get the items on their christmas wish list this year because of YOU and this devious, immoral, unscrupulous scam.

      • anonymous says:

        Consider it? Consider it? If you really thought that the best solution was to get these people to pay for your content, your words there would have been “TELL OUR ATTORNEYS TO DROP YOU FROM THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE” not “ask them to consider that”

        Give me a fucking break. Are you and your husband even in charge in the relationship with them?

      • SJD says:

        On a more careful second look, I smell a rotten fish. This “proposal” is disingenuous to say the least. It is tempting to believe that it is really a Colette’s own good faith proposal, but the question is: would she do it without consulting with at least her husband, and, by extension, her “lawyers”?

        Joining X-Art.com after being sued would be a bad idea as it could easily be used against you as evidence that you “stole” specifically from x-art and that you did it willfully. Bad idea! And yes, Lipscomb et al. would definitely use that against you. Remember that this guy has no dignity. Zero.

        Their standard opening “settlement” number is somewhere north of $20K for multiple downloads. Sure, it’s not about the profit! The real issue is that Colette and her husband are totally divorced from the process and have no control over, or even any idea what their various ‘local counsel” are up to. When all of the profit incentive is in their hands, that is when you get questionable and abusive litigation practices.

        Joining x-art.com to get out of a $20K payday is a trap, because at the end of the day the lawyer is walking with most of the money so they have no incentive to give a rip about some $20 membership to a porn site.

        • anonymous says:

          Exactly – and the fact that she starts this overture to justice off with “ask them to take it into consideration” and not even a firm promise of “buy our content and we will not sue you” , makes it even more disingenuous. If all you want is paying customers Collette, then TELL, not ASK (remember, they work for YOU) your lawyers to draft this offer up and send it to those you are shaking down.

          As it stands right now your “offer” is meaningless, because instead of asking these people to pay 20$ a month, you are demanding hundreds of months worth of subscription money from them. HUNDREDS.

        • Anonymous says:

          /soapbox

          I’m really getting tired of these fuckwits that use the word “steal” when it comes to downloading their crappy smut. It is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. They are two very different things with two different legal definitions.

          That would be like a psychologist going into court and saying that the defendant is insane because he had been institutionalized. Being “insane” and being “legally insane” are two very different things. And as far as I know, there are ramifications for people to confuse those terms. Just as “theft” is different from “embezzling.”

          Legally, theft required that someone takes something and permanently deprives the original owner of the item. No one that allegedly downloaded their craptastic movies permanently deprived them of property.

          The Supreme Court in Dowling v. U.S. even differentiated between theft and infringement.

          It seems very disingenuous of these people that are trying to “protect their business” to not even know what the hell they’re talking about or what actions they’re taking. They clearly aren’t being educated in the legal actions they pursue, nor are they attempting to find ways to mitigate the “harm” that is being done to them.

          /end soapbox

        • Anonymous says:

          Right, if it were theft they could and would use the laws that apply to theft. Straight up.

          I’m also tired of this bullshit, it’s pure lies. Don’t think guys like Steele and Lipscomb wouldn’t be going after people for stealing if they were stealing. Derp!

  6. Anonymous Helper says:

    I read well over a dozen posts on your blog. Well done!

    I am truly sorry that you have been targeted by this kind of low class attorney. The truth of the matter is that most attorneys are decent, hard working people, but just like every industry there are some bad apples out there.

    I work with attorneys for a living and know from first hand most of them would find this kind of frivolous lawsuit to be pathetic at best, damaging to the entire legal industry at worst! There is no respect for patent trolls, even among IP/patent attorneys.

    I heard from a friend once that there are 3 things attorneys NEVER want to experience:

    1. A bad article about them on ripoffreport.com It’s a very powerful website, especially when it comes to Google! More than likely if they have a negative report about them it will be the very first thing that comes up when they Google their name…and it’s almost impossible to get it removed.

    2. A negative review/comment about them on Avvo.com. Avvo is a well-known website among consumers (and judges). They have a place for feedback on the attorney.

    BUT most of all…
    3. Attorneys NEVER want to hear from their State Bar Association saying there’s an official complaint that’s been made against them.

    All State Bar Associations are complaint driven organizations. What I mean is that nothing is “done” about a “bad” attorney until someone (or many someone’s) makes a formal complaint against them. When you become the focus of your State Bar Association due to a complaint your life as an attorney can quickly become a living hell! The California State Bar has over 120 employees and their biggest task is to keep the “bad” attorneys in line.

    While you cannot threaten to report an attorney to the Bar to get them off your back knowing how to do file the report can be helpful.

    I’m just saying… Good luck and don’t give up the fight!

    • Thank you for the interesting information. I’m 100% agree with your statement about attorneys. They are not aliens, but professional homo sapiences like many of us. That’s why I despise one extreme stereotype (“all the lawyers are bottomfeeding scumbags”), and don’t respect the other (“they are paragons of truth and should never be questioned since they know something that us mortals don’t”.) Which is true for any other profession.

      • BadJohn says:

        You are very cool and definitely sophisticated in fighting the bottom-feeders collectively. I give a huge credit to your enthusiasm and energy to be maintaining this portal, communicating in blogs, and doing a great job educating inexperienced “newly joned the club”!

  7. verythankful says:

    you did not mention any conclusion to the about?? you mention “Seeing that the magistrate judge did not toss my anonymous filings, Sperlein requested to reassign the case to a district judge, and after that I filed another motion. This time my motion was struck on procedural grounds: it is not allowed to fight in a court anonymously. I had an option to file for a protective order, but decided not to: “…WHAT happened after that?? please finish story…
    did it eventually get dismissed or are you sill fighting it in court?

  8. Raul says:

    Wow! The entire story is engaging but the part about helping a suicidal Doe.. . Good for you. Occasionally you see Does on this site and that of DTD who are not only depressed (I was in that camp for awhile) but seem seriously murderous or suicidal. Scary how these trolls nonchalantly play with people’s lives while keeping exclusively focused on the mighty dollar.

  9. Raul says:

    Great motion to read especially consideringly trolling was still in it’s infancy and those guys were just jerkoffs ( gay porn is blackmail, pure and simple IMHO) as opposed to the royal motherfuckers they are today.

    Back to rum punches and sand.

  10. WTF is that: Illegal Porn Person File Sharing . torrent ???

    The text from this page was fed through some software to replace many words with synonyms, as a result making it barely comprehensible. The only possible explanation comes to my mind is that the text is deliberately mutilated to avoid copyright claims, but I explicitly stated right on this page that I do not care if anything from this site is reused even without credit.

    In addition, some bizarrely looking links to this site are inserted. I would understand some shady affiliate links disguised as links to to this site, but not the other way around!

  11. Chad E. Cowan says:

    “inequality of biceps and triceps.” Indeed.

    • Raul says:

      Congrats on achieving yet another milestone marker in the Battle of Stalingrad with the Trolls who are in retreat, eradicated or just hunkering down in some jurisdictions. I am sure that the advances that Does have achieved would not have occurred but for this site and that of dietrolldie.com which both provide comfort and needed advice to initially panicked Does before they become enraged. More than that these blogs allow Does to organize and discuss trends which is fantastic (personally bashing trolls, in addition, is just frosting on the one year cupcake). Obviously unless Lightspeed implodes, under the weight it’s own mediocrity, I am certain this blog will shortly achieve yet another milestone.

      • Jose says:

        This recently happened to me. And I have until today to reply to their email saying I agree to pay the money. I am unsure what to do. It is all on my mother”s name. What should I do? Ignore it? Go to a lawyer?

  12. Joshua says:

    I got an email this morning from a ‘Mike Meier’, asking me to pay $3500 as a settlement to downloading porn. I am unsure of whether I did this or not. I have an insecure wireless router and there is a public park less than 10 yards from my router. Is there any way someone (including myself) could factually prove that the download was done by myself? Also, what should I do about this email?

    • Anonymous2 says:

      First, there are separate topics under the Discussions pull down tab at the top of the page. You’ll find Does comments from similar situations on those pages. Post your comments there.You can look under your state, and under the troll group or type of case.
      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/

      Mike Meier has licenses in several states: MD, VA, DC & NY. He is known on this forum for working (or pretending to work) for Doe defendants, then filing many cases for the porn purveyor copyright trolls.
      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/11/25/copyright-troll-subspecies-weretroll/
      he has had some notable setbacks in his Maryland cases. Read the discussions under that state:
      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/discussions-by-state/maryland/

      Some points about the situation:
      (1) Get clear if you are not already about what you are “accused” of. What is the name of the video, what is the date & time of the allegation, where was the legal case filed that lead to the ISP releasing your contact information, when was the information released. Determine the business name and the studio name (sometimes two different names) of the porn troll plaintiff for the suit and the “work” (for example, Patrick Collins Inc., running the studio Elegant Angel).

      (2) You may need to contact your ISP and their legal department to clarify some of these issues.

      (3) An I.P. address is NOT a person. This point has been raised in court cases and web discussions, for instance:

      http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/

      (4) Linking an allegation to a person instead of an IP address is much more difficult. That does not stop trolls from making threats and claiming the account holder is responsible. It’s like saying the owner of a phone is at fault no matter if someone broke in and made an illegal call.
      This is one weak link related to why the Troll allegations have not gone to real trial. Much more evidence would be needed to be somewhat convincing, such as a defendant admission, computer file, evidence of who could have had access to the network and much more. DTD takes you through some of the possible steps of legal process:

      http://dietrolldie.com/2011/11/07/taken-from-the-files-of-don’t-panic-or-what-can-i-expect/

      (5) Keep the email and keep a hard copy of it. DO NOT speak to Meier or the trolls, especially before it’s known what is going on. In the short term, secure your wireless router or turn it off. Gather documents if you have them about the router equipment

      (6) Look at the state discussions here and the copyright case listings for your state at RFC Express (Under “Search lawsuits”). Also search RFC for the troll plaintiff. If you are not in a state where Meier is licensed, a different troll lawyer connected to the same plaintiff would have to file. It will help to know what if anything the troll has done in your state.
      http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp

      “For discussion purposes only-not to be construed as legal advice.”

  13. auctionapril says:

    Linda Ellis, Author of The Dash Poem and promoter of the Live Your Dash lifestyle, has stepped up her campaign to collect money she feels she is owed by innocent infringers. Innocent Infringers are people who share copyrighted content unknowingly.

    Thousands of amateur bloggers have received intimidating letters from Ellis’s team of copyright representatives. Caught up in the misuse of the copyright protection law are people who posted memorials for the deceased, children who recited the poem in school plays, and religious leaders who included the poem in a published sermon and sermons that have been recorded and shared on media sites. One of the innocent infringers is April Brown, CEO of Charity Auction World, a company that provides fundraising services for non-profit organizations. This week, Ellis began buying costly Google ads with innocent infringers names as key words. As an example when April Brown is searched a Google appears at the top or bottom of the page with this ad:

    Ad related to april brown
    Brown Used Copyrighted Wk | lindaellis.net



www.lindaellis.net/category/copyright-info/


Auctioneer Used Copyrighted Work Auctioneer Used Copyrighted Work

    Upon clicking the Google ad an explanation of Linda Ellis’s claim:
    “Let me preface this post by saying there is an auctioneer who was recently approached to pay restitution after having used copyrighted work in full to promote her own company and services, in addition to gaining traffic to her own web site. After she was contacted, instead of admitting and facing her unlawful actions, she chose to take it upon herself to use hours of her time attempting to mar my reputation, the victim of copyright theft. She has used fabrications, assumptions and exaggerations to attack my efforts to protect the value and integrity of my work. Since there are more positive ways to spend my time, I’ve posted my views about copyright and my efforts to protect my work here in order to defend my reputation and my legal right to protect what is mine, my intellectual property.
    Brown has enlisted the support of other innocent infringers to expose the intimidating tactics used by Copyright Infringement Representatives, believing that the spirit of the Copyright Infringement Law needs to be clearly defined and Fair Use should be amended. “On almost a daily basis I hear from a non-profit organization that shared the poem in a newsletter as Author Unknown. Today I received an early morning call from a church secretary who shared the poem on a website with the intent of supporting the families who take advantage of the church’s hospice program. Sadly, the poem was then shared in a funeral notice, and that notice was shared on a family members’ website. This is what Ms. Ellis refers to as a criminal act and assumptions and exaggerations. You can’t make this stuff up,” said Brown.

    Brown believes the courts are favoring innocent infringers as with the recent rulings in the Righthaven cases. Linda Ellis may have the most lucrative copyright trolling scheme to date. Simply by sending an email to hundreds of non-profits, funeral homes, schools, hospitals and private individuals, the Ellis letters have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars maybe millions over the last decade.

    The Dash poem and the Live Your Dash lifestyle is meant to be an inspiring message but Brown and her supporters regret the day the poem was shared with them. “We have received harassing phone calls, aggressive emails, my Youtube channel has been hacked. Linda Ellis has gone so far as to warn non-profit organizations to avoid hiring me,” said Brown.

    Brown has created her own warning she hopes will soon go viral. “My goal is to remove the Dash Poem from millions of sites before the copyright troll catches the infringer and ruins another life. You can find the “BEWARE DON’T SHARE the Dash Virus Poem” logo and Warning at http://www.aprilbrown.com under the Copyright Infringement tab.

    Brown is a charity auctioneer and works with non-profits throughout the United States. She is the founding director of Whisker City, a feline rescue organization located in Seattle, Washington.

    • Thanks for the info. Copyright troll genera comprises numerous species, thanks to the Congress who enacted insanely high statutory damage rates and relieved copyright holders from the burden to prove damages resulted from alleged infringement. These laws meant to protect rightholders from commercial-grade, large-scale infringement, yet the Congress did not clarify it: such clarification was not necessary in the pre-Internet era. Disproportionate punishment always resulted in all types of abuses. Unless the laws change, new species of copyright trolls will pop up here and there. Yet I’m optimistic: I strongly believe that we are not fighting with windmills, that our collective efforts will lead to changes in the laws. That’s not a hollow belief, e.g, Righthaven saga has resulted in stronger fair use clause.

      I linked your campaign page from Resources/Friends and allies who fight injustices on the digital frontier.

  14. auctionapril says:

    Thank you for this great resource for support and information.

  15. WOW. This humble page is referenced in a footnote in a petition to the Supreme Court.

    Petition (Footnote #4)
    Background (ArsTechnica)

    • The Tod says:

      Impressive. Congrats Jane!!!

    • D'oh! says:

      Just goes to show that each of us can really make a difference when we apply ourselves to a cause. Thank you so much for all you do in this important battle against evil.

    • Raul says:

      Big Time Congrats! This is great news on quite a few levels. Just goes to show that this blog which covers a racket are both rising in visibility and is being read by those who do not have a dog in the race but are concerned nonetheless.

      • The document itself is beautiful. Read every letter of it. Any person who dedicates significant time to these issues earlier or later concludes that statute (and the lack of clarification when it is applicable) is the culprit, that Congress never meant (and physically couldn’t at that time) to use these insane damage rates for non-commercial infringement, that what’s going on is a blatant abuse of the letter of Law, when judges seemingly have grown deaf to the voice of the spirit of Law.

        • Raul says:

          Hopefully that will change as the public grows increasing aware of the predatory practices engendered by statutory damages (or the mere threat).

        • juancarlosdeburbon says:

          I knew the tide was turning. :)

          The difference with the trolls is their tactics. The RIAA was bad, but the trolls are undeniably engaged in extortion and abuse of the court system. This site and DTD, as I’ve stated before, have documented throughly the how and why. Any good lawyer worth their weight could start here and spend a couple of weeks assembling a devastating attack against the trolls.

          And you know what? It’s already started…. :)

  16. JohnD says:

    Well deserved !!!

    Keep up the excellent work

  17. TXJenM says:

    We have recently been inducted into this club by Prenda Law and Joseph Perea. Honestly, I can’t wait to meet this troll. We plan to fight this all the way to court if need be. Also, I have been advised to look into filing a class action lawsuit against Prenda Law. Has anyone else done this or thought about it?

  18. Anonymous says:

    On my computer when I type “Prenda Law” into Google, your website is now the first thing that pops up. ;)

  19. [...] HomeAboutDiscussionsDiscussions by stateDistrict of ColumbiaArizonaArkanzasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasLouisianaMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMissouriNevadaNew JerseyNew YorkOhioPennsylvaniaTennesseeTexasVirginiaGeneral issuesIO Group CasesIO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-244 (closed)Doe DetailsIo Group, Inc. v. Almeida (closed)IO GROUP, INC. v. SOMOZA (Closed)IO Group, Inc., v. Does 1-50 Inclusive (closed)IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-65 (closed)Io Group Inc. v. Does 1-34 (closed)IO Group, Inc v. Does 1-138 (closed)IO Group, Inc. v. John Doe (closed)IO Group, Inc. v. Anthony Uy (closed)Supplemental pages11-cv-08512-GHK -MRW IP LIstFlorida state cases (Pure bill of discovery)Nucorp v. Does 1-246 (11-42403-CA-06)Patrick Collins, K-Beech v Does 1-414 (11-42412-CA-30)Patrick Collins at al v Does 1-915 (11-37821-CA-22)Lightspeed password hacking casesJohn Steele and Prenda LawRobocall distribution by stateCopyright Enforcement GroupDunlap, Grubb & WeaverCanada: a new frontierLiberty Media and Marc RandazzaCounter actions against trollsFAQsOur FAQFAQ from TACTips and tricksResourcesNicholas RanalloPressTechDirtTorrentFreakArsTechnicaReferencePrivacy policyArchiveContact [...]

  20. SpankyDoodle says:

    Thanks for the great website! I’m an innocent Doe. This is not much more than a nuisance for me, but I’m really incensed that these privileged trolls are willing to risk lives by potentially outting gay minors just to clutch one more dollar than they had yesterday.

  21. ANONYNONY says:

    Hi everyone. I was sent a thing from Joseph Perea yesterday, citing I should pay First Time Videos LLC $3400 to avoid litigation… I have a BS in Criminology, so I’m not exactly law dumb ;-) I have read enough on this site as well to know this is bullshit, and to just wait it out (extended deadlines, etc etc). My question is, how do you find if a case has severed does or not? Honestly, I will say as an adult, I have viewed adult materials (books, movies, take it as you will). However, this is a file I simply did not download.

    Should I contact copyright defense counsel now, or should I wait this out?

    • TxJenM says:

      I would LOVE to know if it was on Prenda Law letterhead! Perea isn’t supposed to be with Prenda as of June 1st, however, I have proof he has been doing Prenda’s bidding as late as July. I filed a complaint that has turned into an investigation with the Florida Bar as a result. There is way more to that story, but I’m still waiting for the outcome.

      FYI- After kicking the hornets nest with several bar complaints and a few phone calls that turned nasty (I have a fiery temper), we decided to hire an attorney. He sent a letter of representation requesting, the copyright info, any evidence, and a few other things. Prenda left my attorney a voice mail basically saying no to all of it. By the way, there is no copyright registered on the porn film we are accused of downloading and sharing. I hate trolls! They lie.

      • ANONYNONY says:

        I HEARD there was no copyright registered on the film! That said, it is on Perea’s letterhead, BUT there is a payment form authorizing PRENDA to do the withdrawal from the bank account.

        • Anonymous says:

          That establishes a de facto principal-agent relationship between Perea and Prenda. If he’s claiming to not be associated with Prenda but collecting money for Prenda I call bullshit on Perea. I’ve never believed that he’s severed ties with them, just that him opening his own practice is some stunt because of his “issues” with the Florida Bar, among other problems. No way would Prenda just hand a lawyer a ton of their cases.

        • Raul says:

          The sleaze of these guys is breathtaking. At present Prenda is a little hard pressed in FL so just sit tight for the time being IMHO.

      • Raul says:

        Thank you for your work in this regard, it is truly appreciated.

    • Anonymous says:

      You may very well have been severed and dismissed. I’d look up your case on PACER for you but DO NOT post your case or case number on here or even what state you’re in because they skulk around, sometimes Steele posts…that’s always fun :) Your best chance for finding out is just Googling the case or going to rfcexpress.com and running a search. Usually you can find the docket.

      Even if you’ve been dismissed it doesn’t mean that they can’t contact you…unless it was with prejudice, or you have a lawyer, or you send them a cease and desist letter (or tell them orally when they call, record it and tell them you’re recording it to avoid any wiretap/eavesdropping liability).

    • SJD says:

      Yes, please share this document with us: you can scan, redact and send to me: I’ll double-check that no personal information is omitted.

      Basically I’ll forward it to TxJenM, and she will forward it to the investigators.

      No pressure if you are not comfortable doing it.

      • ANONYNONY says:

        I will do so, certainly! I’ll do the whole document with payment form.

      • ANONYNONY says:

        I am currently scanning the documents. Also, Joseph Perea called me today. At least, his office did. They identified themselves as Prenda…

        • Anonymous says:

          I assume he left a voicemail and I hope you kept it. If so, record it and make sure it’s timestamped and dated. I’m sure SJD would love to have it and would remove your name from the audio file, although I do not speak on her behalf (duh heh). It’s further evidence of Perea’s continuing association with Prenda. I’d love to see the Florida Bar Association take that bastard’s law license for keeps and nail his ass to the wall by suggesting the DA file criminal charges (here’s to wishful thinking).

  22. Anonymous says:

    I found this website, as I am victim of being accused of downloading something I did not. It is malibu Media LLC. I recieved a letter from comcast cable (in PA) and they advised if I don’t respond with court documents they will release my information to this attorney. I saw that you have examples of responses to quash , but am I able to use these examples. I have no idea what to write.

    • Raul says:

      Read this blog’s FAQ (one from SJD and one from TAC) then go to dietrolldie.com as he has detailed instructions and oddles of motions you can use as templates. Also check in at the PA discussion thread on this blog where Troll Fiore’s lawsuits are discussed, analyzed, cursed, etc.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Are all of these troll cases based on dowloads/revealing IP addresses using bittorrents or have some been based on ISP addreeses using Depositflies, Megaupload (the former) or other such non-peer-to-peer?

    • SJD says:

      To this date there are either bittorent cases or “hacking” (Lightspeed and Guava (which is Lightspeed and, probably, other porn purveyors)).

      It does not mean that if trolls are able to obtain user info from cyberlockers, thy won’t use it. The one such “hunter” is Randazza. We know very little about the latest fishing expedition in PA: according to the news, Oron may have sold their users to Liberty Media Holdings, and Does in this case may be those users.

      • Drifter says:

        File Locker/Storage sites like Rapidshare or Depositfiles as far as I know do not keep long term IP logs of downloaders using their free services, doing so would be costly and require terabytes of storage.

        https://www.rapidshare.com/#!rsag_ppolicy
        “Will RapidShare communicate information about the files a customer has downloaded?

        RapidShare does not store this information. Accordingly, we could not pass on this information, even if we wanted to.”

        The only user info I am aware of that is kept long term is that of people with paid accounts with these sites, which is what I think the case with Oron is. They seem to have offered up their paying customers account information to Randazza as part of the settlement deal that was being hashed out between Oron with Liberty Media.

        http://torrentfreak.com/cyberlocker-offered-to-help-prosecute-users-to-settle-34-8m-copyright-suit-120706/
        “Oron will assist Liberty in identification and civil prosecution of any parties who have been using Oron to distribute Liberty’s copyrighted material, including but not be limited to, full disclosure of IP addresses, banking information, emails and any other information that may assist in Liberty in such prosecution.”

    • Anonymous says:

      Is the Lightspeed Media suit the only password sharing case? It seems like most trolls are going after Bittorrent sharing.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Well I was listed a doe in this case (Liberty vs Does 1-441) and I’ve never used Oron. I don’t even know what Oron is to tell the truth. Is it a cloud service? So, at least some of the Does in this case are not related to Oron.

  25. Anonymous says:

    in theory streaming from sites such as putlocker, megaupload or other “locker” sites is not copyright infringement, uploading to them or downloading from them IS. with streaming because no actual copy is stored on your pc you are not copying it (as long as you do not use 3rd party capture programs), just like viewing a copyright protected picture online is not infringement but uploading it is.

    i am not a lawyer.

  26. [...] some call “copyright troll” suits. The website, “Fight Copyright Trolls,” defines the term thusly: Copyright trolls are law firms or individual lawyers who adopted a lucrative [...]

  27. Colette says:

    Did you download the videos or not? You never mentioned this. If you did not, what was the reason they had your IP. If you are really innocent why didn’t you continue to fight your case and prove your innocence? Do you think it’s ok to steal from a brick and mortar store? Do you think it’s ok to steal from content producers and to compromise our ability to create things (mainstream or adult)?

    Enforcing our copyrights, making people aware that downloading illegally and sharing copyrighted files is against the law is one of the most challenging parts of our business. We can not afford to go after each individual because there are thousands and thousands. As far as I know the method the attorney’s are using now is the only way.

    And we are NOT copyright trolls, my husband and I are small business owners. When you steal our videos or illegally download anything, you are breaking the law, period.

    • Anonymous says:

      And guess what? Before people are held liable for stealing, they must be found guilty in a court of law.

      This is America, and guilt must be proven, something your buddies have yet to do even once.

      Blackmail and extortion are crimes too.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Colette,

      Thanks for joining in on the discussion. You certainly have more tact than John Steele. Maybe you can shed some light on this situation for everyone here. What was the reason for joining up with the lawyers to go after the Does? I understand people are freely watching and sharing your movies and it is a loss of revenue, but what was the selling point. How much money did the lawyer promise and how much has been actually coming back to you? Do you really believe it is stopping people from downloading/sharing your movies? You might have thought that at first, but once you look deeper, it is simply a continuously running business model generating settlements.

      The upcoming PA bellweather court case is going to stir things up and it looks like you and Brigham are going to be in the forefront. Not a comfortable position is it. That stress is the same thing the lawyers are doing to ALL the defendant regardless of if they did it or not. Please don’t take too great an offense, but the fine of a couple thousand dollars is NOT a fair or just penalty for one of your movies. High-end, beautiful actors, etc., but it still only comes from your site via a small monthly ($20)/yearly ($100) fee. As one Federal court judge has already stated, Two wrongs don’t make a “right.” You and Brigham are wrong and it isn’t going be easy to shed the stink that now cloaks you.

      I’m sorry that protecting you content is such a difficult job, but that does not justify in any form jumping in with a Copyright troll lawyer and extorting settlements. It is extortion, regardless of what legal methods it uses. You and hubby jumped in with the Troll, so you you earned the title.

      As far as why don’t people fight back if they didn’t do it, it costs lots of money to do so. Some people are embarrassed to be linked to porn. Some people don’t understand the weak as evidence (public IP address) or how it is collected. As far as fighting back, we have Does in CO, PA, and other locations that are trying to fight back. Guess what happens when they do….. You turn tail and run away! Please bring it to open court and put your money where your mouth is. The only court judgments in these cases have been “default,” when a Doe decides to ignore the court summons.

      I welcome your reply and if this is too open of a discussion, please email me at doerayme2011@hotmail.com.

      DieTrollDie :)

    • that anonymous coward says:

      @Colette – you were polite if misguided and misinformed.
      Start here for reasons they could have the IP address.
      http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

      Read up about the cases where people had their wifi hacked by bad people, even the FBI raided a home based on just an IP address and then ate crow because they didn’t find kiddy porn but an open wifi connection.

      An IP address can not and will not ever establish guilt. Taking money from people embarrassed to be connected with your “fine” products titles is extortion. Your lawyers threaten these peoples reputations on the basis of just an IP address. Maybe you’ve missed every chance lawyers have been offered a chance to examine the Does computers they pass and just demand cash.

      Comparing making a copy of something to stealing a physical object is a nice way to try to appeal to people, but it isn’t a fair comparison. It is meant to create an emotional response that does not exist. Stealing means you no longer have the film.

      How can people fight and prove themselves innocent when the lawyers rarely ever pursue the case to that point, for fear of having the tactics being employed looked at by experts and the courts? How is it that when someone fights back, the case folds and the lawyer runs?

      You stand to be awarded $150,000 for copyright infringement on your works that are properly registered and valid, why are you settling for such a small number? My understanding is a majority of the trolls bear all of the costs of filing these cases, which is why they keep the lions share of any settlements. Claiming your unable to carry out actual litigation, and instead accept terrorizing people only guilty of paying for an internet connection who might not have done anything to you makes you not good people.

      You employ copyright trolls, your worse than them. You pretend to not see the misery created in your name, wrapping yourself securely in the thought that you were wronged and you deserve it.

      Some people might have downloaded your works, but I am willing to bet a majority of the money you’ve managed to extort is from people who could have their lives ruined by the allegations made by your lawyers with no actual factual basis.
      Pay me money or I tell the neighbors you like watching fetish porn. Does that seem unfair?
      Or can you not imagine what that could do to a teacher, lawyer, judge who never even heard of you until they had the misfortune of your lawyer demanding their name and sending thinly veiled threats.

      I suggest you get a copy of the letters your lawyers are sending out. Not the pretty ones they want you to see, but the actual letters. I want you to read the threats, I want you to see the lies, I want you to put yourself into the shoes of someone who did nothing wrong faced with their life ruined.

      Pity your words fall on deaf ears with me.
      I’ve never downloaded your works or given 2 craps about it.
      I hate bullies. You employ them, you are one.

      Lawyers like yours have threatened to sue – the dead, 80 yr olds, the BLIND. The blind guy settled because it would have ended his career not because he did anything other than forget to make sure his wifi was locked down. He didn’t download the porn, but he still paid to avoid being attached to the scandal.

      If I told you to pay me $3500 or I was going to tell everyone I had evidence you were a child molester… how fast would you write that check?
      Everyone remembers the allegation not if it was true or not.
      But your work is much more important than any collateral damage you do, because you gotta get paid.

      Understand why I fight so hard against trolls yet?
      When you abuse the legal system with frivolous claims like your lawyers file your breaking the law.

      • Anonymous says:

        Petty theft fines are generally in the hundreds of dollars, so if Colette believed this was the “same thing” she would have her attorneys ask for a lot less money.

    • SJD says:

      Did you download the videos or not? You never mentioned this. If you did not, what was the reason they had your IP.

      I’ll address this question since it was directed at me. The answer is No. Although I thought that this answer could be implicitly implied, I indeed did not say it explicitly. Thanks for drawing my attention to it: I’ll update this page. The answer to the second part is a third legitimate answer to any question: “I don’t know.” Other people explained why it is so. You may be a good model/photographer, but you must admit that you have no clue in technology: it is obvious to me since you seemingly believe in 100% methods of identifying people on the Internet. The error rate may be as high as 30%, which was admitted on the record by one of the plaintiffs.

      I don’t experience any negative feelings towards you, since it is obvious that in addition to be technologically illiterate, you are brainwashed. It is up to you whether to employ what people call “critical thinking” and surf the ocean of the knowledge (where you will inevitably encounter opposing opinions that are very difficult to brush off), or continue keeping your pretty head in the sand (unfortunately it seems that this is the path you are going to take as the blocking me from following you on Twitter indicates).

      I challenge you, Colette, to go through 170 posts and 15,000 comments on my blog and find a single instance of us encouraging copyright infringement or breaking the law in general.

      ———————————–
      Thanks to everyone for chiming in and explaining simple things to Colette: I couldn’t do it better. I can’t help adding an analogy though. What would you say if you hired a security firm to protect your apple garden and find out later that the problem is not solved, yet the security guards shoot neighbors’ kids who pick up fallen apples (and, admittedly, sometimes steal one or two low-hanging fruits)? I exaggerate, but I hope you get my point. If you can think for yourself for a moment.

    • SJD says:

      Incredible: your comment is exactly 15,000th.

  28. Anonymous says:

    And guess what? Before people are held liable for stealing, they must be found guilty in a court of law.

    This is America after all, and guilt must be proven, something your buddies have yet to do even once.

    Blackmail and extortion are crimes too, and apparently producing porn in Arizona is also a crime but that doesn’t stop a certain Arizona community from producing it and then using it for copyright trolling, so there is plenty of alleged lawbreaking to go around.

    http://blog.azpolicy.org/marriage-family/not-welcome-porn-industry-illegal-in-arizona/

  29. Raul says:

    Just my 2 cents and to echo SJD, I’d be willing to bet my son’s tuition savings that the majority of infringers are the curious children of the subscribers who do not possess a credit card and yet were potential future consumers until you terrorized them. Accordingly you and your attorneys prey upon the natural instinct of a parent to protect a child as well as the stigma that attaches to being associated with your content. If settlement demands were reasonable your conduct would be tolerable but they are not. Your ratified conduct is nothing more than a nationwide extortion racket and you and your husband should be ashamed by the abuse of our citizens and the abuse of our judicial system. I pray you do not find a way to weasel out of the EDPA troll trap as it will give lie to your enterprise.

  30. anonymous says:

    “If you are really innocent why didn’t you continue to fight your case and prove your innocence?”

    Oh I dunno, is it because your attorneys don’t let anyone do that? They either delay discovery, or outright settle to make the fighter go away? Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth you fucking hypocrite. Either you are lying, or you have zero control over your attorneys. Which is it?

    • SJD says:

      Also, because it is expensive. But this reason would definitely fall to the deaf ears of a person who is so poor he cannot afford ceramic brake pads for his Ferrrari.

      • anonymous says:

        True, but considering the actions they have taken when someone DOES fight, this cry of “wah wah, why dont you fight it” falls on deaf ears here. Leaving aside people who can’t afford to fight, they have actively obstructed justice in the instances where someone has chosen to fight. So they can’t claim “if we’re so bad why dont you fight back” as a poor me defense for their actions.

      • Anonymous says:

        Does settle because they are threatened with $150k per item plus they have to front attorney fees to fight. Its like playing reverse lottery. Shell out 3-4 grand and have it go away for good or shell out 10k for a copyright defense and maybe even have to pay the $150k at the end on top of all that. Its obvious why someone would choose to settle. Its the not get fucked in the ass by some rich person you dont know lottery.

        Excuse the language..

    • that anonymous coward says:

      There is irony in that quote…
      “We can not afford to go after each individual because there are thousands and thousands.”
      But Does are expected to spend money to prove they are innocent while you file cheap lawsuits.

  31. Anonymous says:

    If the lawyers litigating these cases did not try to avoid and obstruct justice at every step the content producers would be far more sympathetic characters.

    I wonder if the Plaintiffs are directing this behavior or if it is all at the attorneys’ discretion. In any case, I wonder if the attorneys explain to their clients who is going to be on the hook for their behavior if an when things go bad. How much liability plaintiff is exposed to, who will be paying the bill when there is a counterclaim and then a judgment, etc…

    Colette, you are just being used as a pawn in their scam, when things go bad they will throw you under the bus and leave you at the mercy of their victims, having to pay all the legal bills and judgements yourself. Be careful, and have another look over any contract you’ve signed with them, I’ll bet it leaves YOU not THEM responsible for their behavior.

    • SJD says:

      Lipscomb: “Don’t listen to them, Colette. Everything is under control, and everything is legal. We use your copyrights to file mass lawsuits, get identities of the pirates (well, only 70% of them pirates, others are random people, but who cares?), call them, their employers and neighbors, scare them with the prospect to be publicly associated with a porn lawsuit and 150K statutory fine. Some settle, some not, but those who settle bring us a hefty loot. We give you 10%. Simple. Legal. Clever. Nothing can go wrong.”

  32. Anonymous says:

    what is statue of limitations for either bittorent sharing violation or PW sharing? Does SOL apply if your IP info was requested but not provided?

    • Anonymous says:

      Three years for bittorrent (i.e., copyright infringement via file sharing or downloading). Password sharing is falling into the realm of CFAA with the recent cases (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) which is two years. Not sure if password sharing could be modified to apply to copyright infringement or not.

    • Anonymous says:

      I replied to your post, but the SPAM filter must have caught me. I’ll let SJD “approve” it and not answer it tgain in this one. I’m not trying to be a dick but I chuckle when I see statue of limitations. I just imagine a big marble something or other in the middle of a courtyard. It’s statute of limitations. Again, not trying to be a dick but as someone who worked in a law office back in the day this was the thing we laughed about the most (that and the courteous phone a paralegal told visiting clients they could use).

  33. DB Erickson says:

    Thank you for this very informative website. Question: A friend got a subpeona for his information indicating that some pornographic video was downloaded from his internet server. The date of the downloading was when he was in another state (documentation available) so he obviously did not do it. His roomate denies doing this. My friend is now living overseas since he has dual citizenship and the internet is cancelled. I am sure he will want to return to the USA, eventually. What is the worse case scenario for my friend if he just ignores this outrageous blackmail scam?.

    • Raul says:

      In all likelihood, nothing. However, depending on the extortion group working the scam, there is a .001-2% chance he will be named either as John Doe or by his actual name in a lawsuit. The chance they will either try to serve him personally or by a judicially approved alternative method is miniscule but it does happen. After service and a default the troll can move for a default money judgment, the instances where that has occurred I can count on one hand with judgements ranging from $750-$150,000.

  34. Carmen Gutierrez says:

    I like the website, but let’s not stigmatize pornography (gay or otherwise). Pornography is part of a normal, healthy sexual appetite and if more people realized this, the “shame” of downloading it would not be a major driving factor in these types of lawsuits. There is nothing wrong with adults having sex on camera so that other adults can enjoy these movies. Now that there are more female directors making pornography, us females can also enjoy them as well with our partners, but I refuse to be stigmatized into an extortion scheme.

    It is not that adult pornography is wrong, but indeed the trolling and extorting of people.

  35. [...] co-owner Colette Leah appeared to be false (who knows if she ever really saw them: according to the comment she once left on this forum, she is just a brainless puppet in Lipscomb’s hands). The judge [...]

  36. [...] came across this site dedicated to fighting copyright trolls – typically law firms that use the threat of [...]

  37. Leon Bennett says:

    Hello Webmaster (Fightcopyrighttrolls.com),

    I had the opportunity to visit your wonderful site http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/ a couple of times and found it really impressive in terms of the quality content you have put in.

    I run a newly created website, “http://www.howtogetacopyright.org/”, it provides free information about How to Get a Copyright. My sole objective from this site is to provide the best information.

    I was wondering if you would be interested in exchanging links with my website. As your site will be quite helpful to my readers I would be more than happy to add your link on my website’s useful resources page “http://www.howtogetacopyright.org/useful-websites.php”.

    Thanks for spending your valuable time to read my mail and keep up the good work!

    Best Regards,
    Leon Bennett

  38. [...] this is not ironic enough: this man shakes down tens of thousands (many of whom are innocent) over obscene material; his evidence is flimsy at best; and his fee-splitting agreements with porn [...]

  39. X-Art - Colette says:

    I have tried to politely ignore you, as you are obviously an angry and misinformed person (who knows nothing about our business or hasn’t even watched our movies). But now your abuse and SLANDER via twitter (accusing us of taking advantage of underage girls). Making these false statements is criminal on your part and YOU will personally be hearing from ou attorney. We will have this website shut down. The only thing that makes me sad about that is I think you are teaching some people that stealing via torrents is wrong (and that is a good thing). You have no idea what kind of people we are or how hard we work. I advise you to stop any further Slander about Brigham, myself, Malbu Media or our models. And you can go ahead and delete the twitter posts but I already took screen shots and they are on the way to our attorneys.

    • Coletteisanidiot says:

      So you accuse people (innocent people even!) of copyright infringement, and you somehow think that you as a public figure are above (perhaps) untrue allegations. Best of luck in court. The best you and your lawyers could hope for is a settlement. Burden of proof is high in slander/defamation cases and I’d image SJD has plenty of friends who will happy help her fight you and counterclaim. Cute threat on shutting down this site, too.

    • pissed Off Doe says:

      Wow, a troll is accusng someone of abuse? Colette, you and your trolls are abusing our legal system and destroying lives with your shakedown scam. If you think few twitter messages are bad, what will hapen if we will start sending out mailers to your community?

    • anonymous says:

      It’s libel, not slander Colette, but I’m sure your superstar lawyer Keith will kindly explain that to you. It’s also impossible to prove, because everyone knows there is tons of underage prostitutes working in eastern europe, and everyone knows that sometimes they slip under the radar and end up in porn films because it’s not difficult to fake ID’s, especially not for the organized crime syndicates that “own” them. Pretty sure that these are things which are generally publically acknowledged, and that means that implying it occurs is not libel. But maybe Keith will think you habe a case – doubt it, since libel cases are almost impossible to win.

      Good luck with your new lawsuit venture – it’s going to be amusing when Randazza defends SJD (I am pretty sure that is the seventh seal breaking open) and tears Keith to shreds.

    • Sausages says:

      a troll threatening a frivolous lawsuit… how… shocking

    • ColetteisaCriminal says:

      Colette: When you break the law, which you do on a daily basis by extorting innocent people and abusing the justice system, you need to be able to take the heat. If you can’t even handle a couple comments on a website, how are you going to act when you get arrested for extortion?

      Toughen up, for God’s sake.

    • Anonymous says:

      Be careful about the company you keep; one of Prenda’s clients, Hard Drive Productions, Inc., was busted in a sting trying to recruit a cop posing as an underage girl. You roll in the same circles and run the same racket, so don’t be surprised and offended by the reputation you have earned.

      In case you haven’t noticed, everyone here has been threatened with a lawsuit, defamation, etc., so nobody is impressed by legal threats. At this point most of us have long become bored with ignoring the people threatening to sue us! It’s really laughable that you are so out of touch with your own scam that you threaten to sue people who are here because they have already been threatened with lawsuits by dipshit blackmail/extortion artists. On top of that, going legal against this site will be best thing you can do for us and the worst thing you can do for yourself. Believe me when I say everyone here is hoping and praying you are that stupid. We’re hoping and praying even harder that Keith Lipscomb will be the attorney handling these threats.

      It sounds like you are long overdue for a conversation with your lawyer about the blackmail/extortion scam you have been involved in. Threatening to publish defamatory statements about people, then offering to take them back for a price, is something your lawyers do every day. How about reading the email exchanges between Keith Lipscomb and Jeff Fantalis? Lipscomb threatened to have defamatory statements published in the Denver Post if Fantalis did not comply with his threats (“see your name in the Denver Post by the end of the week”). Why don’t you ask Keith about that? Since you don’t seem to approve of that sort of thing when you are on the receiving end it sounds like you are overdue for some soul searching and a long talk with your lawyers.

      Think about how you feel and multiply that by hundreds and thousands and that’s what you are responsible for inflicting on families across America.

      SJD has an honest purpose working to expose your corruption. If she were like you, she would have threatened you first and asked for a payoff to go away. Think about that. That’s what YOU do every day.

      Someday soon you will be the target of legal retribution from the people that you have threatened, defamed, blackmailed and extorted. Don’t expect any sympathy.

    • 89 Year Old Defender says:

      “…who knows nothing about our business or hasn’t even watched our movies…”

      The overwhelming majority of the people here have NEVER watched your movies and WOULDN’T watch your movies, yet they’ve been falsely accused of stealing them, in a strange and twisted perversion of the legal system. First, you’d have to want to watch the movie in order to be motivated to steal it. 90 year olds generally don’t enjoy porn.

      “…making these false statements is criminal on your part…”

      What’s criminal is a criminal act. Free Speech is not a criminal act. Commenting about ill-advised lawsuits that are filed and ongoing in a court is not a criminal act. Parodies are not criminal acts.

      You may indeed be a porn puurveyor, but you are also suing seniors and war veterans. That is called fleecing.

    • The Tod says:

      Colette, you must have had jizz in your ears the day you learned what the word Slander meant. This is America and you can have my money when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!!

      What is the going rate these days for an M&M settlement for a counterclaim?

    • sharp as a marble says:

      colette: i am genuinely curious, how old were you when you started accepting money for sex??

      • sharp as a marble says:

        i assumed that collette is/was a porn “actress” because all the other women involved in the companies that troll are/were, please forgive me if i was incorrect in this assumption.

        • pissed off Doe says:

          Nah, she failed as a real estate agent, started peddling pron, but apparently extortion is more lucrative at this point. Look up Colette Pelissier.

        • Anonymous says:

          We should probably start a copyright troll wikia to keep all this crap straight.

    • nobody says:

      Collette, honey, get a grip. Nobody here cares how “hard” you work, it’s completely immaterial. What we do care about is that you and your lawyer are engaged in a campaign of EXTORTION against innocent people. Don’t expect us to let up until you stop.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’m curious to hear what Lipscomb had to say to you about your misguided and frivolous threats. I have a couple of attorney friends and they laughed hard. One said that even if you had merits to win with 0.01% probability, you ruined your chance by stating your real goal — to shut this site down, essentially invoking anti-SLAPP provision. It’s like saying “I will sue you because you stole the book I gave you yesterday.” Have you ever tested your IQ, Colette?

      And, by the way, you DO employ underage girls. 19 IS underage by a myriad of standards. What an idiot.

      • anonymouseavenger says:

        “And, by the way, you DO employ underage girls. 19 IS underage by a myriad of standards. What an idiot.”

        I am not defending Colette, I am just curious as to where 19 is considered underage? Aside from drinking alcohol (which, I’m sure if some people really examined some of these videos there would be some drinking depicted by people under the age of 21 which would be an unlawful offense) – I’m hard pressed to think of how 19 is underage by any standard.

        Now to Colette… something you said: “And you can go ahead and delete the twitter posts but I already took screen shots and they are on the way to our attorneys.”

        First, I highly doubt those twitter posts would be deleted since they aren’t libel. However, let’s say in a bizarro world those posts WERE deleted: a screenshot wouldn’t be good evidence in court as anyone can fake a twitter post and screenshot it. Just take a look at this site: http://lemmetweetthatforyou.com/

        • Anonymous says:

          1. anonymous said “Myriad,” not “any,” althoguh “Myriad” is too much anyway I agree. Drinking legal age is a HUGE excuse anyway, regardless of the dipiction of drinking. Context is important, but proving that SJD MEANT consent legal age rather than drinking legal is nearly impossible. And intent is everything.

          2. Merriam-Wbster defines “underage” as “of less than mature or legal age.” Note “OR.” Is 19 mature? Depends. As I understand, SJD has (teen?) children, and for her, as well as for me, 19 is far from “mature.” Again, intent.

          3. Search “x-art” underage. Google returns almost 3 million results, making all the previous arguments moot. Defamation implies negative impact on person’s reputation or business. So yes, she contributed 1/3000000 to that imaginary reputational loss (see #4).

          4. There is nothing to defame: these monsters don’t have any reputaion to begin with.

        • anonymouseavenger says:

          Ah! Now I get your point. Thank you for the context. I wasn’t quite understanding it, but those are eloquent points. :)

      • anonymouseavenger says:

        After some quick googling of the phrase x-art.com drinking on google, it turns up a video on their site where the girls go out on a “night of fun” and are drinking liquor (champagne)… two of the models listed are “underage” as far as US drinking laws are concerned (19, 20 – if their profiles are to be believed.)

        • SJD says:

          HA! Thanks :) Colette is too naive (or stupid) to get a simple concept that any lawsuit triggers discovery, which is a two-way street, and if x-art is free of any lawbreaking, let any of their under.. painfully young models throw a stone in my direction.

          To anonymous: you are right: I do have teen kids, and your remarks are up-to-the point.

    • Anonymous says:

      SJD on twitter had linked a xbiz article about the porn laws currently being argued about in CA. I saw this link attached to the site and decided to share it. It’s a discussion about whether or not pay sites are dead and if they are losing money.

      Interestingly enough, mentioned in the article was a strategy to listen to your audience and give them what they want to encourage them to spend money on memberships. In fact, one website owner mentioned that while they weren’t getting as much money as they once were, they were “making more than just a comfortable living.”

      One person even stated that its not just a matter of piracy but of over-aggressiveness and over saturation.

      None of the other people quoted in the article even mentioned piracy.

      So maybe website owners like Collete just need to learn how to properly grow a business. But I guess that’s asking too much since they seem to have failed at the other things they tried, like real estate.

      Here’s the link to the article, but its probably NSFW. No pictures or anything that I noted, but its xbiz.

      http://www.xbiz.com/articles/158883

  40. Anonymous says:

    i am pretty sure that the claim of possible underage porn came from a judge originally. are you going to sue that judge too because he put his thoughts on public record??

  41. Raul says:

    Interesting that Colettes’s comment fails to ask for a retraction of the alleged offending tweet but states her true (wishful) purpose:

    “We will have this website shut down.”

    In other words she is threatening a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slappy which most states have statutes to inhibit or kill at inception. I am sure her attorney will advise her as to that as well as proving actual malice and actual damages.

    Even Prenda would not make such a threat.

    • anonymous says:

      Raul – like I said before, when Randazza is defending SJD against this SLAPP suit if it happens, it will be the last seal breaking open. Prepare for the rapture.

  42. Chuck Detchon says:

    She is such a looser. Her righteous indignation is mindless. She is what she is and when Brett Gibbs go down, guess who’s next?

    • pissed off Doe says:

      Maybe SDJ needs to start including Colette’s and Brigham’s names in the tags from now own on all blogs posting. Anyone who ever googles them should know what they represent.

      • SJD says:

        They are already on the first page of the results. Try it. “Brigham Field”: #2; “Colette Pelissier”: #4; “Colette Leah”: #1.

        Results for “Malibu Media” are all about these frivolous lawsuits. Not surprising for a sham company created exclusively to facilitate extortion.

  43. Anonymous says:

    I have a very naïve question (triggered by the frivolous Colette’s threat). Since the Constitution guarantees the right to fair trial by peers, why there is a de-facto belief that a defamation (or a copyright infringement litigation) would cost a small fortune. I know that to avoid a default judgment, defendant must answer the complaint. That’s not a rocket science, and can be done pro-se. Even if a lawyer files an answer, it wouldn’t cost much. Then… what if defendant doesn’t want this lawsuit to be dismissed and he does want to be tried in front of a jury? How plaintiff can interfere with this desire, guaranteed by the Constitution??? Can a judge grant a declaratory judgment in plaintiff’s favor if defendant explicitly states “I WANT TO BE TRIED?”

    • Anonymous says:

      You have raised an interesting question, please forgive my ignorance as I am not familiar with US court system. So in situation where you get summons, and file an answer, what happens next? Do you just sit and wait for court date, then go an testify in front of a jury? Do you need a lawyer for that?

      Also, what if you’re sued in another state, who is going to pay for you to get to the court?

  44. Bjorn Johensson says:

    I commend you for the great work you are doing to oppose criminal gangs known at Trolls. I would be happy to help ‘fightcopyrighttrolls.com. I live in Canada now but in Italy, we fought the political mafia PDL. Great work again – Tanti auguri !

  45. Howdy would you mind letting me know which web host you’re using? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different
    browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most.
    Can you suggest a good web hosting provider at a honest price?
    Kudos, I appreciate it!

  46. Anonymous says:

    I don’t have a twitter so I’ll link this story here:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/adding-insult-to-plagiary-scientist-who-complained-of-copying-got-legal-threats/32525

    The copyright law really needs to change, when people are able to make threats for 150k even for stuff that ISN’T theirs.

  47. Jlowe says:

    how can you extort that amount of money from thousands of people for videos that cost subscribers 100 dollars a year for? you are making more money extorting innocent people than you are with your business you “work so hard” for…

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