Discussions

While it is fine to discuss issues in the blog post comment sections, some threads became too long and unmanageable, so I encourage you to discuss various issues in one of the child pages listed below.

Please leave your feedback on the site organization in the comments below, I’ll be happy to create new topic pages or rearrange the entire site to make it easier and more efficient.

Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    Steve – look at the forms on syfert.com. you need to sign the motion with your contact information and phone number if you are filing pro se. you can request the judge to keep your personal information under seal so that your information is not revealed.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Stone’s most recent filing:
    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/district-of-columbia-district-court/84663/well-go-usa-inc-v-unknown-participants-in-filesharing-swarm-identified-b-hash/summary/

    Is for a movie called “IP MAN 2″. He does not include the list of IPs yet.

    He claims infringement from April 4, 2011 to July 10, 2011.

    • Proactive Redactive says:

      Slightly off topic (not really): Wait, they made another Ip Man movie? I (legally) own the first one. And here I thought most of the lawsuits only involved degenerate adult movies no one had heard of or cared about. :S

  3. mattgenton says:

    [sjd - restored from spam]

    hi to all at fightcopyrighttrolls.com i thought i had sent this newyears eve but it didnt send so i have sent it again all things good for the new year to every one
    – gentas

  4. Doe1of18 says:

    U.S. District Court
    Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-15226-AC-LJM

    K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-18
    Assigned to: District Judge Avern Cohn
    Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson
    Demand: $150,000
    Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
    Date Filed: 11/29/2011
    Jury Demand: Plaintiff
    Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    Plaintiff
    K-Beech, Inc. represented by John S. Hone
    The Hone Law Firm
    28411 Northwestern Highway
    Suite 960
    Southfield, MI 48034
    248-948-9800
    Fax: 248-948-9811
    Email: jhone@honelawfirm.com
    ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

    V.
    Defendant
    John Does 1-18

    Date Filed # Docket Text
    11/29/2011 1 COMPLAINT filed by K-Beech, Inc. against John Does 1-18 with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Fee Required – Fee Not Paid. County of 1st Plaintiff: Los Angeles County, CA – County Where Action Arose: Oakland – County of 1st Defendant: Oakland. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Rule 7.1 Disclosure, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit A- Def IP addresses, # 4 Exhibit B- Application for copyright registration, # 5 Exhibit C- BitTorrent Vocabularly, # 6 Exhibit D- Screenshot of swarm activity) (Hone, John) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
    11/29/2011 2 MOTION for Leave to File Serve 3rd Party Subpoenas by K-Beech, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Declaration of Tobias Fieser, # 2 Exhibit Decl of TF- Ex A) (Hone, John) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
    11/29/2011 3 Notice of Filing Fee Not Paid (KKra) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
    11/29/2011 A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (KKra) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
    11/30/2011 4 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
    12/01/2011 FILING FEE Received in the amount of $350.00 by K-Beech, Inc. – Receipt No. DET037609 [No Image Associated with this docket entry] (KByr) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

  5. Raul says:

    K-Beech is suing for the alleged infringement of the DVD “Gang Bang Virgins”. I t looks like the alleged infringement occurred prior to the plaintiff obtaining a copyright registration certificate which it obtained on 10-24-11. If Michigan is a state that requires such a certificate in accordance with 17 USC Section 412 before a plaintiff can recover statutory damages and attorney fees per 17 UCS Section 504(c), then plaintiff is reduced (if it can prove its case) to an award of actual damages which might just be the cost of the DVD ($19.99) divided by the number of defendants. Also, there has been an allegation made that “Gang Bang Virgins” is either identical to or is strikingly similar to a DVD entitled “Grand Slam” which was produced and copyrighted by Combat Zone in 2006. If this is true, then the plaintiff and its attorney are perpetrating a fraud on the Copyright Office and the federal judicial system. Furthermore, Michigan’s Public Act 285 of 1965, as amended, requires that a state private investigation license be applied for and issued to anyone who conducts computer forensics for the purpose of gaining evidence to be used in a court of law. I do not believe that plaintiff’s computer forensics private investigator, Tobias Fieser of Germany, is so licensed by the State of Michigan. If you want to become further informed check out this site thoroughly and this one http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/

    The forgoing does not constitute legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

  6. Raul says:

    Do I smell a inexperienced (scared) troll who is trying to troubleshoot his shitty lawsuit? Sniff, sniff.

  7. Doe1of18 says:

    Me troll? Nope just one of 18 people slammed with a subpoena. I have contacted a lawyer and discussed my options. I will be fighting this as well. Thanks for the advice, the lawyer thing was the only option I saw viable. I will update as this proceeds.

  8. Raul says:

    Sorry about the suspicion but the trolls are known to lurk this site for info and to sow misinformation. Best of luck to you and I hope that you and I come out of this wiser and having kicked a certain troll’s b#lls into his brain cavity (God knows there will be enough room).

  9. Raul says:

    Also provide this to your lawyer, as a template, in case you get sued individually (VERY doubtful) http://ia700806.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.azd.635399/gov.uscourts.azd.635399.12.0.pdf

  10. Raul says:

    SJD-now I think I have an inkling of the satisfaction you must get from maintaining this site and weaponizing the Does. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

  11. Doe1of18 says:

    That was a lot of reading, and to be honest I couldnt make sense of some of it. I will keep the template just in case. I hope we can squash this and be done personally. Seems the squash success is only around 40% from my reading. Im also guessing Michigan is a new area since I dont see any other cases running on the troll boards atm. Educating the judges of this trend might be what this case does here.

    • pissed off says:

      Even If its just 40% success, it brings to the Judges attention whats really going on and the more people do it the better the news gets out. Some judges are new to the Trolls ideas,
      This lets them know what and in what chambers this stuff is going on and how many other Judges are seeing threw the trolls BULLSHIT.

  12. Raul says:

    Some laughs can be found here http://ia700707.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.casd.363443/gov.uscourts.casd.363443.29.1.pdf in which a defense attorney “…hereby submits the following Memorandum in Support of its concurrently filed Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Strike the Complaint filed against it by Patrick Collins, Inc. (hereinafter “Gangbangers”), a California corporation” and then repeatedly refers to Patrick ?Collins, Inc. as Gangbangers. This motion is interesting for two reasons. The first is that this is the first time I have seen a defendant move to dismiss a troll complaint on the ground that it fails to adequately plead a claim upon which relief can be granted (i.e the complaint does not plead ownership of a valid copyright!?). The second reason is that this motion touches on an issue that is near and dear to my heart and again to quote defense counsel:

    … the Complaint confusingly only states that Plaintiff is the owner of the “…Registration for the Work which contains an original work of authorship.” (Court Doc.#11, para 47). The Registration certificate itself cannot contain anything, so it is unclear whether Plaintiff is actually claiming that Gangbangers itself is an original work of authorship as required, or whether it is making an end run around the requirements of the Copyright law to actually prove that the Work itself is an original work, and also importantly if there has been actual copying of constituent elements of the work itself that are original. That the subject matter may not be original is a serious concern particularly since “Gangbang” movies are apparently a type of generically named, non-original pornography that has been around long before the “Work” in question—so there is real doubt that any particular element of the Work is original. Without risking an infestation of malware on its computer by actually clicking on any particular website, the Court could take judicial notice that a simple Google search of “Gangbang movie” reveals a plethora of website entries boasting identically or similarly themed movies and websites.

    Clever argument but I am not sure whether it will carry the day. Now whether the content as opposed to the subject matter is original; that is an issue for the future.

  13. Doe1of18 says:

    Hired our Lawyer and ready to fight. Nothing to really update atm. and I will not until this is done. Once its over however, I’ll post all the details!

  14. Doe1of18 says:

    Not sure if Doe 11 in my case reads this, if so also file a motion to sever. GL if your reading.

  15. john doe #__ says:

    how can i find the name of the movie that k beech is suing for?

  16. Raul says:

    Get a PACER account and look it up with Firefox with the RECAP plugin.

  17. john doe #__ says:

    thanx. also havin trouble finding a qualified laywer for less than 5g. outragous qoute if you ask me.

    • Anonymous says:

      Depends what you need the lawyer for. For shielding a Doe from calls or negotiating with the trolls, that fee is very high. For taking a case to trial, the fee is low. If the fee is a retainer, the remaining cash may be returned after the hourly rate is deducted, depending on the arrangement.

      It’s very possible for preliminary things that you can use an out of state lawyer. That gives more choices, including lawyers who have experience with copyright trolls. See the posts about how rarely things get to a trial stage, mainly for default judgements.

      Some lawyers around the country might give a free first discussion.

  18. john doe#__ says:

    know of any lawyers in MI in this field?

  19. Lalchandani Simon are preparing to file Motions to Quash to protect to the identities of “Doe Defendants” sued in a new Patrick Collins v. Does 1-112, Case No. 12-32595 CA 21 filed in 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County. Internet users have begun to receive letters from their ISP’s, most recently from Florida Cable .

    http://lslawpl.com/patrick-collins-v-1-112-case-no-12-32595-ca-21-lalchandani-simon-responding-subpoena-notices-florida-cable-copyright-troll-cases-filed-miami-dade-county-2/

    • SJD says:

      I’m happy that you let everyone know about your defense actions, I wish every other Doe Defender would do the same. One caveat though: virtually no one sees this page (or subscribed to it). The maximum effect (coverage) would be achieved if you post either on the Miami-Dade page when applicable or plaintiff conglomerate pages; In this case it is Lipscomb. Or Florida page (this page is followed by many people, and is mostly about federal cases).

      People usually subscribe to comments only to the pages that they are interested in, and won’t notice anything posted elsewhere.

      Thanks again,

      SJD

  20. Anonymous says:

    Who is the real Daniel Weber?
    Seems there this confusion in how his name is spelled
    Look here…………
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.274150/gov.uscourts.flmd.274150.40.2.pdf

    In the Declaration of Daniel Webber. He is said to have signed with Two B’s

    But every where I look I see his name with one one
    Even his own twitter account it just one B

    https://twitter.com/DanielWeber99

    Explain why they would be different?
    even his own posts have only one B

    Daniel Weber ‏@DanielWeber99

    Exhausted right now, In LA, Flying to NYC sun, and back to India on Thursday. Over 250k miles flown this year…
    Expand

  21. Nanashi-chan says:

    I just got a letter dated Feb 21 with a copyright settlement that expired Jan 25 from DunlapWeaver, PLLC anyone else get this?

  22. Amispompatt says:

    bQizpIixsLqB [url=http://www.lmsroadracing.se/tmp/canadagoose.html]Canada Goose Jacka[/url] hAokfZlksNxH [url=http://www.puvab.se/includes/moncler/]Moncler Sverige[/url] aXcohQstaGgE [url=http://www.redcrossug.org/includes/domit/true-religion-outlet.html]Cheap True Religion Jeans[/url] gHdheFzkdByC [url=http://www.psaconsulting.com.au/media/oakley-sunglasses/]Cheap Oakley Sunglasses[/url] sQxwlBumlSuY [url=http://www.fitnessvacature.nl/includes/domit/canada_goose_jassen.html]Canada Goose[/url] mOyytJqaeTnX [url=http://www.rckkenya.org/includes/belstaff/]Belstaff uk[/url] wDfohLgoaWzO [url=http://www.easyriderskattuk.nl/joomla/logs/link.php]Louis Vuitton Amsterdam[/url] vJkzrIpluMdP [url=http://www.home4now.ca/components/moncler.html]Moncler Jackets[/url] xQyqmEflaBnZ [url=http://www.reiki-land.de/includes/domit/louis-vuitton-taschen.html]Louis Vuitton Taschen[/url] rDjezPgwxPgT [url=http://www.blueseasoft.de/libraries/belstaff/]Belstaff Outlet[/url]

  23. wNlltTraaAqR [url=http://www.metaalrecyclingvanakelijen.nl/plugins/editors/uggs_outlet.html]UGGs[/url] dVeymZesyAtC [url=http://www.andreagaler.co.uk/dev/cache/exception.html]Louis Vuitton Bags[/url] hWwtpOqfqRyH [url=http://www.aisnet.org/endnote/styles/hollister-store.html]Hollister Store[/url] uZxjsMbzdFiI [url=http://www.castor-suedblockade.de/doc/ugg_boots.html]uggs[/url] uMgnvKiqwSjJ [url=http://www.halshotel.dk/modules/jakke-canada-goose.html]Jakke Canada Goose[/url] oBdzrZxnxYxH [url=http://www.topfloorcarpets.co.uk/cache/ptiterecre.html]Tiffany And Co Uk[/url] fCgaeLqxcQuE [url=http://www.easyriderskattuk.nl/libraries/joomla/goedkope_uggs.html]Goedkope Uggs[/url] kNfqxIcsiYwO [url=http://www.olympicpoet.com/cheapairmax.php]Cheap Air Max[/url] uAimqVjzcTrL [url=http://www.reiki-land.de/logs/ugg-sale.html]Ugg Sale[/url] oZwwhHbxdBaI [url=http://www.trynorway.no/cache/ugg/]UGG Oslo[/url]

  24. Anonymous says:

    No idea if this was already brought up, but typing “fightcopyrightrolls.com” does not redirect you to your site; it redirects to the Trichordist.

    Obviously, David Lowery has a keen interest in making sure pornographers and their lawyers are allowed to sue grandmothers.

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