Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK)

While CEG-TEK‘s lawyers do some “classing” copyright trolling, i.e. sue masses in frivolous bittorent lawsuits, this shakedown outfit specializes on sending small amount claims (as small as $200) to its victims and direct them to a payment site. This activity includes pursuing amateur sites that post copyrighted images and other shakedown activities in addition to targeting bittorent users. While this page is an appropriate place to discuss the lawsuits initiated by this troll group, attorney Rob Cashman has by far more expertise when it comes to the small amount claims please read multiple article about CEG-TEK by Rob and inquire advice there.

Trolls

CEG-TEK has its own “expert” (not certified, of course) Jon Nicolini.

Relevant posts
Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    The CA courts are catching on to Ira:
    Northern District of California
    DIGITAL SIN, INC.,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    DOES 1-5698,
    Defendants.
    No. C 11-04397 LB

    Judge LAUREL BEELER dismissed the case against Does 2-5698 well before any Does were notified of the subpoenas by their ISP. Slowly but surely the trolls get-rich-quick scheme is crumbling.

  2. Proactive Redactive says:

    Now if only all his cases would crumble. I see New Sensations/Digital Sin only has one remaining case (that I see) still remaining. Here’s to hoping the judge on that case wakes up soon to this mockery of the court system.

    • pissed off says:

      I think the Judge in this cases feels that considering that he said its all part of one swarm that its ok for joinder and therefore permitting discovery. even if its over a year long swarm..

      • Proactive Redactive says:

        Which I obviously disagree with (as do most of the people here and most of the judges). I would like to know what ‘substantial evidence’ Ira Seigel gave the judge to even consider it.

        Joinder in most of these bit torrent swarm cases seems to imply that all of the individuals (in this case 1474) all committed the act in conspiracy (IE that all of them knew and were aware of the presence of each other and committed the act as one). I see no evidence (in any of the cases) for that to be true.

        Especially if what you say is true and this ‘crime’ was committed over the span of a year.

        • pissed off says:

          Thats puzzling to me too, I wonder why this Judge is allowing what others are throwing out.

  3. Proactive Redactive says:

    Does anyone have any useful information regarding the New Sensations v. Does 1-1474 case that is supposedly still open? I keep getting conflicting information on the case as some people (in a general state of confusion) are claiming the case was dropped earlier this year, but I have seen nothing to support this, even though it was originally filed on June 7th of this year.

    Again, it appears to be moving very slowly.. if at all.

  4. Anonymous says:

    My wife (as the account holder) got named as a Doe in Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590. I see on justia.com that someone seems to have filed a motion to quash that judge has ordered the plaintiff to respond to… but I can only view the judges order, not the motion… this is the first motion to quash or dismiss that I’ve seen that the judge has ruled favorably on… how do i find out what they did?

  5. Anonymous says:

    check PACER for status updates.

    • Anonymous says:

      I noticed in two other Judge Beeler cases (Third Degree v. does 1-3577 and Patrick Collins v. does 1-3757) that there are orders on the ex parte applications both dated 11\4\2010. This is the same date she trashed the Digital Sin case listed above. Does that mean she is throwing out all these cases? Does anyone know?

      • Anonymous says:

        I meant the two orders on ex parte applications were dated 11/4/2011, not 2010.

      • Proactive Redactive says:

        Which case exactly was trashed? Digital Sin/New Sensations are more or less sister companies and the only case remaining active is the New Sensations v. Does 1 -1474.. which to my knowledge is still open as being a potential ‘named Doe’ to the case, I have been following it even though it is not very exciting and the outcome is not super promising.

        Is there another case under Digital Sin that is open that is not the aforementioned case?

        • pissed off says:

          You know I think your right but its kinda weird becouse it almost looks like theres two cases of does 1-1474,
          If you go to justia.com and type in New Sensations Inc
          there a case Named New Sensations vs Does, but no number of Does, just Does, click on history and than your pacer acc.
          Theres a motion to Quash from a lawyer for Buckeye Cablesyetem for two different films one is the Big Bang film Does 1-1474 and the other is patrick Collin vs Does 1-2590.
          Its kinda interesting, of course I dont understand most of it.. LOL

          https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/14115839106

        • Doe says:

          In the case new sensations v does 1-1,474 the judge rejected the the motion to dismiss based on incorrect jurisdiction (the doe gave their IP address) saying that the Plaintiff has a right to learn the Doe’s identity and determine if jurisdiction is proper. Plaintiff says that the Court, at a minimum, require defendant to provide his identity and submit a sworn declaration regarding jurisdiction. Judge agrees. This would of course defeat the whole point of remaining anonymous. Disappointing.

          http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2011cv02770/241553/

  6. Anonymous says:

    I was wondering, does he need to get our identity to determine jurisdiction? You only need to type the ip into google to find where it is located/allocated, then jurisdiction should be easy. The judges need to be made aware of this maybe?

    • pissed off says:

      Some of the Judges know this, its been pointed out already to them but dont seem to care. I guess the trolls have found what they been looking for, an open judge, so now all the trolls will hope to get this judge assigned to them. It makes for easy money in the shake down of defendants.

  7. Anonymous says:

    http://ia700603.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.cand.241533/gov.uscourts.cand.241533.docket.html Full Docket for Collins vs Does 1-2590… if anyone is interested. Stumbled upon this by accident actually. And you don’t need a pacer account to view it :D Not ALL the files, but all the important ones like her latest order…

  8. ExtremelyFrustrated says:

    My ISP sent a certified mail which contained a CEG Notice of Copyright Infringement. The notice provides a link to the copyrightsettlement.com site with a “case” number and password. What I’m wondering is if there’s any harm in inputting that information to see what “settlement” amount they’re looking for. Obviously, I’d use a public computer to pull up the information…

  9. ExtremelyFrustrated says:

    OK. Thanks for the info. I guess I just need to wait and see what happens then?

  10. anonymous says:

    I received a letter from ISP about seeking info for case 11-2766 MEJ and they will release info next week. I just notice the latest document by the judge asking for more info from plaintiff based on jurisdiction.

    Should I do anything or wait it out? I only received the paperwork somewhat late and only have until next week to do anything before ISP releases information.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Wait, the Judge isn’t letting Ira get anymore ISP infos if I read it correctly. Your ISP will get notification of this and shouldn’t release your info. And for people like me who have already recieved a letter, we should be recieving another soon to disregard that letter per court order. Here is the full docket so far, plus the latest denial against the Plaintiff…

    http://ia700603.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.cand.241533/gov.uscourts.cand.241533.docket.html Which is actually a few comments up… posting it again anyway. :D

  12. Anonymous says:

    I got a letter in the mail for does 1-1474. Does anyone know what’s going on with this case?

  13. mrdoe says:

    does anyone have info on digital sin inc v. does-245? it was filed in the southern district of NY court.

    • anonymous says:

      It looks like the Judge granted discovery

      • anon says:

        It is not listed on RCE Express about granting discovery. No motion by any Does are listed there.

        • anon says:

          The Plaintiff filed for Motion of Discovery on November 16th., The Judge Granted the Motion on November 17th., allowing the Plaintiff to issue subpoenas to the ISPs.

          There wouldn’t be any motions by does on the docket yet. Unfortunately, RFC Express is not always up to date.

  14. mrdoe says:

    what does that mean exactly? do you think the case will go through with 250 does?

    • pissed off says:

      The RIAA thing, I thought would have been a big topic but i guess not. I would think this would be a nail in ALL copyright Doe cases, because if the copyright police can’t get it right (R.I.A.A) with locking down their own I.P. Addresses or their lying and its within and not a third party.
      Than why should they or other companies like New Sensations Inc and others try to bust anyone else for the same crime. I guess I just don’t get it. Or its like everyone says there just there to scare you first (because you don’t know better) than drop the cases after a little while and start fresh with another..

  15. john doe says:

    Does anyone have info on Mike Meier and his track record with cases. Particularly Digital sic inc. vs Does 1-245

  16. Doe DOA says:

    Has anyone noticed that P Collins vs does 1-2590 is filed in over four courts? Is that legal? There’s one in Kansas, New York, California and two others.

    • anonymous says:

      Those are more than likely motions to quash, in the court of jurisdiction where the doe resides, and Ira Siegel filed a response.

  17. MIt says:

    Does anyone know about a recent Third Degree Film case (I believe its under Seigel)? Apparently there’s around 2000 Does.

  18. anonymous says:

    The only Third Degree case that I could find with 2,000 does is:

    Third Degree FIlms vs does 1-2010, case# 5:10-cv-05862-EJD

    The judge severed does 2-2010 on 11.02.2011
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2010cv05862/235544/58/0.pdf?ts=1321007726

    The judge ordered Ira to name the remaining doe by a certain date, which he did not do (120 days elapsed). So an order to show cause was made.

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2010cv05862/235544/60/0.pdf?ts=1322070349

    Ira Dismissed Doe# 1, without prejudice on December 8th, 2011.

  19. anonymous says:

    MIT, did you get that?

    • Mit says:

      Yes, thanks for the reply and info. Especially being so timely.

      I’m unclear on one thing as far as the ordering of events: (which one’s right?)
      –1. cases filed/documented. 2. isps contacted/emails sent 3. subpoena..
      –1. isps contacted/emails sent 2.cases filed post settlement date. 3. Subpoena

  20. anonymous says:

    Order of events are as follows (note this is just a rough outline)

    1)Alleged infringement documented
    2)Case filed
    3)Motion by Ira Siegel for subpoena
    4)Motion granted to subpoena ISPs
    5)Subpoenas sent to ISPs by Ira
    6)Emails/letters sent to does by Ira

    Several months passed, filled with motions to quash by does, etc..
    7)An order to show cause by judge
    8)Judge severs does 2-2010 and orders Ira to show why the remaining doe should not be dismissed
    9)Ira Dismisses doe 1
    10)Case is dismissed by judge without prejudice

    It looks like about 20 does settled with Ira.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Internet provider was subpoenaed by Patrick Collins v. john does 1-30 2:11-cv-15236 in Eastern District of Michigan to provide personal information. What steps do I take to quash subpoena. Do I need legal counsel.

  22. Anonymous says:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/07173918924/copyright-troll-demands-8500-rarely-visited-lindsay-lohan-fansite.shtml

    Scumbag Ira Siegel’s CEG now reduced to trolling Lindsay Lohan fansite that had nine pageviews from six unique visitors.

    Pathetic. I wonder how Ira’s bankruptcy is going.

    • anonymous says:

      He still has a few years left on his payments. Wonder if his Bankruptcy Trustee is aware of the extra income from his lawsuits?

  23. Doe says:

    I know this is an old case, but here is my issue. say for example I was the person that downloaded the movie, but since my home is set up so that the router’s internal IP is hidden, showing only one IP address, or external IP address, my father was named by our ISP, (he is the one that pays for the internet service) so im pretty sure Patrick Collins has our information.

    I am still unsure after reading all of the evidence; since the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, should we be worried that Patrick Collins will regather his efforts, and bring forward a different plan of attack.

    Im just worried because the judge stated that plaintiff can not negotiate settlements based on info they received before the 7th, and im not sure if they were able to name us before or after.

    We also got a lawyer, which i believe has thus far done squat, we even paid him an upfront fee of $7000. I really wish i saw this website earlier.

    anyways, any comments will be greatly appreciated, thanks for ready

    DOE

    • anonymous says:

      Have you posed this question to your attorney? You mentioned Patrick Collins, was Ira Siegel the attorney?

      The statute of limitations for copyright infringement is 3 years from date infringement was discovered. So far, they have not refiled any of the cases, at least none that I have seen.

      $7,000 sounds pretty high for a retainer though.

  24. anonymous says:

    I posted this in the “Florida” section as a response to a question. Thought it might be good to post here as well.

    An interesting development in Mike Meier’s trolling in FLND.

    ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
    Upon review of the papers filed in the cases listed herein, the court has sua sponte
    determined that these cases present common questions of law and fact such that they
    should be assigned to one district judge.1 Accordingly, the following cases shall be
    reassigned to Judge Robert Hinkle:

    Eighteen cases have been reassigned to Judge Hinkle.The very same judge that slapped Hashmi to the curb, and dismissed Meier’s other cases.

    The order should be up on recap soon

    http://ia600804.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.flnd.66537/gov.uscourts.flnd.66537.docket.html

  25. Anonymous says:

    I couldn’t believe my eyes but it looks like Ira Siegel, using the Matlock Law Group as his proxy, is back to trolling in CAND!

    The Matlocks just filed a bunch of mass-Doe cases in CAND, which seems like suicide given what happened there last year, so I looked at the histories of several of their Plaintiffs, Third Degree, Patrick Collins, New Sensations and Media Products, Inc. and the last cases from each Plaintiff were filed by Ira Siegel… Looks like the troll has crawled out from under his bridge and found some attorneys scummy enough to do his dirty work.

    I’m guessing he didn’t tell them how his last round of cases turned out; several of the new cases have been assigned to Maria-Elena James, a judge who previously got tired of IRA’s crap, used geolocation tools on her own initiative to dismiss out of state Does, and forbid Ira from settling with any more Does. A couple more were assigned to Grewal who has severed all but Doe 1 from Ira’s cases in the past.

    This is going to be fun to watch. Maybe one or two cases slipped through the cracks, but according to my search of RFC Express there have been no mass-Doe cases filed in CAND since September 2011. That was when it had become clear that Trolls were not welcome there, I believe Ira just gave up while Prenda moved on to CAED (without much success) and tried a handful of single-Doe cases in CAND and CAED, two of which provoked the Liuxia Wong and Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions, Inc. suits.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I just got an email from Ira siegel this morning for a settlement. My isp forwarded his email to me so my information hasn’t been given to him. Does anyone know if this will go anywhere? I thought he wasn’t able to send any more settlement emails, unless I read something incorrectly. Please let me know, I have until september 1st for any settlement or I will possibly be sued.

    • SJD says:

      What? Ira is at it again? This guy is clearly suicidal.

      No, you won’t be “possibly” sued. CEG does not bite, only barks. They cynically work the numbers, reap the loot from those who succumbed to fears and don’t bother pursuing those who’ve shown them a middle finger.

      • John says:

        How sure are you about this? I got a settlement notice, too. I talked to a lawyer (for advice, I haven’t hired one) who said for peace of mind I could pay, or just do nothing and the likelihood of being sued is “less than 50%”…

    • Anonymous says:

      Hello all, this was my post. It it now October 5th, more than a month from when i got the email and i have not got any more mail or emails from Ira Siegel. Ignore all of his emails. Nothing will happen.

  27. CEG Target says:

    We just received was looks like a form letter form our ISP about a DMCA notice filed by this Ira Siegel. From what I’ve read it’s nothing to be too concerned about, but the only apprehension I have is that my roommate visited the website the email directed her to and checked the “case status”. Is there anything I need to do at this point?

    • anonymous says:

      Is this an email from your ISP? If it is a DMCA notice from Ira, forwarded to you by your ISP, it is nothing more than Ira playing the numbers game.

      People have received these from CEG for pictures, porn movies, and celebrity fan site pictures.

  28. Anonymous says:

    My ISP received a pre-litigation settlement offer from Ira Siegel (CEG TEK International) for a porn movie that was downloaded and tied to my IP address. I visited the settlement website and entered the code/password (I know, I should have found this site first). The settlement offer is $200.

    Other than visiting the settlement website, I haven’t provided any other information. I have about 15 days to settle before my claim is referred to their attorneys for legal action.

    What should I do? How likely is Ira to take legal action against me?

    I’m considering the settlement but am concerned that I would be revealing my identity and then they’d be able to keep shaking me down. This sux.

    • Anonymous says:

      Can I be nosy and ask what the title of the movie was or who the plaintiff is? No offense to anyone here, but $200 is a heck of a lot cheaper than the $3500 statements thrown around so frequently. Is it typically cheaper to settle through the website than through the plaintiff’s attorney directly?

    • Raul says:

      I’ve never heard of a troll obtaining a settlement from a Doe and then returning for a further shakedown.

      • Anonymous says:

        I assume you’re being sarcastic? ;-) However, what no one talks about is what if someone actually did the infringing that they claim. $200 is a very reasonable offer (4-5 times the cost depending on what was downloaded). If that was all you had to worry about . . .

        Have there ever been any accusations of the CEG TEK adding IPs just to see if someone will pay? I get the 30% false ID but do you think they have ever said “These people paid. Now lets just stick their IPs in with this batch even though IPP didn’t ever see activity on these files. We’ll just see if we can get another $200 easy.”

        • doecumb says:

          I also have not heard of trolls trying to extract more than one settlement for the same CASE and (“useful work”) movie. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t happen. But maybe it is rare or doesn’t happen. I think that is what Raul is referring to, but don’t want to put words in his mouth.

          Does are advised to carefully review agreements if they must settle, for whatever reason.Some non-disclosure agreement offered by the trolls leave leeway for the trolls to bring future action against a Doe for the same case. But it doesn’t seem to happen so far. It’s probably it’s easier for trolls to move on to fresh victims.

          It’s quite right that the same porn purveyor troll and attorney have made allegation against the same Doe for different cases (different movies and dates).

          It’s also right that there is no proof of that the trolls’ alleged tracking is reliable. We mainly know only when individual Does complain or fight back. Trolls have no reason to show accuracy for their alleged technology. If they did, they would have to admit it is error filled.

          Many troll actions have been untrustworthy. It would be a fairly simply matter to add I.P. addresses to a list for allegation. But remember that dynamic I.P. addresses change often (such as daily). For allegation about a particular movie (Blumpkin Allure or whatever), the troll would need to know the I.P. address assignment for a specific Doe for that day.

    • doecumb says:

      Anon 9:12 AM

      I don’t know the specifics of your case. but here’s what we know about trolls like Siegel’s gang:

      -They act in their own self-interest.

      -They’ll take the highest settlement they can get.

      -There are many past examples of bad faith actions by trolls.

      -It costs them $350 plus labor to file against (“name”) an individual in Federal civil court.Things only get to that point in a fraction of one per cent of cases, often or mostly where the troll has some other advantage. They need to have a local lawyer agent in that jurisdiction, who probably gets a fairly small percentage of the future settlement fee.

      $200 is a very low offer, even for website trolling. There is always reason to be suspicious of a troll action-they are not acting for your interest. It possible that the troll is being kind, but their are almost no examples of that after cases totaling hundreds of thousands of Does.

      One possibility is that the troll has so little leverage that they want to quickly grab what they can get. (It’s “not very much” money.) There a lots of reason for little porn purveyor troll lawyer leverage: lack of copyright registration, unfavorable district, bad case precedent and more.

      Another possibility is a mass trolling case where collection of hundreds of dollars from thousands of Does make a quick score.

      One more possibility you raise is that it’s a cheap way to identify a Doe for future trolling. If the same Doe’s /location comes up again, the troll may make a higher demand. The troll may conclude the Doe is willing to pay up.
      (Usual disclaimer: This is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.)

      • Anonymous (from September 18, 2012 at 9:12 am) says:

        Thank you for the quick replies. I think the reason the offer is relatively low is that it’s a PRE-litigation settlement offer. I’ve read of similar amounts on other sites but no conclusion on what happens if you settle. If they decided to litigate I’d bet the settlement offer would increase to the $2-3k range.

        My concern is as you state; that they will conclude I am willing to pay and they’ll have a laundry list of additional claims just waiting to send out. If I could put it to bed once and for all for $200 it’d be worth it, but these trolls are the lowest of life forms.

        The thing that sux is that it’d probably cost more to hire an attorney to review/advise than to just settle…

  29. Anonymous says:

    Regarding doecumb’s reply that’s why when I talked to an attorney about a case I was a doe in, he said he gets agreements for all known, unknown, suspected, etc. incidents Said it offers the most protection. Fortunately my case was dismissed but I guess something like that would give me piece of mind if it is for all claims by the plaintiff. I’m assuming that doesn’t mean against other plaintiffs. Would be nice if the CEG TEK would offer blanket immunity like the RIAA or MPAA did back in the day. It might give a little more incentive for actual infringers to settle.

  30. Anonymous says:

    basically this is an attatchment to a dmca notice so that the isp forwards it along with the notice. the troll does not know who you are yet and would have to sebpoena your isp to get the info. this is exactly the same thing bmg music is doing http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/bmg-trick-the-innocent-with-copyright-infringement-notices-ahead-of-six-strikes-imposition/051806. more than likely you are EVEN LESS LIKELY TO BE SUED as a result of these pre-suit dmca notices then if you are an actual doe in a mass suit. so mass suit doe =.01% likelyhood of being named, pre-suit notice .001% of being named because they would have to file a mass doe suit to get your info.

    this however can be a handy indicator that you need to secure your router, or should stop downloading copyrighted stuff, or should punish your child or pound your roomate. if they do name you at some point they will try to use any dmca notices sent to your account as proof that you are infact the one doing the dl’ing so the fewer you have the better. if you have proof you responded by securing your network and perhaps got a dns filter (opendns.com is free) then you can easily dismiss their negligence claims. so i would suggest you ignore the “settlement offer” as any other phishing scam out there (think nigerian prince) and secure your ish.

    I AM NOT A LAWYER :-)

    • Anonymous (from September 18, 2012 at 9:12 am) says:

      I’ll research the dns filter. Other than that how would I prove that I’ve secured my network? I’ve put password/encryption in place, but how is that “proof”? Should I actively block ports used by p2p software?

      • That Anonymous Dude says:

        DNS filter? P2P software can use any port, as long as your router’s packet filtering is set up. I disabled SSID broadcasting (to access my wireless network you gotta know the SSIDs), disabled WPS (if you haven’t, do it, NOW), enabled MAC filtering which can either allow or deny devices based on their MAC addresses (I set up a whitelist, every other device is blacklisted), and I use WPA2 encryption. With MAC filtering just make sure you don’t ban yourself :P I did that with my wireless bridge. Easily fixed but it’s just a PITA.

        • Anonymous says:

          the dns filter does not disable the software but can be used to block the torrent search sites. again if it is someone who is allowed on your network (roommate or kid) then this will at least slow em down. also it helps track traffic so it can help see if you have a botnet infection or some other infections.

        • Anonymous says:

          All great advice. But how does this help your defense if you can’t prove your router was unsecured in the first place? Mine doesn’t have logs enabled (and it sounds like logs are limited in any event). WEP was being used which apparently can be hacked in about five minutes with something called “REAVER”. Blah, blah, blah . . .

          I’m not sure the trolls will listen to any of it and the fact that I can’t prove it just means it’s my word against theirs. Not sure what someone would do. Add that to the fact if they see your IP multiple times which would make sense if someone was using/hacked your router and they’ll put the squeeze on. Can you tell I’m a pessimist?

      • That Anonymous Dude says:

        OpenDNS? You’d need to change your router’s DNS servers (if the firmware allows you to) otherwise you’ll need to install a third-party firmware like DD-WRT, assuming it’s compatible with your router or you’re SOL. Two caveats. First, you’ll void the warranty. Second, unless you know what the hell you’re doing, there’s a high probability of bricking your router. That being said, even OpenDNS doesn’t work 100% of the time because P2P is so dynamic. DD-WRT has built in filtering for bittorrent but it’s a moot point since everyone uses encrypted packets now.

        Assuming this is for filtering P2P and not a botnet (OpenDNS really does work for botnets), your best bet would be to use QoS filtering with level-7 packet filtering set up for bittorrent to throttle the shit out of the traffic to almost 0 bytes/s. Again, you’d need DD-WRT and an L7 packet filter module…you need to know what you’re doing. Or a combination of OpenDNS and DD-WRT firmware with L7 filter. Bottom line, this shit isn’t easy. If they expect you to just go bam and your router is secure, these people are fucking idiots. A wireless router is never 100% secure. The only 100% secure wireless router is one that’s not plugged in.

    • doecumb says:

      Thanks Anon 4:13 for the music week link.

      The tactic and trend are disturbing. This deserves separate posts and discussion by SJD, DTD and others. Since this harassment and misrepresentation are outside the public record, who knows how much of it has gone on. There may be tens of thousands more Does disturbed by porn purveyor trolling than the 300,000 Does we know about.

      The BMG letter wording includes the statement: “Your ISP service could be suspended if this matter is not resolved.” In context, the statement seems to imply that paying the settlement rather than securing a router is what will keep a customer’s account open.

      Also, the letter is written as if the supposed tracking method is reliable. Reliability has never been proven. More important expensive I.T. applications with far more checks have flaws.

      The I.S.P. may be unwilling assisting misrepresentation and entrapment of innocent citizens by the trolls. AFAIK nothing would prevent ISP’s from sending out their own cover letter for this extra “evidence” by BMG, Siegel/CEG or others, describing the risks of inquiring about and responding to the BMG/CEG “offer”.

      http://torrentfreak.com/bmg-demands-20-for-pirated-bruno-mars-eminem-downloads-120914/

  31. Anonymous says:

    also these dmca attatchments cost basically nothing and prevent all the hassles of actual litigation. no counter claims, no motions to counter, basically no risk. you can send out a ton more of them and definately cast a wider net. i am surprised prenda is not doing this crap.

  32. Raul says:

    OK this comment would be much cooler if RECAP was cooperating today but it is not, I yanked a few motions that just are not showing up. Accordingly I am going to give you the gist based upon my debased memory.

    In Malibu Media v. Does (MIED 12-cv-12586) the attorneys for Does #4 and #11 notice, among other things, that Malibu Media, Inc., is suing for copyright infringement on movies (14 out of the 15 titles) that were copyrighted before Malibu Media was even incorporated!!! According to the Does’ attorneys this is not permitted by established caselaw. Troll Nicolletti dances around this inconvenient fact but admits that there are some inconsistencies and errors that need to be cleared up. Judge Hluchaniuk on 10-5 smells something foul and directs the troll to provide proof of copyright ownership by 10-19. http://ia701505.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.mied.270710/gov.uscourts.mied.270710.28.0.pdf

    I hope the RECAPPED motions show up because they are great reading. For example Doe 4 raises the record keeping requirements of 18 C.F.R. 2257 which we have discussed but which has, until now, not been raised by a Doe Defender.

    Docket is here http://ia701505.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.mied.270710/gov.uscourts.mied.270710.docket.html

  33. Stranglehold says:

    Here’s the situation I’m in. From reading these past posts, it seems like I might not have anything to worry about, but I’d like to get some other views just to be sure…

    Last Friday, I started getting emails from my ISP – who happens to be Charter – about copyright infringement, along with the notices and settlement offers by Ira. After I got the first two, just out of curiosity, I went to the website listed and entered in the codes/passwords for the first 2 notices, to find out that they wanted $200 per incident to settle. As of Monday morning, I’ve gotten 8 total emails, usually 2 sent per day, regarding 4 titles shared on 2 separate days. Using my math skills, I figure I’m getting shaken down for $1600.

    I guess what I’d like to know at this point, judging from what I’ve read in previous posts, is that since I happened to enter those codes for the first two notices, would it make sense to look into speaking with an attorney? I realize that my ISP can’t provide my information without a court order and I happen to live in WA state. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    • First of all, you have to understand that Ira is pure scum. He is a desperate little Troll who has been bumbling his way through life’s processes, and his bark is way louder than his bite. He is currently in bankruptcy – Chapter 13 – and he’s extorting money from people like you to try and save his mansion, which is really nothing more than a dinky condo in the West Hollywood area.

      He has lied in his bankruptcy papers. He has not honestly told the bankruptcy court exactly what he earns as a result of his scams. He can’t get legitimate lawyer work so he has resorted to sending out his threatening letters. He is gradually working his way towards poverty because he’s made so many enemies now that he doesn’t know who he can trust.

      Ira, I so hope you are reading this because the right referral to the right government agency at the right time is coming. You have no idea what awaits you, so don’t go “deleting those income and expense files” just yet, lest you be accused of spoilation, or worse! We wouldn’t want that to happen, now, would we?

      Meanwhile, don’t feed the trolls and don’t talk to the trolls. If they call you, hang up. On the other side of things, if you get served with an actual subpoena and there is a real lawsuit case number on it, call a lawyer immediately.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well, maybe someone can answer my questions as it sort of relates to yours. Why do some people receive the settlement emails (link to the site, code, etc.) tacked on to the original DMCA notice from your ISP and others do not?

      For instance, I received several DMCA notices for film companies that the CEG is known to represent. I panicked as I had no idea what this was about so I called my ISP and they said there wasn’t anything to follow up on, it was just a warning, etc.

      Now, after finding this site I’m worried about what might happen down the road. Why wouldn’t CEG try the same approach for any DMCA notice? $200 is a heck of a lot cheaper than $3500 although that appears to be a ploy to try and catch you for other incidents.

  34. Idiot says:

    When I received one of these settlement papers from Ira I freaked out, and like and Idiot paid the $200 dollars. Is this leaving me open to further harassment? Should I get a lawyer? Cancel my internet? Change my address? Has anyones else paid the settlement?

  35. Anonymous says:

    has someone recently received a postcard from charter? telling you to put a reference number and your account number? what should i do here? please reply…..i went to the site and says copyright infrigement….i didnt go in or put anything a pressed X automatically….please help

    • doecumb says:

      There have been similar reports in comments on this site. I have not been following each one. The Sept 18, 4:13 PM comment above has a suggested approach:

      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/ira-siegel/comment-page-1/#comment-25071

      First, you call always call the legal department of your ISP, and have them explain the situation. This sounds like another “attachment” to a takedown notice that CEG and trolls are suing to phish for responses and quick cash settlements.

      I’d suggest no further visiting of the CEG/troll websites unless you are using an anonymizer like Tor and a VPN. Unless your ISP has a subpoena for Doe information for a copyrighted work in a certain time range, nothing is underway.

      It’s possible the trolls got your phone number if you were calling from a residential number without caller-ID blocking. But that’s very different from being linked to an infringement case that is actually filed, where the trolls seek evidence that an individual’s ISP account is allegedly link to infringement. Avoid further contact with the trolls. Generally nothing good comes from speaking with the trolls. Without a specific case, trolls could only use a general scare tactic and hope to trick uninformed Does into paying.

      If you are describing a case where your ISP received a subpoena for a copyright case, read the FAQ for this site. You can find information about better securing your wireless at http://dietrolldie.com/ as well as this site.

      Disclaimer: This post is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for the reply doecumb…..heres the thing now….when i access that website from the charter postcard it led me to a charter website and asks me for the reference number plus the account number…..i didnt put anything and closed the window automatically but now i have no idead what the complaints are about….is it a subpoena? Is it a settlement? I dont know….would they snd me an actual paper for whatever it is it was on the site? Thanks a lot for helping me guys

  36. Anonymous says:

    Hi, I just came about this site and would like some insight as well. I have had 4 of these pre litigation emails and I’ve stupidly checked the case status on all four. I also know that this is no admission of guilt just because I was curious as to what these cases were.

    I’m afraid of being subpoenaed by Ira, however, and would like to know if people have been lately. How long after these pre-litigation emails do the subpoenas come?
    I would also like to know what to do? I have not given any information to Ira other than the fact that my IP logged onto their case website.

    Should I just leave it be, and hope for the best?

    P.S. It’s been about 3 weeks since the first two settlements expired. Nothing in the mail so far.

    • Stranglehold says:

      From what I have read on several websites, no subpoenas have been filed, or if they have been, nobody has said anything. Like you, I have also gotten similar notices about this – 9 notices so far – but have not taken any action other than entering the codes for the first two notices after I got them. One thing that I did happen to come across was that I found a post on a board somewhere that somebody had said that he had paid Ira off for an infringement infraction, but that a few weeks later, there was another company trying to shake him down, claiming that even though he had paid the CEG, the payment did not legally stop the second company from trying to extort money for the original infringed files.

      If anybody has any thoughts as to the following, I’d appreciate any insight. Since Charter is my ISP, there is a counter-claim that I can file as a reply to the emails that I have gotten. However, I’m unsure if I were to do this, if I would have to submit personal information in order to file, which is something I will be checking into with Charter on Monday. Would this be a viable avenue to take, since I would be responding with a denial to infringing files and a comment that any further steps would be handled by my attorney, or should I just go with the original plan of ignoring the notices?

      • Anonymous says:

        Have any of your settlements been expired? Or has it all come at once?

        I think I have also read that topic on the board about the shake down. Did it have to do with the guy with the Lindsey Lohan website? He was in a pretty bad situation since all of stuff was in the public domain.

        As for the email, I’m kind of thinking what good would it do? Not only is there a chance that you would have to expose your info, you have absolutely no proof that you did or did not do it that you could put in a response. The company would have to take your word as truth, and if it were as easy as that, they would not get any settlement money.

        That’s just what I think though. Do not take it as any sort of advice.

        P.S. There was an interesting post from one guy on a forum that said he got these notices, more than 10 a week, and he’s been fine. I believe the post was from early 2012/ late 2011. I will try to dig this up.

        • Stranglehold says:

          No, none of my settlements are set to expire until sometime in the first part of December. My notices began streaming in at 2 notices per day for 4 days in a row, then a week later, I got another notice for a third title.

          As for the post you mentioned about the person who received the 10 notices over the course of a week, I am pretty sure I have seen it stated somewhere before that the statute of limitations on these matters is three years, so he might not be out of the woods just yet…

  37. John Doe says:

    I’m a John Doe in PA, recently targeted by Ira Siegel / CEG TEK for “5″ downloads. 2 of the 5 are the same file, and 1 of the 5 is a ~10 minute clip. My $1000 settlement offer will be expiring soon. After a thorough review of this website, and speaking with a PA lawyer who is very familiar with this, apparent extortion scheme, I’m still unsure if I should login and pay the settlements, contact CEG TEK directly to negotiate, or ignore the whole thing completely.

    Is there anyone who has been liable for the downloads, ignored the scare tactics, and nothing happened?

    Is there anyone who ignored Ira, their contact info subpoena’d, and faced a court trial and won / lost? How much was paid through this process?

    Any advise with this is greatly appreciated.

    Thanks,

    Anonymous

    • John Smith says:

      Even though I am not a lawyer, I would strongly advise not contacting CEG directly to negotiate. That’s what an attorney is for. You don’t know what these scumbags will try to set you up for and there’s no guarantee that this won’t come back to bite you in the ass at a later time – either from them or somebody else looking to make a quick buck. If you do decide to settle, or even at the very least, contact this group, I would think it’s best to leave it to a professional acting on your behalf.

      Just out of curiosity, what did the lawyer you spoke to recommend?

  38. John Doe says:

    That if I want to sleep at night, I should login and feed the troll – they would perform the settlement acting on my behalf if I wanted – forgot to ask how much this would be, but retainer if litigation was involved was $2K – $3K per hour. I guess there’s a case going on right now in PA which will set precedence for this nonsense? I also read about feeding the troll, and contact info then being sold to other lawyers to shake you down? Is there anything I can communicate to my ISP to ensure even if subpoena’d they don’t provide my contact info? If I dump their service, will they still need to provide my contact info / no longer being a customer of theirs?

    • John Smith says:

      I’d go ahead and contact your ISP to find out what they do in these cases, since I have heard of a few big ISP’s that will hand over your information without a court order. Your ISP might also have an option where you can send in a counter-claim to dispute the infringements, but that might require your personal information to be given up.

      At any rate, keep researching to find out more information on steps you can take. There seems to be a lot of these notices going around, especially within the past month.

  39. John Doe says:

    Ok, so I’m ignoring the settlement offer extortion scheme and not feeding the trolls. My ISP says 50/50 chance they’re subpoena’d for my contact info. Any Does out there receive a letter from their ISP stating they’ve provided your info to CEG TEK, and/or Ira? If so, what communication follows?

    Thanks

  40. J D says:

    OK, I just got a CEG TEK International notice forwarded from Charter. Should I decide to pay the pre-settlement (yes I have researched this and read the advice not to), how can I make that payment without revealing my identity to CEG TEK International?

    • Anonymous says:

      Can I be nosy and ask how long ago the alleged infringement was? I received a notice of infringement from my ISP but no request for payment from CEG TEK. I’m curious as to how soon after the alleged infringement these payment requests arrive. I’m wondering if I should be worried or not.

      • J D says:

        Aledged activity reported to ISP 1 day after activity; ISP notice to subscriber with CEG notice 8 days after activity.

    • doecumb says:

      Let me get this straight. Is CEG TEK sending a notice to your ISP that is not a subpoena? Then your ISP forwards not a notification but essentially a pre-subpoena demand. (If it’s the usual subpoena to the ISP with judge’s order to divulge Doe info in 30 days, disregard the stuff below, mostly.)

      What assurance is CEG-TEK offering, if any? Are they sending a non-disclosure agreement, or simply asking you to contact them to arrange payment.

      If you received “pre-settlement” terms, it would be helpful for many if you emailed a copy (personal info redacted) to SJD, so others can be made aware.

      Without a non-disclosure agreement that clearly protects a Doe, there wouldn’t be much protection from the trolls filing again for the same alleged incident. Also, even if they don’t have your name, they would know that someone in the area is willing to pay without waiting for an allegation or contesting it. It’s possible that increases future risk.

      If CEG TEK only specifies the agreement after contacting them, if you must settle, find a way to get the non-disclosure agreement in advance, without revealing your information.

      Then CEG TEK would be asking payment in case that has not even been filed. To take action with more leverage, they’d have to file to get your information and then a case for individual infringement. Is it known that CEG has a local troll rep in your state who has continued to successfully get Doe information and filed against individuals? They’d need a lawyer for that state.

      The thorough way to protect your identity against discovery and settle securely with the trolls would be to get help from an experienced anti-troll attorney. A good attorney would at least try to negotiate the fee down.

      An attorney would also get the details of what the troll is alleging. Since Here there is only the troll’s “promise” to allege. An experienced Doe defense attorney may have perspective on responding to the possibility of starting an allegation rather than anything pending. Some anti-troll lawyers offer free first consultations. Think about sounding one or two of them out.

      There are probably ways to pay anonymously, such as sending a postal money order with the I.P. address, date and the troll “case” #. It’s better to mail things from zip code distant from home.

      But those ways leave a Doe especially insecure. It’d be more difficult to prove that the alleged Doe “pre”-settled & paid. There’s still the problem of a solid settlement agreement, protecting the Doe individual without revealing contact info using only I.P. information.

      Disclaimer: This post is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

      • sharp as a marble says:

        when a company files a dcma complaint with your isp they can add a letter to be attached to what the isp sends to you. that is what ceg is doing, tacking on a scare letter to a dcma complaint against your IP. that is ALL that they are doing. the isp will not release your info, CEG has no idea who you are unless you contact them, and all of this is fishing on a mass scale, the hope is that $200 is low enough that people will just pay it out of hand. there is not a pending lawsuit, and no one has been subpoena’d. there may not even really be a lawyer involved as anyone can file a dcma complaint. it is fishing/speculative invoicing plain and simple….if you choose to pay CEG TEK any money then please give me your email address because i am a Nigerian prince and i need your help to access my overseas bank account, but i need you to pay for the transaction fee and i will give you 100 times what you give me to pay this fee when i get access to my million dollar accounts…that’s right, CEG letters are on the same level as the nigerian prince emails…

        • Raul says:

          SJD can correct me on this as I am not sure but this is how copyright trolling began, more or less, with these lame fishing letters. Now we are seeing history repeating itself. If anyone pays this baseless, toothless extortion-shame on them for having the backbone of an amoeba. This is pure unadulterated BS shakedown, nothing more, nothing less. With copyright trolling on the retreat, fuckers have to resort to this old game as a last resort-don’t play it.

      • J D says:

        Thanks for your reply.

        A portion of the text from my ISP:
        (ISP Name) has been notified by a copyright owner, or its authorized agent, that your Internet account may have been involved in the exchange of unauthorized copies of copyrighted material (e.g., music, movies, or software). We are attaching a copy of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice that (ISP) received from the copyright holder which includes the specific allegation.

        This does not appear to be a subpoena.

        The “attached” notice includes information/instructions for a online settlement offer with a case number and a password. Before doing much research, I did visit the website and entered the case number and password. I recall seeing a link for a sample release, but I didn’t save it and I really don’t want to go back to that website again.

        Here is something I found and it appears to be nearly the same as I what I read online:
        Here is their sample release statement after you pay them:

        Liability Release Sample

        The Copyright Enforcement Group Liability Release contains settlement
        details pertaining to your specific case and the language below.

        RELEASEE represents and warrants to RELEASOR that RELEASEE has removed any and all copies of the above-titled work from all of RELEASEE’s computers and has destroyed all other copies of the work prior to the Settlement Date written above except for any copies lawfully obtained from RELEASOR.

        In reliance on that representation and warranty by RELEASEE, and in consideration of the settlement amount received by RELEASOR from RELEASEE on the Settlement Date, RELEASOR hereby releases and discharges the RELEASEE, and RELEASEE’s heirs and successors, from and against all claims, causes of actions, lawsuits, damages and demands whatsoever, specifically arising from, relating to, or in connection with RELEASEE’s infringement prior to the Settlement Date of the copyright in the above-titled work on the computer associated with the IP Address and Timestamp listed above. This Liability Release applies to no other claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages and demands, that RELEASOR may have against RELEASEE (e.g., for subsequent infringement of the same work or for any infringement of the copyright in another work) which, if existing, shall survive this Liability Release.

        You reference sending a copy to SJD–I don’t know who/what that is?

        I am trying to find some anti-trolling lawyers to talk to, but won’t their fees be even greater that the CEG settlement demand? I don’t want to pay a local attorney to redo all the research I have done because they lack experience in this area.

        Can one of these lawyers pay the demand while keeping my identity from CEG?

        I was thinking about the postal money order and mail route–just to get this off my mind. Also found some virtual credit card sites that promise anonymity.

  41. J D – Do not feed the troll. If you decide to do so, have a lawyer make the settlement on your IP addresses behalf, as to not reveal your identity. If your identity is revealed upon settling, there’s the chance of your contact info then being sold to other assholes to shake you down further.

    CEG is in the swarm of seeders/leechers. As a “honeypot,” they are more guilty of copyright infringement than anyone they’re entrapping / extorting.

    As I and many have done – Please send an anonymous email to Bill O’Reilly, billoreilly@foxnews.com to include copyright troll nonsense in his “Is it Legal” segment. It would be great if CEG, and other trolls were sued by every John Doe they’ve effected.

    • J D says:

      I understand your, and others, points and don’t think I’m not extremely upset by this extortion. However, I don’t have the financial wherewithal to risk even a higher settlement (as foreshadowed) or the expense and public exposure of a lawsuit.

      I am now nervous that even if I find a way to pay without revealing information (postal money order, virtual cc, etc.), I still may have risks.

  42. Anonymous says:

    From my understanding, the issue here is that if you pay them, they tend to “find” more cases of infringement for your IP and then push more demands down the pipeline. Even if you manage to get through the settlement anonymously, you still have to worry that they are going to “pretend sue” you again.

    So you end up in a situation where it’s a case of:
    Settle, then settle, then settle, then settle
    or
    ignore it and possibly have them actually sue you, warranting a larger settlement.

    I don’t mean this as legal advice in any way, but I just wanted to make sure you know that with these scumbags you’re always going to be at risk of having to pay more money. They’re like a bad STD, they keep coming back.

    • Anonymous says:

      OK, do we know how far back they go with their demands? Seems I have seen some who have gotten multiple demands in a very short period.

      Is there anyone who has paid the first settlement and then gotten more demands–how far in time from the first settlement demand was it?

      If it costs $1,000 for the laywer to “settle” it that pays for a couple self paid settlements.

      Anyone just paid the first one and then they went away?

  43. anon says:

    These d***weeds have sent about 23 e-mails in 48 hours to me asking for settlements (I’m sure there are more to come) I’d stopped p2p activity about 2 days before receiving the first notice. Many of these are for duplicate titles. I am a Charter customer in the St. Louis area, and I wanted to know if anyone has actually been subpenaed over this, if it has gone to court, and the outcome. Technically, I could probably swing the $5k they are asking for in bs hush money (duplicates included) but I wanted to know if my best action is to just wait it out, cross my fingers, and hope I never hear about this again, or should I start looking for lawyers. If the latter, anyone know any good lawyers that handle this stuff on the Illinois side near St. Louis.

    • sharp as a marble says:

      there are a few cases involving CEG’s clients that have indeed gone to court for identification subpoenas, and i think atleast 1 that progressed to a doe being called out by name and directly subpoena’d. CEG’s primary bread and butter is just the dcma attatchment letters meathod, and they seem more reluctant than most trolls to go to actual court. if you did do it, which judging by the way you phrased your response you may have then it’s your call , but if you are innocent don’t pay. in theory if you pay for 1 settlement on a movie the release, if worded properly, would release you from all claims for that film up to the date of the release. that is the one thing you want to make sure of if you are going to settle.

      • anon says:

        All I got was the DMCA letter. No actual suit number or anything and it was forwarded from Charter so I know they don’t have my info yet. I wouldn’t be opposed to paying 1 settlement per title to be done with it but I am worried that it will open the door for future phishing at my address, and that they will want multiple settlements per title. Also, not good with legalities but wouldn’t they need to sue me in a local court or could I be tried in courts elsewhere? How does jurisdiction work on the internet?

  44. anon says:

    I spoke with a lawyer suggested by this site in Illinois (my state) and he gave me some stuff to think about:
    1) he deals with on average about 100 cases of copyright trolling a year and has barely heard of CEG he said maybe negotiated a settlement once or twice. This says that these guys seem to be almost all bark with their settlement BS, and will seldom peruse legal action.
    2) He also assured me that even if I ignore the pre-settlement, I will almost definitely be able to pay the same settlement (or even less depending on how willing they are to negotiate) if they do actually sue so long as I pay early on before there is any actual litigation.

    Although I didn’t retain him, and he didn’t give me actual legal advice (which this post is not) I did feel a lot better knowing that a lawyer who handles these legal issues everyday hasn’t heard of legal action from CEG. It was also comforting to hear that even if these goons file suit, I should be able to just pay their extortion money early on at seemingly no consequence. I believe my new course of action will be to wait it out for Ira to file a suit, and if he goes that far, pay the settlement immediately.

  45. anonymous says:

    So, I received one of those pay $500 or we’ll sue emails from Ira at CEG TEK for “Unauthorized use of an image.” Here’s the thing. I run a celebrity fan forum. Registration on the forum is open to anyone. A member made a post with a link to an image on a widely known gossip blog. That is the infringing image. Now I’m not an expert on internet law by any means, but from what I have read, linking to an image on another site is not copyright infringement. And anyway, it’s in a post on an open forum. I can’t be held responsible for what members do, can I? Isn’t that what “Safe Harbor” is about? I removed the post with the link, and I think that’s all that should be necessary.

    But, I am worried. They sent a copy to the hosting provider but I haven’t heard anything from them, so CEG doesn’t have my name. They do however have the name of the domain owner from whois. That person is not involved with the site and I don’t want to cause them any trouble. Do I just ignore it and hope they move on to the next victim? Or do I need to do something, and what?

  46. anon says:

    Has anyone out there used a suggested lawyer to just settle with these goons (pre-suit settlement)? I was thinking about having a lawyer negotiate to lower the settlement amount since they are asking for about 13 files worth. I was just wondering if CEG would budge on the price and if so how much? I would pay to just have this go away forever.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Okay, so I recieved one of these emails last night. It seems like a majority of the people with this situation claim to be innocent. I have a couple questions. Is there a difference in the result of these cases if someone is indeed guilty? It seems that the advice here is to straight up ignore the emails and avoid any contact. I am really hoping that this is all bark and no bite. Also, my ISP is a university, so do they handle these situations differently than say Comcast? If you have more than one incident, does this increase your chances of being screwed? Has CEG ever actually won in court? I plan on doing some more research, as I don’t need to respond until late January. What are some suggestions to achieve confirmation that this isn’t something I need to worry about?

  48. Anonymous says:

    Anyone have any data on what percentage of these threats actually end up in the ISP recieving a subpoena and then end up going to court?

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