John Steele and Prenda Law

This is the place to discuss predatory porn lawsuits by John Steele and his gang (Formerly Steele Hansmeier, now Prenda Law, and soon “Anti-piracy law group”):

PRENDA LAW, INC. 1111 Lincoln Road, #400 (Regus Business Center)
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: 305-748-2102
Fax: 305-748-2103
http://www.wefightpiracy.com

See the Copyright trolls page for the list of scam artists.

Telephone numbers Prenda use to place harassment calls:

305-748-2102
800-380-0840
312-880-9160
305-397-8558
702-445-6064

Supplemental pages
Announcements

January 2014.

An attorney who has represented several dozen folks accused of movie and music downloads would like to speak with individuals who have settled a porn downloading claim (for whatever reason) when they did not download the alleged file or movie.

The attorney is trying to determine if there is a pattern to those sorts of settlements which could form the basis for legal action.

The conversation would be completely confidential, and would not create any obligation on your part. If you are interested in speaking with that attorney, please send him an email to attorney@fightcopyrighttrolls.com.

Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    The robocalls are getting more frequent. Got one Friday, Yesterday and today. All from the 800 380-0840 number in Tampa. Today was a female robot saying something about their client being generous enough to extend the offer for settlement and avoiding the expense and time involved in a case like this. The particular case they are referring to was dismissed without prejudice in March. Anyone else considering filing harrasment lawsuits? Or has anyone already filed one? This is getting ridiculous. This is nothing but extortion and harrasment and it needs to stop.

    • Anonymous says:

      I got 2 robocalls this week (3 last week) and one male caller, not Lutz. My case has been dismissed since January. Same script and at 8:01 a.m. (pre-8 a.m. calls = illegal). “You’re ignoring us, that’s fine,” “individual lawsuit,” “time sensitive documents,” “get an attorney” blah blah. I’m just gonna bite the bullet and deal with the calls because I do not want to be named in an individual lawsuit, which is what would happen if I were to send them a cease and desist letter or file a harassment lawsuit (that’s shaky ground). Doing either of those two, or actually speaking to Lutz et. al. would put you straight in their cross hairs….not a good idea.

      That being said, I believe a Doe defendant in an HDP case has filed a complaint with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dept, along with contacting the FBI Cyber Crime Unit. That would be your best way to go.

    • Vinay says:

      Got a threatening call today and all last week for them, they basically said if I dont settle they will file a lawsuit in my name, I have no idea how to respond to these guys, they have given me a week to settle and threaten going to court if I dont settle by deadline, Should I contact a lawyer or try to settle. would appreciate any advice.

      • Anonymous says:

        If you read up on this site and dietrolldie, the most common advice is to ignore them, as they are mostly just hot air and empty threats.

        • Anonymous says:

          The “deadline” is a shakedown date of the troll’s own choosing. The pattern is that the threats escalate as the deadline approaches.

          When the deadline passes, trolls pretend to be generous and “extend” the “deadline”, usually raising their cash demand. The cycle goes on until they extort lots of cash or lose interest.

          Be sure to check whether Prenda trolls are active in your jurisdiction (and if so, whether rulings have gone their way). If not, Prenda threats are even more remote than usual.

          It’s no accident that there are so many calls and so few letters. The trolls are aiming to profit from emotional upset rather than lay out a grievance.

          You can tell them to stop calling (if you speak to them directly) and they “should” stop:

          http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/15/the-richard-pryor-response-or-what-to-tell-the-troll-when-he-calls/

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

        • Anonymous says:

          Thanks for the vaulable info…One question is I have is how do I check this “Be sure to check whether Prenda trolls are active in your jurisdiction (and if so, whether rulings have gone their way). If not, Prenda threats are even more remote than usual.”? How can i check the status of their cases in my area? How many have they actually sued in Florida/CA?

      • Anonymous says:

        Hey Vinay, I am in same boat as you. you want to get together and discuss? ….I am a desi bhai too :)

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’ve gotten a real call within a week or so actually.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Maybe I already missed this but it looks like Abrahams vs. Hard Drive Productions, Inc. has seen some action. Brett Langdon Gibbs of Prenda law filed an answer to Abrahams’ complaint that is the same stonewalling BS used to respond to the Wong complaint. I’m particularly interested to see how this case shakes out because this was a single-Doe case that was a follow-up to Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-118 in the Northern District of California where the the work in question, Amateur Allure – Samantha Saint, was not registered until *8 months* after the dates of alleged infringement. Just amazing that Prenda was so stupid they pursued a Doe individually when they didn’t have the registration.

    This may be going a bit further than Wong, as they have a stipulated protective order set up and there is another case management conference set for July 13. Unfortunately, given the lack of registration Prenda is almost certainly going to try to fold this one ASAP like they did the Wong case. We know John Steele and Brett Langdon Gibbs are cowards and they don’t exactly have much without registration.

    Docket:
    http://ia600805.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.cand.251860/gov.uscourts.cand.251860.docket.html

    Prenda’s Answer:
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.251860/gov.uscourts.cand.251860.32.0.pdf

    Have a look at Prenda’s shamelessness. How can this not be sanctionable, even perjury? They don’t KNOW if and when the work was published and registered? How can Brett Langdon Gibbs still have a license to practice law? Is there any precedent for this type of non-answer to a complaint? At least Prenda is giving Does some great ideas for BSing their way through an answer in the unlikely event they are sued individually.

    24. Hard Drive’s allegation that copyright infringement associated with plaintiff’s Internet Protocol (IP) Address occurred on March 21, 2011 is before the work’s registration date of November 18, 2011, and more than three months after the date of first publication on March 4, 2011.

    ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint completely or accurately summarize the contents of the complaint in Case No. 11- cv-1567, and therefore denies the same.

    25. In this prior action, Hard Drive alleged that it owned the purported copyright to an adult video entitled “Amateur Allure – Samantha Saint” (hereafter “work”) which is purportedly registered with the United States Copyright Office.

    ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint completely or accurately summarize the contents of the complaint in Case No. 11- cv-1567, and therefore denies the same.

    26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive represented to the U.S. Copyright Office that the work was first published on March 4, 2011.

    ANSWER: Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the content of Plaintiff’s subjective information and beliefs, and therefore denies the same.

    27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the work was registered on November 18, 2011.

    ANSWER: Defendant lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the content of Plaintiff’s subjective information and beliefs, and therefore denies the same.

    28. In the prior action, Hard Drive alleged that it was entitled to recover statutory damages and attorneys’ fees per 17 U.S.C. section 504(c) as stated in its complaint at paragraph 31, and in its prayer for relief at paragraph 4.

    ANSWER: Defendant denies that the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint completely or accurately summarize the contents of the complaint in Case No. 11-cv-1567, and therefore denies the same.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks for the update. Yes this case really stinks and the only thing Prenda can do is make disparaging comments about Mr. Abrahams. They have no evidence besides the public IP address and the copyright registration is flawed. They are just trying to position themselves so as not to pay out too much to Mr. Abrahams. We will see a judgment in favor of Mr. Abrahams, but I fear the details will be confidential. I will review this response and update my post on it.

      DTD :)

    • Anonymous says:

      I’m wondering the same thing. This is flat out perjury but it has to be proven that Gibbs’ lies are deliberate, as in he knows the truth about the registration. You think he even has a clue what’s going on? He’s being schooled right now and sending out canned responses and a filed bullshit counterclaim. I mean look at this shit:

      “12. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
      section 1400(a) as Hard Drive has claimed that plaintiff infringed its purported
      copyrighted work by downloading such works, and being responsible for such downloads where
      he resides..
      ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Amended
      Complaint.”

      The judge in the Wong case found that venue was proper. Canned reponse. On to the next.

      “33. A Bittorrent tracker is a computer server.
      ANSWER: Defendant denies that a Bittorent tracker is a computer server, as the term is
      commonly defined.”

      Are you kidding? A tracker is NOT a computer server? What the fuck is it, Gibbs? A tree trunk? How about a mailbox? Define it for me, please.

      “34. A Bittorrent tracker is required to initiate any download of the work.
      ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff’s Amended
      Complaint.”

      Suing people who used (or in many cases didn’t) use a torrent client, which used a tracker, to download copyrighted porn. This is either a blatant lie or he’s an idiot…not quite sure which one of the two yet.

      I could keep going but this is just downright ridiculous and shows that Gibbs is just a puppet being controlled by puppetmaster Steele. He is either an idiot, perjuring himself, or has no clue what’s going on with his own cases.

      • Anonymous says:

        Gibbs signed his name to the documents and as Hard Drive’s attorney he must have read Abrahams’ complaint as a basic requirement of professional responsibility and due diligence. If he read the complaint, he knew about the accusations regarding problems with registration dates. If he knew about the accusations regarding registration dates, he could have at minimum looked up the work on the Copyright Office’s online registration database (it appears in the database, with the November 2011 registration date), or to be more thorough he should have communicated with Hard Drive Productions, Inc. personnel to get copies of their official records regarding the registration.

        Amateurs following these cases and posting on this blog had figured out Steele | Hansmeier / Prenda had problems with their registration dates even before the Wong and Abrahams complaints and more recent official filings that take Trolls to task for these problems. We also know Trolls read these blogs, so even if Gibbs was the last guy in the loop he probably would have read about the problems here.

        So yes, Gibbs must be aware of these problems and making these false statements intentionally. In the extremely unlikely event that he really is clueless, there is still no excuse for a licensed professional to make that error, given that he has literally been served with the correct information by opposing counsel.

        I wonder if we will end up seeing Paul Pilcher sue Prenda and/or Gibbs for malpractice and breach of fiduciary responsibility. If Hard Drive/Pilcher are paying out settlements as a result of suits brought by people Prenda sued without a valid copyright registration, Prenda should be on the hook for his costs.

        Does involved in his registration-less cases should be screaming at the California Bar.

  4. Anonymous says:

    So are all the “new employees” promised a few weeks ago simply used for calling people at this point? The frequency of calls I’ve received has increased a good bit.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      The issue for Prenda isn’t so much new employees as it is finding attorneys licensed in federal court in all the various jurisdictions. They can’t bring lawsuits unless they have affiliated attorneys who are willing to associate themselves with a fake law firm that represents hardcore pornographers by harassing people with repeated phone calls and threats.

      • Anonymous says:

        Which is why we only see cases in Florida, California, and Illinois? They just hope people outside of their known jurisdictions settle even though they have no way to take those people to court. How many people are actually being taken to trial?

        • Johnny Doe says:

          As far as I know, no one has been taken to trial, and very few people are named defendants. I think what they are trying to do is scare as many people into settling as they can. They also are trying to trick people into talking to them and incriminating themselves. I think they probably will start suing some named defendants in the hope that those people will ignore them. That way, they can get a default judgement against them like what just happened in one of the For Dummies book cases. The last thing they want to do is actually go to trial because it is time-consuming, expensive, and unpredictable. They also have a very flimsy case and very unlikable clients. Unless they find some really unlikable Does, I could see them winning a case and being given $1 in damages.

        • Anonymous says:

          Another thing is that all individual cases are being filed by AF Holdings. I would say the only people who should even be remotely worried are people in states with a Pretenda lawyer and whose case was with AF Holdings. It seems HD Productions, Millennium TGA, pink lotus etc. are not moving with Prenda into this *new* second stage of single doe cases. Most likely because they don’t have copyrights on most of their work and saw what happened to HD productions in Cali after the first wave of pseudo in individual cases.

        • Johnny Doe says:

          One interesting things worth noting about AF Holdings is they are a financial services company based in the Bahamas. I might be wrong, but I believe the actual porn producers transferred their copyright ownership over to AF Holdings for the purposes of the litigation. It is basically an investment for them. If any of these cases do get through discovery and trial, it will be interesting to see what comes out about the relationship among Prenda, the porn producers and AF Holdings. I just can’t imagine any decent federal judge is going to have a lot of patience or sympathy for these guys.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Or did someone associated with Prenda set up AF Holdings themselves and buy copyrights off Heartbreaker for their own use? At any rate, it shows how backwards the current laws are: instead of using copyright law to protect copyright, in these cases (and many others) copyright is being used to exploit copyright law.

    • anonymous says:

      Steele was doing something similar with MCGIP in 2010, not sure what ever came of those cases. Nothing Capt Pirate Slayer would surprise me.

      He is not the brightest…..

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m convinced AF Holdings is a Prenda front. The timing works out, AF Holdings appeared and started filing cases about a month after MCGIP stopped. I suspect the Righthaven collapse in that timeframe along with Nick Ranallo’s article deconstructing MCGIP’s methods made Steele move on to a different and more obscure organizational structure. The offshore front companies give him a layer of obscurity, as these small offshore havens don’t have the online business records systems that US government agencies have, and it likely also serves as a tax dodge, income and liability shelter. When it really hits the fan, how much money do you think a class-action suit will be able to extract from an offshore shell company? Prenda’s original plaintiffs like Hard Drive, Millennium, etc. will be screwed and may be financially ruined if things get really good, but John will be comfortably out of the country by that time.

        I’m definitely looking forward to seeing how AF weasels when they get in the crosshairs of a Doe who means business and goes for discovery with a vengeance.

        • Anonymous says:

          I forgot to add that my suspicion is reinforced by the fact that MCGIP was using a Righthaven-style ‘right to sue’ license which was demolished by the courts as a business model in the Righthaven litigation. AF Holdings is actually buying complete rights to old films to use in their honeypot scams. Between the timing of the filings, AF appearing right after MCGIP wound down while conveniently fixing the defect in MCGIP’s scheme, and Prenda lawyers’ involvement, I conclude that this was a move by Steele to eliminate the porn studios’ cut and the hassle of dealing with them entirely, giving Steele and his partners complete ownership of and profits from the scam while being able to hide these facts with the layer of obfuscation provided by offshoring.

        • Anonymous says:

          I guess add Ingenuity13 to the list of Prenda shell companies. Like AF Holdings, it’s registered in Nevis and St. Kitts. One “Alan Cooper” appears in some filings as “Manager of Ingenuity 13″ and in other filings as accepting copyright on behalf of AF Holdings from Heartbreaker films.

          Yes, I also look forward to seeing these guys torn to shreds in a real trial.

        • Anonymous says:

          I have no doubt that if these clowns aren’t on the IRS’s radar, they will be soon. The IRS won’t hesitate to file criminal charges against any agents of these “firms” if they don’t pay their taxes on profits earned through activities conducted in the U.S. like, oh I don’t know, extorting settlements out of people. Those settlements are “earned” (for the purposes of taxation) in the U.S. and subject to the tax laws of the U.S.

  6. Raul says:

    Currently at Crane Resort blowing troll settlement dough on rum punches, next stop Mustique. All Does who would consider settling would be well advised to follow the advice of SJD, DTD, TAC and others: ignore the fuckers as best you can, do not give them a dime, spend their extortion demands on you and yours.

  7. Raul says:

    Apology: This may only be of interest and funny to veteran troll fighters.

    First day on vacation and happened to bump into and have drinks with a very well recognized Chicago family lawyer. Not surprised that she had not heard of Steele but shocked that she was not aware of the blackmail emanating from her town (most definately clued her in).

    First night on vacation, rudley awakened by some cocaine crazed assholes at 4 in the morning:

    Raul: “shut the fuck up you obnoxious douchebags”

    Cocaine Assholes: “we are nice and we are not douchebags”

    The wife and I rolled in laughter in response but it made me think of a rough analogy to a judge’s order to show cause and a troll’s response.

  8. Watching the fall says:

    Wishing you a restful vacation Raul. I always look for your thoughtful responses and info.

    But really, these antics will continue while you are away. I must admit that after a 10 day cruise without Internet I was excited to get back up to speed. Though in retrospect is was really just like catching up on two weeks of soaps on Tivo, but without the commercials.

    Enjoy!

  9. Anonymous says:

    Can you please tell me what happes to the below case..whenever you have some time..!!!
    Case 1:11-cv-23036-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2011..I googled it but couldn’t get any details….Your help is greatly appreciated…!!!

    Wishing you a nice vacation Raul..!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Case 1:11-cv-23036-FAM was voluntarily dismissed in March. I have been following that as well because an elderly relative of mine was named in it. Check the link below and you can see all the documents associated with the case. The 5th PDF on the list is the actual dismissal. But despite all this the calls have continued, how about you?

      http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.flsd.385365

  10. Anonymous says:

    Got the robocall today about receiving informal discovery documents. They seem to be rotating 3 different robocalls. Has anyone on here filed harrasment charges or reported this to the Florida Bar? My particular case was dismissed in March and now I am receiving robocalls everyday. I think the beauty of these cases from the Trolls perspective is that everyone is anonymous and scared to reveal their identity, so none of us can unite against them as a group. All I know is something needs done because I am sick of it.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      I just received the same call even though my case was dismissed (without prejudice) in March. I would argue that it is unethical to say that there is a current case against you when there isn’t (one of many unethical things they do).

      I actually looked into filing an ethics complaint against the Prenda lawyers in Illinois and Florida. The problem is there doesn’t seem to be a way to do it anonymously. If I were to do it with my name in the complaint, I’d basically be painting a giant target on myself begging them to sue me as a named defendant. If they do end up suing me, the first thing I am going to do is file an ethics complaint against them.

  11. Simon Templar says:

    Here is one thing that I have wondered throughout all of this: why would these porn purveyors align themselves with such incompetent, law skirting lawyers?
    Ponder this: Porn is a business, and as such like all businesses we are all potential consumers in their eyes. Now if you start sending out blackmail letters, and threatening people legally, you are driving away potential customers. Now again, I am not saying we are all consumers of porn, I am just saying that from a business perspective we are potential consumers, just as the person that walks into a car dealership is a potential buyer whether they intend to actually buy a car or not.
    From a purely business standpoint, this seems like a poor move on the part of the porn companies retaining these lawyers, and as pointed out before, the amount of extortion money these porn companies get from settlements is far less than what the poor person being blackmailed is asked for.

    • The root of your misunderstanding is that you assume trolling “business” follows the standard, normal way the judicial system operates. In reality it’s the other way around (with some exceptions): it’s not porners who “hire” lawyers, but vice versa. Troll lawyers frequent adult expos and act through networking, wormtongue rights holders into an easy undertaking. Just listen to this podcast: Malibu’s owner does not even know or care what’s going on with these lawsuits, he simply receives 10% cut.

      Saying that, there is a couple of instances where producers have a bit more active role: Lightspeed, Liberty Media, IO Group/Titan, yet in all these cases they are friends with their attorneys, and the lawyers still the ones who initiate assaults and make decisions.

      That’s sad because when mainstream press describes these cases, they refer to plaintiffs, not realizing that they are decoys, patsies; sometimes not even mention lawyers’ names.

      • Anonymous says:

        Do you get the impression that the pornographers condone this methodology? 10% cannot be worth it to these guys. Now we see the pornographers named as defendants in a case. This has to be a rude awakening to some of them. Now they stand to lose money after receiving very little of it to begin with AND having to be drug through the courts.

        • Anonymous says:

          The pornographers have already been “doxed” too. These lawsuits are more harm than good, especially for their personal lives. Is it really worth a couple hundred thousand dollars to have your home address and a picture of your house posted on the internet? Steve Jones and Paul Duffy think so. Then Jones exaggerates by calling us a “hacking community” (via his scumbag attorney) who have “harassed his children” (blatant lie) and done other, illegal things. All of which none of us have done. I will say that as long as Duffy, Jones, et. al. continue on this path of self destruction, someone WILL screw with them and it won’t be on the internet. I don’t advocate violence against one of these scumbags, but something is bound to happen.

  12. Johnny Doe says:

    Did anyone else see this article? I think the writer was either ignorant about the topic or was trying too hard to be fair and balanced:

    http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1364367/

    Here is the section about Prenda and Paul Duffy:

    Prenda Law Inc., a California firm primarily devoted to fighting online piracy, has represented Boy Racer Inc. and other adult producers. Prenda attorney Paul Duffy says IP addresses provide very specific information, and lawyers for the adult industry have a vested interest in being careful about against whom they bring legal action.

    “If we went against someone that didn’t do it, we’d have to pay their legal fees,” he said. “Our clients would go bankrupt very quickly.”

    Duffy’s firm has filed about 350 suits over the last three years, he says. Typically, his firm will contact a person associated with a given IP address and explain it has information indicating the address has been used in pirating copyrighted material, he says. Often the account holder will admit that he or someone in his household did it, and he will pay a settlement. The account holder rarely goes forward with a suit, Duffy says, because once lawyers have enough information to be in contact with someone, it’s pretty close to a slam-dunk that he’s guilty.

    “Someone has to be borderline deranged to know we have all this information and not settle,” he said. “Their attorneys say: ‘This is dumb. You’re also going to pay attorneys’ fees.’”

    Duffy says small-potatoes downloaders can settle for less than $1,000. But in cases where a defendant has downloaded a producer’s entire catalog and is reselling the content, Duffy says, six-figure settlements aren’t unheard of.
    Both Duffy and Sperlein mentioned the Electronic Frontier Foundation and its efforts against their IP address-based suits. Groups that oppose their suits, they say, may call out for Internet freedom but overlook a much older legal precedent: Stealing is wrong.

    “You may think piracy should be allowed or it’s not nice to go against end users, but the law doesn’t support that,” Duffy said. And IP addresses, he says, aren’t such a broad brush. “We’re not suing people out of a hat. Imagine someone’s robbing a bank and the robber’s wearing a mask: ‘Hey, you can’t take my mask off. I don’t want you to know who I am.’”

    • Bob says:

      Hahaha, what a piece of crap. So much wrong in that – “reselling the content”? “We’re not suing people out of a hat”? The implication that they ever actually sue someone?
      I’m contacting the writer of the piece.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Once lawyers have enough information to be in contact with someone, it’s pretty close to a slam-dunk that he’s guilty.” Alright, asshole, you have my IP, but you dismissed me. Obviously because it’s such a slam dunk case right?

      “If we went against someone that didn’t do it, we’d have to pay their legal fees,” he said. “Our clients would go bankrupt very quickly.” Yeah that’s what appears to be happening, albeit very slowly. Wong, Abrahams, anyone else stepping up to the plate? It wouldn’t surprise me.

      “Duffy’s firm has filed about 350 suits over the last three years, he says.” Three years? No. Steele’s firm was filing suits up until last year and Prenda didn’t even exist as of three years ago so chalk up another lie.

      “Duffy says small-potatoes downloaders can settle for less than $1,000.” Which is why every demand letter contains a demand for exactly $3,400. Another lie. What’s the count?

      “We’re not suing people out of a hat. Imagine someone’s robbing a bank and the robber’s wearing a mask: ‘Hey, you can’t take my mask off. I don’t want you to know who I am.’” You may not be picking IPs out of a hat but it sure as hell looks like it’s some random process. Suits against blind people, dead people, grandmothers? Two counter-suits, one that your firm lost. Duffy should’ve shut the hell up while he was (way) ahead, but now the house of cards is collapsing.

  13. stayintrigued says:

    Thanks for bringing this article to everyone’s attention. I would recommend to anyone who feels the article is “inaccurate” and/or (insert your stronger wording here) you contact the following via email:

    Editor-in-chief: Tom Kirvan (tkirvan at legalnews.com)
    Publisher: Suzanne Favale (sfavale at legalnews.com)

    Politely but strongly voice your opinion. I would also recommend two more items:

    1. Publishing your email via the comments section of the article
    2. CC me (intrigue at sekora.org) if you’d like it published on TBDs upcoming site. Feel free to let me know if you’d like any portion of your email redacted. Keep an eye out for a response as well =).

    –Adam
    “TBD is coming, Stay Intrigued my Friends”

  14. Anon says:

    The robocalls keep referring to “time-sensitive documents” and other ominous-sounding paperwork they’re supposedly sending us….but has anyone actually received anything? I’ve been getting those obnoxious calls every day but haven’t gotten any mail from Prenda in over 3 months (not that I’m complaining, ugh).

    • Johnny Doe says:

      Nope, I have received nothing. If they do send me something, I won’t be responding unless they actually sue me first.

      • NotScaredAnymore says:

        I received a little letter today. “Our office has attempted, in good faith, to contact you in an effort to resolve this matter amicably and avoid litigation. We recommend that you retain an attorney to assess your rights and liabilities in this matter.” So, I have until 7/21 to make contact with them and settle. We contacted our attorney and he said don’t do anything until they actually file legally.

        So very ridiculous! I am sure glad I found this website, I would be freaked the freak out! Thank you!!!

        • PissedOff says:

          Got the same letter yesterday. I was freaked out when this all started happening. Now, I’m just pissed!

          By the way, anyone have any insight/news around the Sunlust Pictures case in CO? 1:12-cv-00656-CMA-KMT.

        • Anonymous says:

          Good faith, that’s hilarious. Everything they do is in bad faith. They’ve got shit going on that I can only speculate on, but it’s extremely shady at the VERY least and, at the very most (likely), extremely illegal. Shell corporations, tax issues (hello, IRS), phone harassment, FDCPA violations (pre-8 a.m. calls), robocalls in states that do not allow them, calling Does who have been dismissed with prejudice, and the list goes on and on.

          Your attorney is correct. Ignore them. They have zero evidence as an IP address is not evidence and they’ve even admitted that 30% of the IPs collected are not the actual “infringers.” Fair warning, if you’re dismissed without prejudice (and chances are you will be if you ignore them), Prenda WILL harass the shit outta you so be prepared to either blow them off for years or go after them. I’ve been dismissed (w/ prejudice) for 7+ months and they’re still calling 3+ times per week and threatening me. Fuck ‘em.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hell, for the last 7 months I’ve been getting 2+ calls per week with overt threats of an individual lawsuit. Robocalls (2 different voices), Mark Lutz, and some other guy who didn’t even identify himself. Their collection operation traces back to a firm called Nolani Marketing in Tampa…likely a Prenda shell corporation. They keep referring to these letters they sent me. I’ve received nothing.

      The only way I’ll ever respond to these asshats is if they actually file suit against me, as in a process server shows up at my door, which won’t ever happen. If it does, I’d love to see a judge’s reaction when he (or she) sees that they previously sued me and dismissed the case. Why sue me again almost a year after the initial case was filed if it was such a “slam-dunk case” (according to Duffy) in the first place? Either put up or shut up, fucking cowards.

      • Johnny Doe says:

        Amen, brother!

        • Anonymous says:

          On the Sunlust case I see a minute order passed by the Judge (7/10) striking off all anonymous MTQ’s. My IP is one of them. I guess I can expect the calls soon hereafter.

      • Anonymous says:

        oh god! we are getting phone calls everyday now!!! It is annoying and is wasting room on my answering machine! Has anyone blocked these calls and what has happened when you do? don’t want them to come after us another way but I run a business out of my home and getting these calls is really getting annoying now! I just wished they would give up already!!!

        • Johnny Doe says:

          I was going to block them, but I figure that I’m better off with the evidence of harassment if they actually do name me as a defendant. Real lawyers don’t operate like this. They may call you a few times and send you a few letters, but no reputable lawyer will robocall you day after day after day. I especially like the fact that the messages aren’t even consistent. There is no current litigation pending against me despite what the robot says!

        • Anonymous says:

          Not only evidence of harassment, it might be evidence of fraud if they are trying to get money bu claiming there is active litigation against you when there is not (not sure on this though).

        • Anonymous says:

          I can’t block them on my land line. Well I’m sure I could but it’s more trouble than it’s worth…calling my phone company blah blah pain in my ass. I’d rather just sit back and get a really good laugh like 3 times/week. If they got ahold of my cell phone number I’d just block them. My work number, that’d be crossing a line and I’d be after them like a rabid wolf.

          They’re claiming that there’s pending litigation against me…total bullshit. Dismissed voluntarily in January. I’m just playing “collector” with my voicemails. I can pretty much set my watch by the time they call each morning. Sometimes Tuesdays, usually Wednesdays and if I’m really “lucky” I’ll get one on a Thursday. Glad I don’t get them while I have company…oh that’d be awkward.

        • Anonymous says:

          You can buy a phone with call block feature. Enter their numbers and you can sleep better.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone else received a informal request of discovery package from perea. Frankly it is ridiculous. They are asking you to provide them with information about your computer and to make sure you save all information. THEN to let them know that you have protected the “evidence”.

    • Hmmm… seems like a new sleaze: these clowns are never boring. Pretty sure that this is BS and does not have any bounding power, subject of the “CTVic usage”.

      I don’t insist, but if you have time and means to scan/redact your name out and send these documents to me, it may benefit the community (and harm the trolls): I have some spare light to shed on the roaches.

    • Anonymous says:

      Unless I get anything from the court then I just assume they are trying to get me to speak with them and incriminate myself for something I didn’t do. Is there a deadline date on it?

      • Anonymous says:

        Not a lawyer here, so I could be wrong, but unless it’s discovery as part of a filed lawsuit, meaning you’ve been served a summons and complaint by a process server, I don’t believe they have any authority to make you send them anything or communicate with them in any way.

        • Anonymous says:

          Basically they try and avoid the actual courts as much as possible. If they requested formal discovery that involve the actual court, informal discovery makes it sound real without being real.

    • Anonymous says:

      you can send them back your own informal discovery sheet asking for the liscense number of the investigation company they use and the certification info on the software they used for tracking you along with any number of other questions. discovery is a 2 way street so don’t send them anything unless they agree to send you what you ask for imho, i am sure a lawyer could come up with a very nice “informal discovery” questionair.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      I haven’t received anything, but I think they are trying to get you to incriminate yourself. Unless litigation has actually commenced against you, you have no obligation to respond in any way.

      The other reason they sent the letter out is if they do decide to proceed with naming some people as defendants, they can use it as evidence if people are actually liable and did something to cover up that fact after they knew of the possibility of being sued (judges don’t like that).

      The thing is that any lawyer or cop will tell you that it is really important to get access to a defendant’s computer as soon as possible to preserve the evidence. If Prenda decides to name and serve defendants, it will be two years or more since many of the alleged copyright violations. How many people will have bought new computers, had hard drive crashes, wiped their drives for perfectly valid reasons, etc. in that time?

      This whole thing is such a farce, but the danger is that many judges know very little about technology, and you really would be at the mercy of the judge who is assigned to your case unless you want to go through a really expensive appeals process. The good news is that we are dealing with federal judges, who tend to be better informed than state and local ones, and the federal judiciary is currently packed with conservative Republicans, who probably won’t have a lot of sympathy for hardcore pornographers.

  16. cinderkin says:

    I’d like to ask a few questions if that is alright.

    1. I recieved a letter in the mail last month (while I was on vacation) stating that I downloaded some pgraph video and that I had until such date (which was about to pass) to pay $3,400 to these people so my name wouldn’t be put on the defendants list. I didn’t pay them, was this the right move?

    2. I later then started recieving phone calls, from Chicago, and Florida stating that I didn’t pay and need to contact them immediatlely to pay and avoid being put on the defendants list. I didn’t answer or call them back, was this the right move as well?

    3. Now I recieved a letter a few days ago stating that I didn’t pay and that I need a lawyer to respond to them by 7/20/2012 to inform them of a settlement agreement or face a lawsuit. What should I do as it is 7/13/2012?

    Will I get sued? I live in Las Vegas, I was also in the hospital when the supposed downloading took place. What are my options? Should I be worried? I don’t have $3,400.

    Thank You.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      I would ignore them. So far, they seem to be bluffing. Other people here can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they have sued in Nevada yet. HOWEVER, you are dangerously close to California, and I believe there is a big adult film conference in Nevada every year. Therefore, I think it will be easier for them to recruit a Nevada attorney to file individual lawsuits if they actually go in that direction.

      • cinderkin says:

        I actually have been to the adult conference you speak of, I was there last year. I was fliming for a website back then (2011). Thank you for your response, I will continue to ignore them. The problem is that the number they were calling me on constantly has been turned off (I wasn’t the primary account holder and the service was cancelled) Will this cause me problems?

        • Johnny Doe says:

          It shouldn’t cause any problems. As a matter of fact, it will prevent you from having to listen to the daily robocalls they have been making lately.

          The key is don’t ignore any official documents if they actually sue (check rfcexpress.com occasionally to see if there have been any John Doe lawsuits or lawsuits filed with your name in them in Nevada). If you ignore them at that point, the judge may grant a default judgment against you.

          The crazy thing is a lot of us probably would have paid them off to go away if they had just asked for a reasonable amount. I didn’t download what they said I did, but I would have paid $100 or $200 to end this craziness. On the other hand, $3400 is just insane.

  17. cinderkin says:

    Thanks Johnny will continue to ignore them. It’s a breath of fresh air to know that I was doing the right thing by ignoring them. I had plan to call around Vegas and look for a lawyer today.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      Be careful with lawyers. If they aren’t experienced with this area of the law, they may see the potential for a $150,000 judgment against you (that will never happen) and just tell you to settle. The fact is that the vast majority of civil cases settle. Otherwise, our system would grind to a halt. Many lawyers are risk-averse and will tell you are better off settling. That might be the case as lawyers are very expensive and could cost you as much as $200 to $300 AN HOUR. If you do hire a lawyer, he may be able to negotiate a more reasonable settlement amount or may scare them away. If you don’t mind my asking, when was the alleged infringement? They have to sue within three years.

      • cinderkin says:

        2/5/2012 I was in the hospital the entire first week of Feb this year, I live with my girlfriend and she was at my bedside the entire week. I always suspected people using my internet, and have recently secured it and hid the ssid for my network. My girlfriends sister’s sister in law’s husband is a lawyer (not a copyright one) and they told me it looked legit (the prenda law letter) and said to get a lawyer. So before I did that I came here and asked questions. What I found interesting was that I had never even heard of the movie they say I downloded. I didn’t even realize it was an adult flick until I re read the letter. I will keep that website you told me to look at in mind and will continue to ignore them unless I am actually sued.

        • Anonymous says:

          Cinderkin, I would just ignore them. An elderly relative of mine ( who absolutely did not download any porn movie) was named in one of these cases back in December. The case was actually vountarily dismissed in March, But the harassment continues. We have never spoken to them or acknowledged them. I definitely feel this is the best route to take. we still receive robocalls everyday. Until a court summons shows up, it is nothing to worry about. Hopefully this gives you peace of mind. Bottom line is what evidence do they have against anyone. A piece of paper with I.P. addresses on it. Good luck with that. This is nothing but good old fashioned extortion. Pretty sad.

        • Johnny Doe says:

          They pick obscure movies– often ones with embarrassing titles– to track. I couldn’t even find the one I was accused of downloading for sale except for at one site. The crazy thing is these are low-budget “movies” while Congress obviously meant to protect legitimate works such as songs, movies and software. I have no idea how much it costs to make a porno movie, but I am sure it is far less than $150000. They are trying to make as much money as they can while they can by scaring people into settling.

          However, you are right that it is legit. Prenda is not a real law firm in the traditional sense, but these are actual licensed attorneys (albeit in Florida, Illinois and California and not Nevada or the other states where most of the Does reside). They really can make your life miserable, so be careful. I am hoping they either choose not to name any (or more than a few) defendants, or their business model collapses before they have the opportunity to do so.

  18. cinderkin says:

    Joseph Perea was the one who sent the letters, yet most of the phone calls I got before my phone was turned off was from Chicago. It never made any sense. The movie was called Sunny Goddess or something like that (I’m at work and can’t see the letter) but it seemed real so I panicked and then came here.

    • NotScaredAnymore says:

      I am in Las Vegas too. Date and movie are the same. Hmmm, smells even more fishy. My Las Vegas lawyer said to wait and see if we are served with any official paperwork. He then said he would help us find a copyright litigation lawyer since he is not very familiar with any of this. Thank goodness for caller id!

    • Anonymous says:

      Perea sent me a few letters a couple months ago pertaining to a case Duffy had voluntarily dismissed. The first asked me to settle for $3400. I laughed and filed it in my “special” Prenda file. The second was an overt threat of a lawsuit because my settlement period had expired (What fucking settlement, Joe? Your master’s underboss dismissed me). I laughed (again) and filed it. I haven’t received shit from that moron since. He called me once, I have a recording. It’s entertaining as hell. “Hi this is uh Joe from Prenda law uh uh uh uhmmm *stammer* stammer *stammer*…lawsuit you’re a part of (no I’m not, you idiots really need to keep records)…have a nice day.” Oh yes Joe, I will have a nice day thank you for that. For the record, the “work,” if you wanna call it that, isn’t even registered to this day.

  19. anonymous says:

    I wish Buffy would stop by and say hello….

    Where are you Johnny Boy?

    • Raul says:

      Have you heard the one about the Mick, the Kraut, the Wop, and the Limey who walk into a courtroom? Me neither, but the punch line is coming sooner than you think.

      Apologies to everyone but remember I am a Heinz 57 when it comes to heredity. All ethnities mentioned above are in my mongrel bloodline (Native American as well). My proud forefathers fought in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, etc., and now I fight …..trolls? Better than just sitting back and watching the abuse.

  20. TangnanyoTrolls says:

    After a number of robocalls, I now received a letter from Prenda Law entitled “Letter of request for Informal Discovery”. Anyone got an actual letter similar to this? If yes, what happened next?

    • Nothing. “Request for informal discovery” is a new boogieman to scary people. It started last week showing trolls’ desperation. Being constantly exposed, evil minds keep coming out with new sleazy ideas. First it was robocalling, now these “requests.” Just ignore: they send all this crap indiscriminately to the entire address database in a hope that some percentage folds up and do something stupid. Unfortunately, some do.

      Even people who was dismissed with prejudice receive threats. Even those represented, which is a big no-no.

      Fearing trolls is like fearing darkness: this fear is self-sustained. Once one stops feeding such a fear, it becomes a laughing matter.

      Either me or DTD will probably come up with a write-up on this subject before too much harm is inflicted.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you so much for this site! BTW I’m the person who sent those files yesterday. I noticed they were not arranged properly for easy viewing. Again thank you for this site.

        • Thank you. Yes, if I get hold on a better version, I’ll use it, if not, post yours. Anyway you gave me the heads up – I was able to read and think, and I really appreciate that.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      I got the same thing. My guess is they sent it out to all the Does in their database. It is basically poorly written boilerplate language that they copied and pasted. I think it serves a couple of purposes– it serves to remind Does that they haven’t forgotten us and seeks to intimidate us through its length and use of ridiculous legalese to try to get people to contact them at settle.The other purpose is that they can later point to it if they do start naming defendants. Let’s face it– some of the Does did download the files they were accused of downloading, and they would be looking for evidence that people tried to cover their tracks by deleting files, web history, cookies, etc.

      However, as I mentioned before, you need to sue right away in legitimate computer cases. People cannot be expected to preserve their personal computers for three years waiting for the slight possibility that they will carry out their threats and actually sue people.

      What did piss me off is that my case was dismissed without prejudice back in March, but you would never know that from the letter. The letter was written as if there is current litigation pending and as if they can go to the court and complain if I don’t respond to it. You have to file an actual lawsuit against an individual before the court will get involved in any sort of discovery. I think many less sophisticated Does won’t know any of this.

      • doecumb says:

        The trolls are doing “bulk mailing”, in business terms. As in other bulk mailings, a very small percent response easily covers the cost of the mailing and more.

        Eventually, the misrepresentations of these letters will help fuel countersuits. In the meantime, Does, complain to you state’s attorney general, consumer protection division, and state representatives. It’s often possible to register complaints anonymously. In a big election year, politicians can get a bump from bashing extortion schemes linked to porn purveyors.

  21. Anonymous says:

    what is odd is that the biggest bs case is the one they are naming the most individuals in. i mean lets be honest, a single case against a BT user actually has some merrit, if the person actually admits to dl’ing/uploading then legally they did infringe and thus legally can be found responsible and have to pay a judgement against them.

    but the cfaa case even if the person admits to using the password, there is still no legal case monetarily. you can’t meet any of the requirements for the cfaa case to proceed ($5k min stat damages for loss of service/re-securing your site) the conspiracy charge can’t really be upheld because lets be honest, actual hackers didn’t hack your site or distribute the pw’s from their own trackable IP that’s easily covered in “hacking 101″ so if someone admitted to using a “hacked” pw they would not be part of a conspiracy, the unjust enrichment can’t stand up, the breach of contract can’t stand up, even the copyright claims are worthless because there is no way to show that anyone re-distributed your “art” not to mention most of your ish isn’t even registered.

    so even if you had straight up admissions of guilt you would still lose because there are no real laws governing this issue that would gain you any money. the only thing you could do was press CRIMINAL charges against the people. and that is not what you are doing because any law enforcement agent would probably laugh in your face. granted if you could prove some of your models were underage then law enforcement would happily come after everyone who dl’d from your site, but then you would be hosed too.

    anyway atleast the bt cases have legal standards to back them up why aren’t you singling out more does in those instead of the MUCH harder to win cases of the cfaa complaints. it just makes no sense.

    • Raul says:

      Agreed this entire scam was apparently the child of too many Margaritas but the CFAA claim is somewhat exotic and scary if you are not informed. Likewise, these lawsuits are removable as a matter of right to federal court so any Doe sued is going to take the logical step and remove to federal court which negates any tactical advantage Prenda gets from filing in state court.

    • Anonymous says:

      While a torrent case may have more merit, after doing research on false positives, it’s no wonder that this community is so massive since the rate of false positives is ridiculously high. While I would LOVE to see Duffy actually litigate one of these cases but he won’t because of how they collect IPs. Using passive detection methods they get (admittedly) 30% false positives…no, wait, not false positives. “The account holder is not the actual infringer in 30% of the cases” is how they put it but NEVER mention false positives because the rate is so high it’d make your head spin. There’s an article on TorrentFreak about how The Pirate Bay’s trackers (aka Prenda’s trolling ground) pollute lists of seeds and peers with real IPs that aren’t members of the swarm. Researchers at The University of Washington managed to get DMCA takedown notices sent to a networked PRINTER accidentally as a result of a study on bittorrent activity. So one would surmise that there’s a pretty damn good chance that the false positive rate is 40-50%.

      Jones’ CFAA claim is gonna be difficult when a monthly membership costs what? Like $40? $50? Either way, too high for Jones’ garbage. Basically it’s an “all you can eat” for $50 per month. I fail to see how someone could cause $5k in “damages” even if they download the entire site…still whatever the hell it costs per month, not $5k. Oh I love the term “re-securing your site”…anyone with half a brain knows Jones leaked those passwords and his security was at best shit and completely inadequate and at worst he deliberately exempted those user/pass combinations to get through. I’d love to see the logic behind the $5,000 in damages. If someone had broke into his site and royally fucked it up then yeah, but using a user/pass combo to download content? Hardly.

  22. David Scott Seibert says:

    Re: 1:11-cv-01274 RBW Ref# 63813, AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1,140 – - – Rcd today from Paul Duffy, Attorney at Law – Letter of Request for Informal Discovery. Located in Washington state.

    This request is 134 pages long and clearly has copy machine lines on the right side.

    Have not received any calls for a long time from the Prenda office, but am waiting.

    I have secured from my ISP provider a letter stating that my IP address is not the one listed on the sommons.

    I will wait to be officially served befor I share this document with Prenda as many of you have suggested. Also as I am located in Washing state and not in any of the states that the law suit has been filed they do not have jurisdiction.

    This suit was voluntarily dismissed in March of 2012.

    Comments????

    • Johnny Doe says:

      I received the same thing for the same case. I think it is clear that they just created a template using already existing boilerplate language and inserted dates, names and case information into it. “Our” case is dead as the judge required them to serve the defendants, and Prenda’s response was to dismiss the case. They would have to refile against you in Washington if they want to sue you. I would ignore the letter (that’s what I’m doing) unless they really carry out their threat to start naming defendants in their home jurisdictions.

    • Raul says:

      Prenda has no attorneys or affiliates who are licensed or present in the state of Washington, so no real chance of being named in a lawsuit over which they have personal jurisdiction over you. Use the papers to,start a BBQ or as CTVic has suggested.

      • doecumb says:

        There’s no porn purveyor troll cases for any plaintiff listed on RFC Express for either eastern or western district of WA state. Zero does.

  23. Anonymous says:

    They sent you 134 pages? Jeez lol. Well as with what everyone else is saying I would just ignore it.

  24. Ken2 says:

    I also received the threat from Prenda Law today asking for $3400. I am located in Georgia. Should I be worried?

    • Raul says:

      See my comment of 6:03 pm today, same goes for you. Also the Georgia federal judiciary cannot stand trolls and eradicated their homegrown variety last year.

      • Porno Doe says:

        I would not recommend to burn or follow CTVic advise until the FBI or the US Postal service has inspected or taken the document as evidence. Fraud and/or extortion using the US Postal Service is a serious offense. Contact your local FBI office and/or file a report with your local Post Master. They do investigate. I am waiting for my package! I will not even open it. I will hand deliver to my local FBI field office.

  25. anonymous says:

    i just received a letter from “Prenda Law” with all the fancy paper and envelope im in on the Sunlust vs doe..they are asking for $3400 and i cant even pay my house payment..and im located in cali how should i proceed with this…should i be worried? please help

    • Anonymous2 says:

      Settle in. Keep yourself comfortable and composed when possible. The cash machine operates by scare and collect. The profit for them is in not going to trial. Say nothing to the troll representatives or carefully say something scripted.

      The typical pattern has been weeks or months of demands and/or phone calls. If you and your household have not communicated with the Prenda trolls, the main thing Prenda has to go on is attempts at intimidation. They also typically set a deadline of their choosing (no relation to a court date), say pay up or else. When a Doe doesn’t pay, they claim they are moving forward to trial, increase their demand amount and set another date. Demand, rinse, repeat.

      If you need extra perspective, consider getting a free or low cost first consultation from a Doe defense lawyer. Tens of thousands have been in a similar position. There’s been very few Does named.There’s reason to believe those few were special circumstances where trolls thought the Does were particularly easy marks, perhaps for instance due to an accusation of someone nearby. There’s probably a reason why trolls have almost never brought things to a contested trial though 300,000 people have been involved in these scams.You can read here and elsewhere how things are going with Prenda (usually Brett L. Gibbs in your area). They’ve had plenty of setbacks in districts near you.

  26. Johnny Doe says:

    Interesting– I just received a call from a human being in Florida (sounded like Lutz). It was nothing new– we sent you two letters, it has been more than 30 days, we have new lawyers, we will be filing a lawsuit with your name in it and sending you time-sensitive materials.

    What I thought was interesting was the fact that there was no mention of the “informal discovery” materials (I assumed that was why they were calling) and that it wasn’t a robocall as it has been for the last few weeks. I wonder if they realized the whole robocall thing wasn’t working and was making them look ridiculous?

    • Anonymous says:

      Here’s whats been my situation. I was getting robocalls when they first started showing up. Then those stopped and started getting human being calls for a few weeks. Just yesterday I got a robocall for the first time in a while. No mention of the discovery letter. They don’t know what they’re doing.

      • Johnny Doe says:

        Well, I wrote too soon. I just got a robocall from the 1-800 number with the same message that Lutz left shortly before that. That’s the first time I’ve been called twice in one day. What’s next– hourly calls?!?

  27. Anonymous says:

    Looks like a new order has been entered into the register of action list for 11-L-683 (Lightspeed PW Hacking Case) in St Clair County yesterday. I wonder if this has to do with the Illinois Supreme Court vacating the previous order from 5/21 requiring that AT&T et al’s MTQ must be heard (rather than being denied without a hearing like it was in mid-April when Buffy was bragging)

    http://www.circuitclerk.co.st-clair.il.us/Civil+Court+Records.htm

    Search case number by adding 11 for year, select L in the dropdown, then use 683 for the sequence.

    Hopefully some details will soon surface.

  28. Anonymous says:

    I have been mailed the usual papers you guys talk about. How do you know if Prenda has lawyers in my state? I live in minnesota.

    • Raul says:

      They do but no real worries, read SJD’s latest post and start counting your lucky stars.

    • The answer is one click away (hint: its’ “Home” menu on the top).

      • Anonymous says:

        So, I’m part of the Sunlust case, which was filed in Colorado. If they want to take me to court, would it be in Colorado or MN? I’ve been noticing that the Colorado judge is not play ball with us, so far.

        • Anonymous says:

          HI There, I am part of sunlust case too. Received my first letter yesterday as my anonymous MTQ was dismissed by the court. Do you wanna get together and discuss? May be we can hire a same attorney?

  29. Anonymous says:

    It was good to hear Lutz’s voice this afternoon. I missed it. The robocalls were getting kind of boring. I must say this is one of the most bizarre situations I’ve encountered in my life. Being harrassed by a law firm over a movie that nobody in my household downloaded, then having the case dismissed in March by said attorney. Now 4 months later still being harrassed about settling with their client. WTF. My favorite line from the script is, ” The settlement offer is more than 30 days expired.” Yeah, no shit, seeing that the first settlement offer came in December 2011. What a joke.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I got my first letter from prenda law today (sunlust case)…..They have given me till July 28th to accept setle the case for $3400. I am in CA so I am little worried but I guess I will just sit tight for now and wait what happens. BTW I thought some one on this site metioned creating a blog seperately for just the sunlust case…It hasnt happened yet. May be its time…

  31. Raul says:

    Curious that PRENDA is the acronym for the proposed Prenatal Antidiscimination Act which is an effort to restrict access to abortions (insert tasteless joke here).

  32. Dave says:

    Gibbs has been on my ass for a few days now. I live in FL and my internet provider sent me a letter with a copy of a Federal Court document demanding subscriber info. The letter from Brighthouse Networks, advises me of their intent to comply as this is their policy. Funny their policy is not to protect “their customers” but to fuel these trolls. I called Gibbs because the letter from Brighthouse advised me that I can contact the requester and settle prior to 7/20/2012 or they will release the info on 7/23. Now that I have called Gibbs he is calling all day long.I have talked to two attorneys and they both sum up the idea of settlement as prenda is in their right and fighting will cost too much money. Is the fact that I am in FL putting me in a week position? Should I consider settling? WTF. Please post some thoughts

    • Anonymous says:

      Probably shouldn’t have called him, but since that already happened all you can do is move forward. I am kind of alarmed that any attorneys are suggesting settling with these extortionists. I am in Florida and am speaking for an elderly relative of mine who was named in a case back in December. They sent the initial demand letter for $3400. At first we were a little concerned, but being that no one in the household downloaded the movie they spoke of we didn’t feel it was anything to worry about. The case we were involved in was voluntarily dismissed in March, but the harassment calls continue on a regular basis. We have never once spoken to the trolls and never will. We have also never consulted an attorney. (didn’t feel the need) The bottom line is until an official court summons shows up ( which will probably never happen) it is nothing to worry about. Their piece of paper and phone calls are nothing more than a nuisance phone solicitor. I say absolutely do not settle with them. But that’s just my opinion. Educate yourself as much as possible. I believe soon enough this sort of extortion will be eradicated. I mean look at the facts. if any of these cases went to trial, what is their evidence. A piece of paper with IP adresses on it. I don’t think any jury could ever convict on such flimsy evidence. All these morons are doing is trying to scare unwitting people into giving them money for nothing. I guess they can’t make money any other way. I here Burger King is hiring. Good luck and ignore, ignore ignore, And do not ever speak to them again. They have thousands of people they are harassing.

    • Johnny Doe says:

      The vast majority of cases– regardless of merit– settle. Lawyers tend to be risk averse and see the $3400 vs. the cost of litigation plus the possible verdict of $150000 plus attorneys fees and will tell you to settle. They are probably giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt that they are acting in good faith. You have to decide what is best for you, but keep in mind that they are going to use most of the $3400 to harass others into giving then more money.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      What did you tell Gibbs? If you did nothing wrong, you are good to go. If you didn’t make any incriminating statements I would tell them to get stuffed. They could actually file against you, but with only a public IP address as their evidence, they are taking a big chance. This business model was not designed to take those types of risk and survive. Prenda is already finding out this with three cases in CA (Wong, Abrahams, & Hatfield). IMO only get a good IP lawyer if you receive a court summons. Then file counter claims of harassment and abuse of process. I agree with the other poster concerning what the lawyers told you. Settling is a common practice that is done because it is easier and cheaper than having to fight. The Trolls know this and have designed their settlement demands to be under the cost of defending oneself. The only reason Prenda started to name a small number of Does this year (Feb 2012), is because they had to admit in court that since they started trolling in 2010, they named & served “Zero” people for their cases. The numbers speak loud and clear.

      DTD :)

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks!…While I agree that they are not naming people but as I am in a state (CA) where they have been more active and hence me being named has more chances. Considering this fact what would/should be my options? Can I ask them to lower their demand and settle for less? What would be the right way of doing this? I am part of the SunLust case and there has been no decison on that case as of yet. I received a letter from prenda giving me till July 28th to settle…since each of of us are on our own here, makes me little apprehensive….Suggestions pls.

        • Johnny Doe says:

          You can always try to negotiate a lower settlement. Since the costs at this stage of the litigation are so low for them, pretty much anything they get from you will be profitable. I haven’t seen any posts by people who tried to negotiate with them, so I don’t know how low they will go.

          Do you have any friends who are lawyers who can make the call for you? My guess is they will take a call by an attorney more seriously and will be less likely to try to bully him or her into settling for the full amount.

          The key thing if you do try to settle is don’t admit anything. Don’t give them any ammunition if the discussion falls apart. Also, be very careful what you sign. The last thing you want to do is pay the extortion money and then have them go after you later by saying the settlement was only for personal infringement but not for negligence (or something like that).

        • DieTrollDie says:

          If you “safely” look at the Prenda site, you will see that they are sticking to CA, IL, & FL for filing single cases. If I lived in one of these states (maybe I do???), I still would not call them up. If anything, I think that shows them you are possibily a good target. Not that you did it, just that your concern (and fear) may make you an easier person to get to settle. There are some really goood CA IP lawyers that I would consider hiring if (and only if) I was served a summons. Until then – given them the Richard Pryor Response (RPR).

          Both of these guys know Prenda and are currently fighting them.
          Nicholas Ranallo – http://www.ranallolawoffice.com/
          Steven Yuen – http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/94108-ca-steven-yuen-70043/website.html
          If they are not in your area of CA, I’m sure they could direct you to one that is.

          DTD :)

  33. Anonymous says:

    lawyers who tell you to settle are not necessarily doing it because they are ill informed. i had a very well informed IP lawyer quoat me a rate on assisting settlement negotiations.

    the thing is if a lawyer tells you not to settle and to ignore it, then they themselves can possibly be held liable by you if you do get named/served/sued. so out of self preservation they have to suggest you settle.

    a good lawyer will however give you more info than just simply telling you to settle, such as maybe a rate for a MTQ or other helpful info, there are alot of lawyers dealing with doe defense in FL and are pretty good, i would say look at the contacts link on here and call the lawyers in your state.

    • Exactly. Compare EFF-listed Adam Urbanczyk’s spreading FUD and advocating “pragmatic” approach (i.e. settling):

      I heard that plaintiffs don’t even sue anyone individually; is this true?
      No, and the statement is quite shortsighted. To proceed against you, the plaintiff has to name you individually as a defendant. Not only has the number of pending multiple-John Doe suits increased every month for the last two years, but individual former-John Does have been named in lawsuits across the country for about the last eight months. Indeed, the time for plaintiff to individually bring its copyright infringement and/or Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims is three years and two years, respectively. To use a common example, the fact that Mark Lutz from Prenda Law has not called you for two months is somewhat irrelevant in the long run.

      and Morgan Pietz’s expressing his position on the same issue:

      Feed the Troll.
      Although I am loathe to admit it, sometimes simply paying the troll its ransom is the right decision. If there is a compelling reason why you cannot face the uncertainty of being involved in a lawsuit, then simply paying the troll may be the right decision. For example, what if you are in the middle of obtaining professional licensure, and need to disclose whether you are involved in any lawsuits? Being stuck in the ‘blizzard’ of a copyright troll lawsuit could be a problem, and it may be worth the few thousand dollars (based on other concerns) to simply pay the nuisance value. However, in my experience, a good reason to pay the troll is exceedingly rare. And you should also understand that it is solely this category of defendant, who feeds the troll, that makes these lawsuits profitable such that the trolls keep filing them.

      The bottom line is that you can cover your ass and not to be an asshole at the same time.

  34. Sick and Tired of this says:

    I just received another call from the Prenda scums. Caller ID showed call came from AMTP USA and the number was 305-397-8558. This clown said that their offer for me to settle ($3,400) expired yesterday and they were giving me an opportunity to do something “before we file a complaint with your name on it.” I referred them to my attorney. I want to see what he will say to my attorney. I’m really tired of all this.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Anybody have any updates on 1:12-cv-20920 Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-120? Been kinda quiet since the motion for hearing on the 19th of June.

  36. Simon Templar says:

    I too received a Robo-Call today, first one in a while. But the stupid thing is, it didn’t reference who they were calling for or the case involved. It couldn’t have been more vague!

  37. Anonymous says:

    Yet another case filed by Prenda Law against Comcast. SUNLUST PICTURES, LLC v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2012mc00380/155299/).

  38. Raul says:

    Always nice to see trolls in reactive mode!

  39. Anonymous says:

    Can anyone shed some light as to what exactly the last order on this Sunlust case means?

    http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.docket.html

  40. anonymous says:

    they named a doe as a defendant in the sunlust vs johndoe case…..

  41. Anonymous says:

    bold step. i think it means instead of prenda vs john doe and co-conspirators, troll anderson wants to change it to to prenda vs william cisa and co-conspirators.

    either way not good for the Does because the judge doesnt seem to be granting or budging.

    • Anonymous says:

      Great news….so they had a parallel sunlust case going on in FL? How does this impact the sunlust case in CO court?

      • Anonymous says:

        My immediate impression is that this doesn’t really affect the CO case too much. I don’t know for sure though.

        • anonymous says:

          yup it doesnt……i dont know if im right but in the case of the CO subpoena the ISPs already released info so it doesnt mean anything if the court quashes the subpoenas they released cuz they already got what they wanted…… -_- so thats why they automatically named one doe in the trial -_- i dont know what will happen….this is the first time they done it…..should they settle now? or still wait?

        • If you are not a schoolteacher or a nun, give me a single valid reason why to pay those clowns? Do you grow banknotes?

          It’s quite plausible that such a moron as Lutz works for the minimal wage. So your settlement would keep him calling for at least 2 months.

  42. Anonymous says:

    KVBC in Las Vegas will be airing a story regarding this issue tonite at 5:00. I would imagine it will be online tonite or tomorrow morning. I hope this warns people to NOT pay. Looks like the story revolves around a little old lady. Hoping to grab it and post it for all to see as soon as it becomes available.

    • Thanks! Doe to Righthaven downfall, Las Vegas’ media is the safest media to be reposted :)

      • Anonymous says:

        Well, the story was not exactly what I was hoping to see. The reporter seemed uninformed about what is happing to all of us. She interviewed a Las Vegas troll!! As soon as I can I will post the clip. I am going to shoot her a note too, I will be nice, to give her a taste of what we have to deal with. They basically told all of us to password protect our internet. Duh! That was it. Oh I am so mad!!!!

        • doecumb says:

          Maybe this thread should go under general discussions.

          Some ridiculous misrepresentations in the piece. It starts by linking copyright troll extortion appearing to be on behalf of porn purveyors to internet innovation.

          Then it follows with 6 paragraphs devoted to Randazza, and 4 sentences mentioning a falsely accused California grandmother. Talk about “inequality of arms”. How about interviewing Isaias Afewerki about ideal democracy?

          http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Internet-providers-turn-to-attorneys-to-protect/g1viHJEjF025YN56WlU33A.cspx

          (text and video at the link)

          “LAS VEGAS (ksnv & MyNews3) — One of the most innovative sectors of the internet is one people don’t like to talk about: pornography.

          Many of the advances that made high-quality video and mainstream pay-for-play services possible were created by the online porn industry.

          Now, internet content providers are turning to the courts to protect their products and porn is once again leading the way. News 3′s Mackenzie Warren gives us a look at new kind of attorney—the copyright troll.”

  43. Anonymous says:

    there was some discussion about what would happen if doe #1 settled. would they be forced to dismiss everyone with predjudice? since they claim reads as joint responsibility with #1 at the top then would one settlement free everyone? any insights??

    • DieTrollDie says:

      IMO this would end the case as written. They could amend the complaint (or attempt to) to list a new John Doe as the main one, but that would put them back into the mass John Case type, verse the One Doe and many co-conspirators. The court would hopefully see they are gaming the system for their advantage.

      The really interesting bit is going to be if the main John Doe settles. As the John Doe and all the co-conspirators are “jointly & severally” liable, that would mean (my belief) that the case is over and it is now the right of the main John Doe to go after the co-conspirators by filing a new case – not Plaintiff/Troll.

      I would love to hear from some of our attorney friends on this topic.

      DTD :)

      • Raul says:

        You are quite correct on all counts.

      • Anonymous says:

        No doubt Buffy and Pinocchio failed to think this one through when they filed these cases. I’m sure they thought it was a clever ploy to make the number of defendants and joinder issues less obvious after the CAND shut them out of the district.

        BTW, anyone hear anything about those hundreds (thousands!?) of cases secretly filed in county courthouses that conveniently nobody will ever be able to get any documentation out of (in spite of all court records being public and even many small courts having electronic records systems).

        • Raul says:

          Well in the AZ LMC lawsuits Prenda is demonstrating that it’s mastery of negligence law is on par with its mastery of copyright law.

          Troll Goodhue was a very, very clever choice as he is a well seasoned trial attorney who obviously knows his way around a courtroom and is well versed in the AZ local rules (not!). This was amply demonstrated by his failure to sign the LMC complaint in the World Timbers lawsuit even though such a signature is required as he obviously has a devious, secret plan to outfox the defendant. Likewise his reliance on the doctrine of respondeat superiour was also quite brilliant even though it cannot possibly withstand a motion to dismiss.

          If AZ is a harbinger of future state lawsuits, Does need not be overly concerned.

        • Anonymous says:

          someone posted another LMC case in madisson county court that is basically a mirror of the AZ Sekora case. so that makes…..3 so far that we have discovered. this absurdity will probably continue seeing as LMC seems like one of the LEAST rational of the porn troll companies.

    • Anonymous says:

      I sure hope Judge Tafoya sees the light and follows her peer in Colorado where Judge Martinez severs all does in Malibu Media casea 1:12-cv-01405 & 1:12-cv-01407.

      Lets see if this troll actually summons the named Doe instead of putting his name and trying to scare him.

      http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.docket.html

      Stay strong William Cisa and Does. Dont feed the trolls.

  44. Not sure if this is going to work. Is there is another way to post this news story? Thanks!

    • You put the link to the “your website” field, which triggered the spam filter. These days 90% of spam is a short, most likely flattering message (e.g. “Great post!”) and a link in the website field: spammers hope that we click there to learn more about the poster. Spam filter does a good job with only ~2% false positives and almost no negatives (spam not caught). This forum receives about 50 spam messages a day, so turning the filter off is not an option.

      In cases like this don’t hesitate contacting me. Otherwise just wait: I check spam folder for false positives daily.

      • NotScaredAnymore says:

        See, no way I could have done what they accused me of because I can’t even do this right!!! ahahahahaha Mackenzie wants to meet with us and discuss what we are going through. Good thing my husband knows about all this computer techy stuff. She will keep our identities on the down low. I will email you the details as soon as I know. Thanks for being here!

  45. Anonymous says:

    Apparently Tamaroff felt the need to change his phone number in the CO Sunlust case:

    http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.87.0.pdf

  46. Anonymous says:

    I see on the 2nd page, they list lawyers from Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts should people in these states be worried about being named? I’m in one of the states, but not near the towns they list; about an hour and half away. I’m so freaked out about being named. I want to settle, but these guys are bastards.

    • Raul says:

      To the best of my knowledge Prenda does not have attorneys in MA or MI. Even if you live in a state where Prenda trolls the odds of being actually served with a summons and complaint are less than being hit by lightening while taking a bath.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Whatever you do, “do not settle”. Don’t give-in to these scare tactics.

  48. Anonymous says:

    I just received my first call asking if I’d received the settlement offer from Prenda. I checked my mail this morning and there’s a settlement offer for $3400. They claim that the engineers they enlist use the same software ‘the government uses to catch pedophiles’ to verify infringement, which seems like an attempt to scare the listener since at best they’re probably just getting IPs from bittorrent servers. Does Prenda have any attorneys in KS? Should I just ignore any calls from that number from now on? I’m a little worried because I’m pretty poor, and going to court would be incredibly bad for me.

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