The answer is excellent, all the allegations are denied. That’s how all the answers should look like. An IP address recorded by a questionable company in Germany using questionable technologies, with human errors (like this or this) introduced by Mr. Sperlein later — is not solid evidence.
Therefore I want to remind once again — don’t give any information to Sperlein without talking to a lawyer first. This information will be used against you, no matter how Sperlein tries to create an impression that if you “explain yourself”, you may be dismissed from a case. The information you give him, will be used against you. That’s what happened with Ms. Gonzales from Io Group v. Does 1-50 case. She acknowledged that she, albeit unknowingly, shared an IO Group’s work. But instead of behaving like a decent human being, Sperlein scoffed at her:
If someone made my clients’ works available but did so unintentionally it is up to them to set forth facts that prove that claim. This would not affect liability but may affect damages. However, I don’t think that someone searching for stolen content but simply got the wrong stolen content is going to prove they are an innocent infringer – no matter how loudly they protest that they are Christian.
If he wouldn’t dismiss her, she would be liable for admitted unwillful infringement and could end up paying up to $30,000. I don’t believe that facing such a threat, she got away without paying a settlement.
On the other hand, if all the allegations are denied, it will be a hard task to proof otherwise as the evidence is insufficient as was stated by other judges who dismissed similar cases.
Why Mr. Sperlein so impudently pursues his victims while the evidence he has is laughable? According to his Facebook page, he is an experienced Bridge player, therefore he is not a stranger to bluffing. Keep it in mind.
Back to the Answer to the First Amended Complaint. The following affirmative defenses are listed:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. The Complaint and each and every purported cause of action contained therein
fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. If plaintiff suffered any damages at all, such damages were proximately caused
and are therefore equitably born by plaintiff because it could have, but failed to, properly and
adequately mitigate incurring such damages.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. Plaintiff is equitably barred from recovery by the doctrine of unclean hands.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. Defendant is exempt from prosecution pursuant to the Online Copyright
Infringement Liability Limitation Act.
I don’t clearly understand the Second Defense. Any ideas? As for the Third Defense, it is not the first time unclean hands doctrine was mentioned: look at the similarly good answer to the complaint in the IO Group v. Anthony Uy case, written by Stewart Kellar, E-ttorney at Law™:
Also it is nice to see that defendants demand reimbursement of legal costs and other relief “as the Court deems proper”. One of the best ways to make sure copyright trolls are extinct as species is to render their “business” financially unsustainable. First, by not paying ransoms, and second, by demanding the legal costs award from plaintiff.