General

Why you shouldn’t talk to plaintiff’s lawyer: reader’s comment

Below is the comment to my recent post “Why you shouldn’t talk plaintiff’s lawyer” submitted by a blog’s reader and contributor (DieTrollDie). The cake analogy was so good that I decided to post the entire comment here.


Thank you for the video. Wow, that really takes me back. My previous career was in criminal investigations and so much of what was said on both sides is true. I did like what the cop at the end — that he doesn’t target innocent people. That is one thing that differs from the Trolls. For the police, they are charged to prove or disprove an allegation. The Trolls do not care. They don’t care if someone used your Internet connect (without your permission) or that your WiFi was “Open.” All they care about is getting you to pay the “settlement” agreement and keeping your mouth shut on their tactics. Proving or disproving that you actually did illegally download copyright protected material is not something they want to do. Don’t let someone tell you they are protecting the rights of the copyright owners. The settlement letters and telephone calls are only used to get your money. The Trolls do have the same opinion as the cop, in that “your client is stupid,” or that “the registered IP owner is stupid.” And both are correct. I don’t say that to be mean to all the people who have paid the Trolls, but let’s be honest. If this wasn’t the case, the Trolls wouldn’t be making so much money. The Trolls are not running a full and thorough investigation. Money and greed motivated their business model.

Let’s do some simple math — Case against 300 Does; Trolls have an estimated settlement return rate of 50% (Unk, just an est.); Say $2,500 per settlement; 150 X 2500 = $375,000; Split that with the original owners; Go party; Start more case and repeat the cycle. You get the picture.

The bottom line as the professor stated — Don’t talk to the Police (or Troll). It will do you NO good. The Troll doesn’t care and will only try to use it against you. If it goes to court (doubtful), there will be time enough to get your information out and prevent being abused or taken advantage of.

When I was a new investigator, I had an instructor liken running an investigation to making a cake. To make the cake, it took many different ingredients (part) and steps to reach the conclusion (finished cake). One of the last steps is often the interview of the suspect. If you got the suspect to admit to the crime(s), that was the icing on the cake. Point being that if you case (cake) was already good; the confession was the sweet topping that ONLY added to it. If a person refused to talk, the cake was still good and a prosecutor could still use it. I like my cake with icing, but I will still eat it without it. My point to the “Cake” story is the Trolls do not have even a basic simple cake built for any of their cases. What they do have is the information that an IP address allegedly illegally downloaded copyright protected material. As far as the cake building goes, the IP address they have obtained is akin to having a bag of flour. The Trolls know that having one ingredient (IP address) does not make a cake (solid case). So instead of gathering the remaining ingredients and taking the proper steps to make the cake (proving their case), they send out a settlement letter to the IP owner. This is where the message in the video is key – “Don’t talk to the Trolls; It will do you NO good.” Right now the Trolls have nothing; If you talk to them, they may obtain something to help their case.

As stated in this forum, if you are formally names in a legal matter, do not ignore the Trolls. If you ignore them at that point, the Trolls may obtain a default judgment against you. Make them “prove” their allegations and show you their “Cake.” I bet it tastes like “crap!”

John Doe

wordpress counter

Discussion

5 responses to ‘Why you shouldn’t talk to plaintiff’s lawyer: reader’s comment

  1. As a practising, self-confessed Cake-Thief I can assure you all their so-called Cake does indeed taste like crap because it has no substance whatsoever. It’s a fake Cake!

    Seriously though, the analogy is apt and accurate as well as applicable to the attacks upon us by the Trolls. They’re letters of extortion are akin to them throwing eggs at us in the hope that some of it will hit and stick. Only those who don’t know their legal rights or who haven’t been reading the MANY news sources (eg this blog, TorrentFreak, TechDirt, EFF, etc.) will get egg on their face – egg being an important ingredient in any decent Cake of course 🙂

    So the basic advice when you’re under attack from said Trolls is to –
    Say NOTHING;
    Pay NOTHING; and most importantly,
    Do NOT eat their Cake, you’ll get VERY ill and it will cost you cash.

    But if you get a formal letter from the Court – do NOT ignore it. Seek advice.

  2. I was received a subpoena 2 months ago from my ISP and have not heard from the plaintiff. It has been a month since the 30day deadline to release my information.

    Should I be worried? Should I be contacting anyone at this point in time? This is the smaller doe cases of 10 does…

    • I don’t thing you should worry… The only time you mustn’t ignore this matter when you receive a certified letter from a court. I just updated the FAQ section, it covers your question (or at least I think so) – if you are still confused or have more questions, don’t hesitate to ask – FAQ section is alive (as I am), some errors are inevitable, but I’ll do my best to perfect it.

  3. Here is a good article that has the same general message as yours, but it gives more details for those personnel who are part of the smaller John Doe cases.

    http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/small-doe-bittorrent-cases-in-home-state/#comment-404

    Article Title – “What to do about these smaller Doe bittorrent cases?”
    – August 26, 2011 by houstonlawy3r
    “The bittorrent cases are speeding up, both in number of cases filed, and in the issues relating to the cases. Judges are smartening up to what is going on, and I am seeing the smaller “Does 1-23” cases ripped to shreds in the courts. But, because they are so small, the activities in each case are falling below the radar.”

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