The following was initially meant to be an update to my post about a series of painful punches Ira Siegel received from judge Maria-Elena James, but I already wrote four updates — seems that the cases assigned to Maria-Elena James will be among the key cases in the history of the rise and fall of US copyright trolls.
An advocacy group Digital Rights Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in the Patrick Collins v. Does 1-2,590 case. The main point of this brief is the fact that Ira Siegel (just like many other trolls) basically deceived the Court. “Deception” is not only telling explicit lies, but also concealing important relevant information that most likely would alter judges’ decisions.
According to this brief, Ira Siegel withheld information about the geographic location of putative defendants. It proves beyond any doubt that Mr. Siegel knew that the majority of IP addresses his sleazy “forensic” enterprise had collected were outside of the Court jurisdiction.
Indeed, it is not plausible that plaintiff was honestly ignorant about the fact that an IP address can be mapped to a location with astonishing accuracy. Almost a year ago I wrote in my motion (which was ignored at that time):
Plaintiff’s Counsel claims (Docket 26, p.6, line 9¹) that if an IP address is dynamic, the location of the subscriber can’t be determined.
I believe Mr. Sperlein knows the locations, but decided not to disclose his findings in his complaint because the location distribution (almost two thirds of IP addresses are outside California) would definitely raise jurisdiction questions. If this is the case, Plaintiff’s Counsel deliberately concealed important information from the Court. Given that Plaintiff’s goal is threatening unsophisticated Does regardless of their locations in order to coerce settlements, this concealment makes much sense to Plaintiff, but is obviously unethical.
Kudos to guys from Digital Rights Foundation! They say that
Amicus also intends on filing briefs with other Courts involving mass Does to demonstrate and present such facts that in some cases, not even 1% of Does originate within the state of where the civil action complaint was filed.
Music to my ears.
¹[Gill Sperlein] “In the first instance, the anonymous filer has not provided evidence that one can accurately determine the location of an ip address.”