Prenda

Defendant strikes back, sues Hard Drive Productions, targets Steele’s extortion outfit

“Standing up to a bully, whether some blowhard attorney,
or an 8th grader feels good.Try it sometime.”
John Lawrence Steele, from “Even Attorneys Can Be Bullies”, 2008

This event is long overdue. We all are aware of Dmitry Shirokov’s class action lawsuit against Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver handled by Booth Sweet LLP, but I did not know about any other offense against copyright trolls… until today. So far, the anti-troll community was purely defensive in courts. The tide may switch its direction soon, and this event is a good omen. We have been hearing that “enough is enough” for too long. Finally, a concrete action has taken place.

One of the Prenda Law’s victims, Liuxia Wong, filed a lawsuit against Hard Drive Productions with the help of one of the best IP attorneys from the California section of the EFF Subpoena defense list, Steven Yuen (an experienced IP litigator, not a divorce lawyer.)

I want to break the news quickly, so I will not do too much analysis of the complaint at this time, but it is a fun read, even a better mood-booster than Steele’s insults to EFF I talked about yesterday. Enjoy.

One last thought before you dive into the pure bliss of reading such a heartwarming text… Righthaven fell apart not by itself, and not even because of “good” or “wise” judges. Messing with wrong people is what predicated its downfall, messing with people who have dignity and do not succumb to frivolous threats, who are ready to fight back.

Exhibits: 1, 2, 3, 4.

What I think would be particularly interesting (and effective) is if Does from across the country began filing similar cases when they received the threatening letters. It’s risky, but Prenda would have to scramble to find attorneys in the 45 states that they are currently threatening people and without licensed attorneys. Something like a Declaratory Judgment day, where Does from all over the country file simultaneously. That would have an effect!

Updates

02/06/2012

It seems that Brett Gibbs, an eccentric copyright troll, the only Prenda Law’s representative in increasingly anti-troll California, will be defending this case. These guys are so greedy… they hesitate to spend a tiny fraction of the money they extorted from alleged file-sharers on an attorney that could match Mr. Yuen! Or simply they are arrogant and detached from reality… I don’t know. A motion to dismiss amended complaint that was filed yesterday is weak to say the least.

Here is the analysis from the comment section I totally agree with (Raul is of the most active commenters, and his contributions are always up to the point):

The improper venue argument that Gibbs makes is weak in that he is asserting that all copyright infringement actions are governed by Section 1400(a) of the Copyright Act. However this is not a copyright infringement action but one requesting declaratory relief as to the defendants’ agents/employees improper conduct and misrepresentations in the context of a previous and pending copyright infringement action.

Likewise his argument that there is no case or controversy between the parties is also less than compelling because he is arguing that there can be no case or controversy until HDP sues Ms Wong. Again this is not true because even if HDP does not have a case or controversy with Ms. Wong it does not mean that she cannot have a case or controversy with HDP and its agents/employees for their improper conduct and misrepresentations.

Gibb’s last argument is also without merit in that he asserts that Ms. Wong’s lawsuit is duplicative of an earlier filed lawsuit by HDP in which she can assert these claims in the event she gets sued. Wrong; she cannot assert (counterclaim) these claims (improper conduct and misrepresentations) against HDP’s agents/employees because they are not named plaintiffs in the prior HDP lawsuit.

Watch Mr. Yuen maul this pathetic dog of a motion in his opposition papers.

and

One of the problems with Gibbs representing Hard Drive Productions in this lawsuit is that he has an obvious conflict of interest being that he is one of the “John Doe” co-defendants who is alleged to have engaged in improper conduct and made misrepresentations of law and fact to Ms. Wong. An objective attorney might very well advise HDP to consider instituting a third-party action against Gibb and his gang for, among other things, a declaration that these agents/employees were acting outside the scope of their agency/employment.

and

Gibbs representing HDP and the ethical (if not procedural and legal) problems down the road. Ms. Wong’s complaint was, in my opinion, drafted in such a way so as to preclude Gibbs and his gang from answering it insofar as it made the self-dealing/conflict of interest issues central to the lawsuit so that only a moron (IMHO) would represent himself and HDP without the Judge and the Bar Association taking note. But, as we have seen, they have done exactly that… Wow!

02/22/2012

As expected, Steven Yuen crashed Gibbs’ silly arguments. Gibb’s claim that “there is no case of controversy” received the following reply:

Hard Drive‘s $3,000 settlement demand to Mrs. Wong is the equivalent of the 3,000 pound elephant in the room that Hard Drive never mentions in its moving papers.

02/28/2012

Mr. Yuen discharged the second barrel: another (very similar) lawsuit was filed against the same pornographers (and Prenda). DieTrollDie is covering it. Same claims and a new one: defamation (Prenda Law website used to list 25 individual complaints under the “Top Pirates” header, removed later).

Coverage

wordpress counter
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Published on: Author: SJD
Share:

Discussion

245 responses to ‘Defendant strikes back, sues Hard Drive Productions, targets Steele’s extortion outfit’

  3. One of the things that most struck me about the Wong complaint as potentially brilliant is the allegation that the plaintiff’s private investigators that monitored the alleged copyright infringement were not licensed CA private investigators and, accordingly, were breaking the law during the monitoring. What is striking about this allegation is this: all Troll complaints are premised on the sworn affidavit of an unlicensed private investigator insofar as most states have statutes governing the licensing of private investigators and if the affidavit is inadmissible because the private investigator was breaking the law while making the investigation then the plaintiff’s complaint has no factual foundation and can be dismissed as not being supported by admissible facts. I do not know if this will ultimately hold water but it is a smart move nonetheless.

    Reply

    • So, the John Nicolini’s and Hansmeier’s from CEG and Prenda/Steele-Hansmeier are not licensed?

      I can’t remember what they claim to be in their “declarations” in the complaints. My guess is they are nothing more than IT guys (no disrespect to the IT profession).

      Reply

      • Uh, Peter Hansmeier’s qualification is that he is Paul Hansmeier’s brother, who is one of the lawyer’s in Steele | Hansmeier. I’m sure that makes him totally qualified as an expert witness in his brother’s cases!

        Reply

        • bunch of clowns! that is exactly why the change in name to Prenda! Trying to “avoid” a conflict of interest!

          Right Johnny?

          Real smart!

          Moron!

          Reply

  4. I just found the first sentence in one of Jon Nicoloni’s declarations, that are used by Mike Meier, Hashmi, Ira Siegel and others. He is a VP of Technology….. How in the hell does this even pass the smell test?

    I, Jon Nicolini, declare as follows:
    1. I am the Vice President of Technology for Copyright Enforcement Group, LLC
    (“CEG”).

    Reply

  5. Most if not all of these private investigators are being “hired” on a contingency basis which would also make their testimony highly suspect if not inadmissible.

    Reply

  6. I would love to see this case get to the point where Steven Yuen is granted discovery on Prenda, Steele-Hansmeier, and their unicorn of flawless software.

    Reply

    • Steele will probably claim that his “flawless” software is a trade secret and that, by revealing the code, it will irreparably harm his business. Actually, I was writing that as a joke but now I actually think that he’d probably try that.

      Reply

    • FYI guys, I put the docket and complaint in RECAP. They usually have some lag time, so if you can wait and don’t want to pay, keep checking with the RECAP plugin. I’ll send links later when it gets posted.

      On initial skim very similar to Wong complaint. Worth noting are that the plaintiff was a defendant in HDP v. Does 1-118 in Northern District of California, and that the work in question was not registered until November 2011 for infringements that occurred around March 2011. Registration dates are assigned as the date an application was submitted, so that means Scumbag Steele didn’t even file an application until seven months after he had filed the mass-Doe suit, even though he asked for statutory damages in the complaint. Total fraud, Yuen is going to bust his ass.

      Reply

      • Are you fucking kidding me? The whole idea of what it is to be a lawyer involves attention to small details, would it have killed them to register the works on time for this shit. I hope you enjoy PMITA prison or bankruptcy you scumbags!

        Reply

        • Just so this is crystal clear, the complaint for Pretenda’s original case for Yuen’s new suit, dated March 30, 2011.

          Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.238912.1.0.pdf

          “The Work is the subject of a copyright registration application and the application is
          currently pending in the United States Copyright Office”

          If the registration date is November 18, 2011, that means the application was not received by the Copyright Office until November 18, 2011. According to the US Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-what.html):

          “For works that are determined to be copyrightable and that meet all legal and procedural requirements for registration, the effective date of registration is the date the Copyright Office received the completed application, correct payment, and copy(ies) of the work being registered in acceptable form. You do not need to wait for a certificate to proceed with publication.”

          That means these guys lied in their filings, and were committing outright fraud and misrepresenting the facts to the courts and Does.

          Reply

  12. Very similar to wong except they also strike out at the Top Pirates list that Steele had just removed. That should make this case interesting inregards to deflamation.

    Reply

    • Too funny. One of the threads here recently discussed how stupid Prenda is for publishing defamatory statements. I wonder if the thread was prescient or the Doe or Yuen were reading and decided to run with it..

      Reply

  13. Regarding the new Yuen case against HDP, I want to emphasize one of the key points. This is the complaint Prenda, then Steele | Hansmeier, filed dated March 30, 2011:

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.238912.1.0.pdf

    “The Work is the subject of a copyright registration application and the application is
    currently pending in the United States Copyright Office.”

    But we now know from Yuen’s complaint that the actual date of registration was November 18, 2011. The work does currently appear in the Copyright Office’s online registration database, but according to their FAQ (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-what.html):

    “For works that are determined to be copyrightable and that meet all legal and procedural requirements for registration, the effective date of registration is the date the Copyright Office received the completed application, correct payment, and copy(ies) of the work being registered in acceptable form. You do not need to wait for a certificate to proceed with publication.”

    This means that Prenda was never entitled to statutory damages for the alleged infringements in this case, and the statement in Prenda’s complaint claiming an application was pending was a lie. They filed that case and threatened Does using fraud and misrepresentation. I don’t think anyone here will find that surprising but these are the facts to back it up.

    Reply

  17. Looks like Yuen and company has a Reply to Gibbs response from 2/27. I’m way over my PACER budget, so I’m waiting for someone to grab it.

    It should be a fun read.

    Reply

    • Are yo referring to the Wong case? I just checked Pacer, and the only update is the one from Raul, listed two posts above yours.

      Reply

  22. Gibbs is getting desperate now.. He knows that Abrahams and Wong are only the start. You’ll noticed Prenda filed news cases in Texas, Florida and IL and avoided California. Gibbs seems to be in survival mode at this point.

    Reply

  23. http://ia600803.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.248038/gov.uscourts.cand.248038.docket.html

    Some more. Gibbs is requesting civil and criminal sanctions against Yuen and Abrahams. My God the whining, it’s hard to take. I cackled out loud, uncontrollably, when I read Gibbs’ apoplectic account of how Yuen blew him off. Yuen is the fucking man and he’s going to destroy this fool, he’s obviously not intimidated by the Prenda assclowns.

    Having built an empire on fear, so funny to see this petulant little shit melt down when refuses to be afraid of him and just ignores him.

    Gibbs is going to be in so much trouble for all the fraudulent filings he’s made, why does he even bother to carry on? We all know about their fraud with respect to registration dates and statutory damages now, if they keep going it’s only going to make things worse.

    Reply

    • Ah yes. The improper venue, “there is no case or controversy” and (insert accused name here) is not the alleged infringer arguments. I’m wondering if Gibbs even gives a shit about these cases, he’s grossly incompetent, or a combination of the two. The latter seems the most likely.

      Reply

    • Ooohh I love it.

      “It is known that Hard Drive was aware the file was online being pirated through a 3rd party IP monitoring service and could have had the file removed via a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice but they didn’t. This begs the question, why would a company ever willingly allow their content to be pirated? Perhaps because they can make more money that way. For all we know at present, employees of Hard Drive could have put the file online themselves as part of the honey pot. That is neither here nor there and something for the court to decide, which will be difficult to prove due to the diffuse nature of bit torrent.

      While DCMA is not perfect, no law is, it has proven to be a very effective tool for removing illegal content from the Internet….The fact that Hard Drive made no effort to even file a DCMA violation is very strange, almost a red flag to pirates to download their content. The fact that Hard Drive did not file a DMCA takedown notice is strong evidence to support the honey pot theory.”

      Even some blogger can see what’s really going on.

      Reply

  25. In the similar case brought by Seth Abrahams, Yuen has updated the complaint to go after Hard Drive Productions, Inc. and Prenda’s conspicuous lack of effort to protect their copyrights via DMCA takedowns or suits against BitTorrent trackers. He also cites Hard Drive Production’s share of the Prenda lawsuits where no defendants were served, via Gibbs’ declaration in one of their California cases. That is turning out to be the gift that keeps on giving, so much so that in Florida Prenda’s puppet Joseph Parea requested sanctions against a Doe and his lawyer simply for filing the Gibbs declaration as a way of illuminating Prenda’s behavior pattern.

    I didn’t think to check the docket for Wong vs. HDP before posting this, but it is fair to assume that the complaint for that case either has or will be amended in a similar manner.

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.251860.14.0.pdf

    New parts appear to be all in this block, but everyone should have a look for new stuff:

    —
    37. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the website http://www.chillingeffects.com and found no exemplars of any Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“D.M.C.A.”) takedown notices issued by Hard Drive.

    38. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the Federal PACER website, and of the 59 lawsuits filed by Hard Drive, none of them involve a lawsuit against a BitTorrent tracker defendant for D.M.C.A. liability.

    39. Plaintiff, through his counsel, requested Hard Drive to provide any evidence that it has issued D.M.C.A. takedown notices to any BitTorrent tracker owner, or that it has sued any BitTorrent tracker owner for D.M.C.A. liability yet Hard Drive refused to provide such information.

    40. Based on Hard Drive’s previously stated refusal and the previously stated allegations, plaintiff can only conclude that Hard Drive has no such evidence as a reasonable person would have provided such information in lieu of attempting to move for sanctions under rule 11.

    41. Plaintiff, through his counsel, has searched the Federal PACER website, and of the 59 lawsuits filed by Hard Drive, none of them involve a lawsuit against a BitTorrent tracker defendant for D.M.C.A. liability.

    42. Based on the previously stated allegations, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive never issued any D.M.C.A. takedown notices to the owners and/or operators of the BitTorrent trackers that were being used to distribute the work.

    43. On or about March 6, 2012, Hard Drive filed a lawsuit against 59 Doe defendants for infringement of its purported copyright.

    44. On or about March 2, 2012, Hard Drive filed a lawsuit against 54 Doe defendants for infringement of its purported copyright.

    45. Hard Drive’s agent’s custodian of records has declared under penalty of perjury that it has filed at least 37 lawsuits naming 3,480 Doe defendants yet has served no defendants.

    46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive continues to track and log IP addresses, and continues to sue Doe defendants corresponding to these logged IP addresses for infringement of its purported copyright since March 2011 yet at the same time has never named the owners of these BitTorrent trackers as defendants for D.M.C.A. liability in these lawsuits.
    —

    Reply

    • Looking forward to the 17th 🙂 I find it funny as hell that they’re scheduling an ADR (alternative dispute resolution…aka mediation) conference but, based on my understanding, that’s just a stupid ass formality in California to avoid clogging up the court system with frivolous lawsuits (ironic huh).

      Reply

      • Close, ADR is there for one reason only: to pound out settlements. I do not think it will be very useful in this case.

        Reply

  28. On The stupid IPad again so it is impossible to link. According to SJD ‘s Twiter feed today and not withstanding Buffy’s protestations to the contrary: Gibbs and Prenda just got their balls kicked in on April 13 by Yuen in the Wong case. Very Nice!

    Mr. Lipscomb, I am planning on examining some of your troll lawsuits next week, you know, the moronic trademark ones. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Reply

    • Lipscomb’s and Stagliano wil be the laughing stock of all in CA unless they withdraw their dumb ass complaints by end of Monday.

      Reply

  29. You’re darned tootin’ Gibbs got it in the groin. I’ll bet that smarted a little as he reached down and grabbed for his privates in the hopes they were still there. I have the Denial of the Motion to Dismiss (which was a royal slap from the bench, take my word for it) but I don’t know how to upload it here.

    Gosh, that was good reading. I felt my juices flowing as I read it thoroughly. That judge simply let him have it. The way it was written, she was basically calling him a liar. It was the equivalent of the famous “Which is it?” question. “Well, you said something previously, and you did something previously, and now you’re saying and doing something else. So, which is it???”

    Show me an extortionist and I will show you someone who has extorted thousands of times in the past without getting caught. Finally, Gibbs is being forced to fight for his right to extort, and I somehow feel he may hit a brick wall with this judge very very soon.

    The Wong case is far from over but it is definitely going in the right direction. Gibbs most likely wishes he never even heard of the name “Wong” before.

    Reply

  30. Gibbs get another spanking. Good, the asshole deserves it:

    “Hard Drive’s protestations in its motion that it is not seeking to hold Wong liable in the
    5630 Action are all couched in qualifying “not now” and “not likely” language. Counsel’s
    declaration in support of the motion states only that his client believed that Wong was not likely to be the actual infringer, and that he believed it was someone else in Ms. Wong’s household who was the actual infringer in the 5630 Action. (Dkt. No. 8-1 Declaration of Brett L. Gibbs, ¶ 2.)
    There is no statement withdrawing its argument, made abundantly clear in connection with its
    prior settlement demands, that Wong would be vicariously liable even if the downloading had
    taken place without her knowledge on her internet connection. Despite its suggestions to the
    contrary, Hard Drive has not pointed to any written agreement not to seek to hold Wong liable for
    infringement.”

    There is much more here which deserves a post rather than a quick comment BTW-Gibbs is ordered to put in an answer by April 30th.http://ia700803.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.cand.251599/gov.uscourts.cand.251599.22.0.pdf Gibbs has also recently filed for dismissal in the other Yuen case (Seth Abraham) post Yuen’s filing of an amended complaint http://ia700805.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.cand.251860/gov.uscourts.cand.251860.16.0.pdf I am sure that will likely succeed-NOT!

    Reply

    • I truly hope that Pirate Hunter can spare a few moments of his free time and enlighten all of us as to this development and how it supports his claim last Friday that Prenda was essentially crushing Yuen.

      Reply

      • Yoohoo…Buffy, are you there? Come out & poke your disdainful mug out from under that bridge of yours, you extortionist extraordinaire you 😀

        Reply

      • The sad thing is Gibbs is just a pawn for Steele. Steele has already rationalized in his mind that losing Gibbs and California is just a minor speed bump in his war. Steele will just come here and proclaim that California is an exception and does not matter and rest of the country is still ripe for trolling. Like I said before, Steele may throw Gibbs a bone and let him cold call Does with Lutz after he is disbarred. Besides that… He could care less how Gibbs pays those medical bills.

        Reply

    • 12-cv-00469-YGR Document 23 Filed 04/17/12

      Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.251599.23.0.pdf

      ref: Case No. 11-cv-5630-YGR And related Case No.: 12-CV-469-YGR

      On Monday, April 16, 2012, the Court held a joint case management conference in the above entitled related actions. Based upon the parties’ representations therein and in their case management conference statements, the Court finds that a settlement conference at the earliest juncture, and a stay of discovery pending completion of that settlement conference, is in the interests of all parties. The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:

      1. The parties are referred to Magistrate Joseph Spero for a settlement conference to be completed no later than May 18, 2012. Trial counsel, the parties, claims representatives and all other persons with full authority to settle the case must personally attend unless the Court has, before the Conference, authorized telephonic participation upon written application with notice to all other parties and good cause shown. A party’s failure to secure the personal attendance of the persons with authority to settle the matter will be grounds, in the Court’s discretion, for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not issue.
      2. Discovery in this matter is stayed until May 18, 2012. The deposition of Liuxia Wong (“Wong”) currently set for April 18, 2012, is taken off calendar.
      3. The Wong deposition shall commence after May 18, 2012, but no later than June 1, 2012.
      4. Counsel for Hard Drive Productions, Inc., shall name and serve John Doe in the 11-cv- 5630 action thereafter. Hearing on an order to show cause re: dismissal for failure to prosecute shall be set for June 22, 2012, at 9:01 a.m. Counsel for Hard Drive Productions, Inc., shall file a written response to the order to show cause no later than June 15, 2012.
      IT IS SO ORDERED.

      Reply

      • I just glanced the document… But it looks like the court took Steele Inc. behind the shed for another lashing..

        Reply

  32. So let me see if I have this right. Gibbs files an action against Wong, who then files an action against Hard Drive, who then makes a motion to dismiss, gets denied, and then throws together another motion to dismiss, finally claiming “We ain’t suing Wong and therefore the court has no jurisdiction.” He did this today, April 30, 2012.

    You would be hard pressed to find a case like this one anywhere else. In fact, even I am amazed at the backpeddling and wishing and hoping the court would just let this thing all go away. First he says “Wong did it!” Then he says “If Wong didn’t do it, then someone she knows did it!” Then he claims “If she didn’t do it and she doesn’t know who did it, then she still owes me money because she knew, or could have known, or should have known, who stole the precious porn.”

    Now, of course, with his back up against the freakin’ wall, he devises a “new and improved” motion to dismiss, now claiming she never did it, he never claimed she did it, he doesn’t care if she did it, he ain’t suing her now or in the future for it.” It would certainly follow that if he could have pleaded that he never even heard of Wong, he’d have found a way to insert that as well. God knows he wishes he didn’t.

    Now please, ladies and gentlemen, think for a moment. Doesn’t this open the door for Malicious Prosecution? How about Abuse of Process? How about just plain pain, suffering and distress? How about intentional infliction of emotional distress?

    I can hear the judge now: “Well, Mr. Gibbs, you previously sued under Plan A and now you are saying Plan B applies, so please enlighten us, what is your argument today? Would you like to submit Plan C?

    Yuen will have a field day with this latest motion. If he doesn’t pursue for at least Malicious Prosecution, I will be greatly disappointed.

    To Extortionist Extraordinaire Brett Gibbs: Run, Mr. Gibbs. There is still time to run. It takes the Feds sometimes more than a year or more to catch on to scams like yours. Your day is coming.

    88 Year Old Defender

    Reply

        • Am I missing something, or is Gibbs’s motion-to-dismiss-by-submitting-a-covenant-not-to-sue even worse garbage than usual ?

          This reasoning, dressed up in lawyer-talk, seems crazy when viewed with common sense. Gibbs, Prenda, and HDP are asking full forgiveness by “promising” not to finish the crime they started but could not complete.

          Wouldn’t the same reasoning lead to claiming innocence for attempted murder because the wounds did not kill and the murderer promises not to do it again to this particular victim ?

          Can some clear thinking not-Prenda legal expert explain how this Gibbs filing is only partly & not entirely insulting to a judge’s intelligence ?

          Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.251599.27.0.pdf

          Reply

        • Excuse me, Raul covered this in a post at DTD:

          http://dietrolldie.com/2012/04/19/you-are-wong-mr-gibbs-prenda-law-hard-drive-productions-motion-to-dismiss-is-denied-412-cv-00469/#comment-2229

          The Revolution vs. Aspex case that the stain-ful Steele logic depends on does not seem entirely comparable. Gibbs/Steele/Prenda may be hoping for more FUD & hiding weak reasons since the related cases are complicated to review.

          It stills seems like Gibbs, “Steve” John Steele and Prenda are saying “we promise to be trustworthy even though we have a long record of not being trustworthy”. Why not treat wolves to free bottles of steak sauce to discourage their attacks ?

          Reply

        • As crazy as it seems it is actually a decent legal argument for dismissal. The law is built upon some imperfect human constructs so anomalies like this situation can arise. Undoubtably Yuen will come up with some clever argument why this should not fly. From my perspective, it could be argued that the covenant not to sue is not broad enough. Gibbs has a documented history of hounding Wong with lawsuits, dropping one and the filing yet another and harassing her with settlement demands. The covenant not to sue only covers the porno in the present case but who is to say Gibbs could not “find” another HDP porno to unleash yet a third lawsuit against Wong? If the judge finds that the covenant not to sue is not broad enough then Gibbs is in for the long haul.

          Reply

        • Gibbs/Steele/Prenda also has a long history of harassing 10’s of 1000’s of Does. Hopefully, this background is factored in to a decision.

          Reply

  34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive never issued
    any Digital Millennium Copyright Act (D.M.C.A.) takedown notices to the owners and/or
    operators of the Bittorrent trackers that were being used distribute the work.
    ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff’s Amended
    Complaint

    do they even realize that the next response to this will be oh ok so show me the dmca take down notice you posted, or were you lying when you denied that you never sent one…..

    88. Hard Drive has judicially admitted that its work is adult pornography.
    ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 88 of Plaintiff’s Amended
    Complaint. REALLY people?? you will REALLY deny THIS?!?!?!

    Reply

    • Also:

      3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Hard Drive is an Arizona Corporation whose principal place of residence is in Maricopa County, and which does business worldwide including in the State of California, Counties of San Francisco and Solano.

      ANSWER: Defendant admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona, with a principal place of business in Phoenix Arizona. Defendant admits that its products are available for purchase over the Internet, including in the State of California and the counties referenced in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Defendant denies that it conducts business in the State of California, as that term is defined in the California statutes.

      So… a good question: if HDP does not conduct its business in California, than where? In the home state of Arizona? But it is illegal to shoot porn there.

      Reply

      • Excellent question ! As usual, the trolls feel free to chose a convenient answer, no matter what the truth. If part of “doing business” in California includes porn actors traveling from CA to AZ for the purpose of film, is itself illegal.

        ‘Addressing recent reports that film production might move to Arizona, Montgomery said, “Under Arizona law, anyone paid to appear in a pornographic movie may be guilty of the crime of prostitution, which carries mandatory jail time as well as the possibility of other penalties.”
        Arizona law defines prostitution as “engaging in or agreeing or offering to engage in sexual conduct under a fee arrangement with any person for money or any other valuable consideration.”
        “Furthermore,” Montgomery said in an official statement, “anyone involved in other aspects of producing pornographic movies, including soliciting individuals to appear, collecting a fee from the monies received by individuals solicited to appear by virtue of an agent relationship, transporting individuals from California to Arizona for the purpose of appearing in a pornographic movie, and/or establishing a venue for the filming and/or production of pornographic movies may be guilty of committing one or several felonies in the state of Arizona.”‘

        http://www.kpho.com/story/17148750/porn-industry-would-break-az-law-montgomery-claims

        Reply

        • And, apparently, the porn studios think it’s government interference to protect the health of their workers. But according to porn trolls, it’s not government interference to twist the law, deceive the courts nationwide, and skip due process to threaten 300, 000 people.

          Apparent the “industry” is “vulnerable and easy to attack”. Just like troll Pretenda lawyer John Steele, the “industry” claims to be victims of the thing it does to others. Boo hoo.

          http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/21/local/la-me-porn-condoms-20120221

          “This is the first step of government overreach into the way we make movies,” Duke said. “It’s clearly the government interfering where it really doesn’t belong.… Because our industry deals with sex … we’re vulnerable and easy to attack.”

          http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20467513/bedroom-community-approves-porn-condom-law

          Mayor Bob Huber called for the ordinance after the Los Angeles approved a similar regulation on Jan. 17 to protect porn performers from contracting HIV.
          “The primary purpose here is it’s a health and safety issue. And secondarily, we don’t want them here,” Huber said earlier. “This is a family-oriented community, and we don’t want them setting up their studios in Simi Valley.”

          Reply

      • Phone: ring ring! ring ring!

        John Steel: “Hello?”–beach boys background music– ‘aruba, jamaica, ooh i wanna take ya’
        Brett Gibbs: “Hey John, it’s the Gibber!”
        John Steel: “Hey Gibber what’s up?”
        Brett Gibbs: “I was wondering if you could send me a copy of the boiler plate response that we
        send to people when they are counter suing our client.”
        John Steel: “What are you talking about?”
        Brett Gibbs: “Hard Drive Productions is being sued because of some stupid stuff I did.”
        John Steel: “How long has this been going on, Brett?!”
        Brett Gibbs: “For a little bit. You haven’t been following FightCopyrightTrolls.com?”
        John Steel: “No. Have they found out that they are producing porn illegally in the State of
        Arizona yet?”
        Brett Gibbs: “Oh, No I danced all round that, they are super confused now. But you should
        follow Jane’s blog?”It’s pretty good! I get all my information from there.”
        John Steel: “Brett!”
        Brett Gibbs: “Yeah John?”
        John Steel: “Your an idiot.”
        Brett Gibbs: “So…….. what about that boiler plate response?”

        click

        Brett Gibbs: “What was that sound? I guess I will just dance around all the serious questions
        some more, the Judge will love it. Yeah that’s it! Eureka!!!
        Brett Gibbs: “Hello? John? Oh, OK….

        click

        Reply

        • Pretty sure he’s not too happy about having to demonstrate how full of shit Prenda is. They get one little challenge and fold completely? Their last-minute trick is a covenant not to sue? Prenda is absolutely unwilling to litigate. And this two weeks after Buffy promised Prenda is really, really about to start suing people?

          What were they thinking keeping Gibbs in business in CA? They should have written that state off last August after all the judges in CAND ruled against joinder. Their foray into single-Doe suits just blew up in their faces spectacularly, and this is just one of two suits against HDP (so far). If they try to pull the same stunt with Abrahams after publicly defaming him with the “Prenda’s Top Pirates” idiocy he will take them to the cleaners.

          This is the best thing I have read since I got a subpoena notice, likely the first step in Prenda going down like Righthaven.

          Reply

    • As I read the answer to each count of the complaint, I cant help picturing this classic

      “Assume the position…”

      “Thank you sir may I have another?”

      Reply

    • How confidential is confidential, could we get a statement from Wong as to whether she was happy, satisfied, or unhappy about the performance of Yuen. That would be an awfully long way from revealing terms of the settlement, but might tell people something.

      Reply

        • So far my lame attempts at humor have fallen flat but I persevere.

          “SJD, yes I agree it is a no-brainer that we will be hearing from a no-brainer”

          BTW “thanks” for introducing me to the hilarious but time sucking 416eaters.com.

          Reply

  37. any settlement would involve HDP paying money to WONG, especially after they gave her a covenant not to sue her. call it a victory for the lil guys, probably just lawyer fees pluss a few thousand $$ for the hassle.

    Reply

  38. The bad news is we won’t get to see Gibbs’ shakedown scheme get whacked into the afterlife. The good news is that Yuen has made a name for himself. I would tend to think that if Brett gets a call in the future from anyone even mentioning Yuen’s name, he may think twice before standing his ground.

    Reply

  40. I still believe that Yuen has done damage to the Prenda operation even though this case was settled. I would be surprised if we see another case filed in California from HDP or anywhere for that matter. Once they pay Abrahams to go away if will be obvious that chasing around individuals with nonexistent evidence is a big liability for these Porn companies. Good Job Yuen!

    Reply

  41. even with the NDA the settlement still shows that suing them back will get THEM to settle, these settlements hurt them just as much as actual cases as people will look at them and think “i bet they would settle with me too, i could use a few ‘k more in my bank account”

    Reply

    • The always humble :^P John Prenda Steele:
      “John Steele, of Prenda Law in Chicago, declined comment on the Wong case, citing the confidential settlement.”

      Reply

Leave a reply to 88 Year Old Defender Cancel reply

Pingbacks & Trackbacks

  1. Bay Oak Law » Bit Torrent File Sharing Lawsuits
  2. Porn and Pirates – In Search of Lost Booty « Playpen Report – The Sexiest Blog on the Planet!
  3. Courtgasm: Can Porn Be Copyrighted? A Win for the Pirates « Playpen Report – The Sexiest Blog on the Planet!
  4. Properly respond to a demand letter — never hear from blackmailers again « Fight Copyright Trolls
  5. Copyright trolls attempt to extort a wrong person, invite a class action lawsuit « Fight Copyright Trolls
  6. In a well prepared and mighty counter-attack, “Malibu Media v. Fantalis” case turns into “Fantalis v. Malibu Media” « Fight Copyright Trolls
  7. Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions heats up | Copyright Infringement Advisor
  8. Seth Abrahams Goes On Offensive Against Hard Drive Productions