Guardaley | X-Art

Bellwether: essentially settled, it will be only a quick bench trial (no jury)

Frustrating. Bellwether has lost its bell and is confusingly standing under the rain, a miserable castrated sheep that does not lead anyone anywhere anymore.

The following was stipulated during today’s hearing in Judge Baylson’s chambers: there will a bench trial (no jury), which will start (and most likely end) on Monday, June 10, 2013. It seems that the case is essentially settled, only a few unresolved issues are left (the exact amount of money, given the statutory and stipulated ranges). As Raul emotionally put it in a tweet,

In all the fairness, defendants must share the blame for this epic failure. To the best of my understanding, Judge Baylson did want to destroy Lipscomb’s “business model,” hinting and almost guaranteeing the recovery of attorney fees for those defendants who would do it right. Alas, they didn’t. Doe 16’s alleged perjury is the worst thing that could happen. I’m still not sure if it is true, but if it is, it is much worse than admitting the smut-sharing. In the latter case, it is still possible to save face, fight for the cause, and prompt the condemnation of copyright trolling (and possibly reduce the fine to a reasonable level).



SoundCloud Listen the audio transcript of today’s hearing on SoundCloud (you can also download it from there).

I don’t have any desire to comment on what happened today: too frustrated. One thing keeps me going: a year ago I was similarly depressed looking at Prenda’s relative success. We know where Prenda is now. Although today Lipscomb tried to distance himself from “copyright trolling” (and Prenda in particular: ~20:00 of the audio), his words have little value: in my opinion, Lipscomb’s extortion enterprise is worse than Prenda’s, the harm he and his “clients,” greedy pornographers, inflicted upon the society is immeasurable. It was not easy to defeat Steele & Co. It will be more difficult to get rid of the substance that has been clogging the plumbing of the judiciary, a hairball named M. Keith Lipscomb, but sooner or later we will wash this parasite away, no doubt.



DieTrollDie has posted a great analysis of this event: PA Bellwether Case — Recap Of The 6 June 2013, Hearing.

wordpress counter


67 responses to ‘Bellwether: essentially settled, it will be only a quick bench trial (no jury)

  1. So, for those of us that won’t be able to listen to the audio for a while due to time/convenience issues, could someone please summarize what happened? I gather it did not go well, but all the venting is frustratingly vague as to what actually happened.

  2. They all settled for a penny?. Judge Baylson will make a finding of fact that Malibu Media has copyrights and are legit. How sad. A green light to Lipscomb’s extortion business. Baylson like a stooge will even go so far as saying how much he would have awarded given that the defendants admitted guilt. It will be meaningless because the parties have an agreement and the Judge doesn’t know the amount (a penny). The problem is that Lipscomb will be able to use BS finding by the Judge to bring fear to more Does and out of court settlement. Of course many of us suspected this would settle before trial.

    Colette Pelissier will take the stand on Monday to declare how she believes she is harmed by all this and impoverished by not having more show horses and many more multimillion dollar estates to enjoy

    Perhaps Bayslon will grow a pair and say joiner is a no-no. He sure is an excellent example of a broken legal system.

  3. Big win for Lipscomb – and let’s hand it to him – good strategy. He gets to say that he was willing to take a case to the mat and that it worked. He will also use the judge’s damages as a “what could happen if you don’t settle” threat. Hopefully, the judge will keep the damages very low.

    My very strong suspicion is that the settlement amount is negligible. Hard to fault the defendants in that case.

    This shows that they key to beating trolls is to sever and take cases to the mat. The model doesn’t work if this is done. Everyone who pays a ransom letter demand is fueling the troll machine.

    • This. Lipscomb couldn’t have asked for a better bellwether. Some easy rollovers and the one guy who contests it self destructing in false evidence and perjury.

      Settlement amounts in these cases aren’t negligible at all. One of the earlier Does in this case to settle was an admission the subscriber’s kid did it and that one cost $10,000. Small change by 150K statute written for commercial business standards but I doubt that it was negligible to them.

      I was glad to see JD 16 fight back. I gave him the benefit of the doubt in hoping Lipscomb’s expert was full of it. Nope. He screwed himself, and he screwed a lot of future Does out of a chance to put the light on this racket by putting the light on his idiotic self incrimination instead.

      • Never pay $10,000 to an attorney who has never gone to trial! No one and especially the Judge, should be surprised this settled before jury selection.

  4. Lipscom has already altered his shakedown approach, covered in Cashman’s blog. All new cases for the past 4 month are single doe cases with the “evidence of massive downloading of other works”. He is targeting people with $$$, and its cheaper for them just to pay him off than to drag this into a jury room.

  5. I wonder if other trolls will pop back out now that this will be on record. With the exception of MM and Pretenda (at least MM is a real client) the other porn trolls have been very quiet this past year. There are some other trolls as well for “legit” movies but their scheme is the same as well. Make crappy movies you know won’t recoup costs in the theater or DVD sales and sue the downloaders. The whole damn system is broke.

  6. Tomorrow morning at 10:30 am (Az. time) I will be at the Federal Courthouse in Phoenix, for AF Holdings’ Show Cause Hearing, before Judge G. Murray Snow. Looking forward to what Goodhue will present to the court, thanks to you and DTD, et al.

    Lipscomb is suing on borrowed time, as was Prenda, he just does not know it yet. The bigger the house of cards gets, the closer it is to crumbling. I have the utmost confidence in your abilities, for I have seen and I believe.

    I apologize for disappointing everyone by dropping off the map like I did. SJD you keep to heart, keep up the good fight and have an exceptional day . . . David

    PS Somebody will be bringing you and/or DTD the highlights/summary of tomorrow’s
    hearing . . . D.

  7. Has anyone see this motion? It is new and unreported.

    Is this related to the perjury or was that just Doe 16? I have a feeling this was a different Doe.

    Looks like a massive win for Malibu.

    Did Malibu Media win on ALL 5 Does?

  8. I wouldn’t call this a win for the Weasel. We all and the Judge knew this would settle for chump change before trial. We got to see how unprepared Lipscomb is and how his experts suck. We learned that he never verified that his German investigative software works. He has been extorting settlements on the flimsiest of made up evidence. Hopefully much of this can be used in the class action lawsuit in Kentucky. It sure appears that the extortion models was further uncovered.

    Let’s see if Colette Pelissier further perjurers herself when she sits her fat ass on the stand instead of her poor horses back. Note her balless husband is too stupid to testify. Under oath he probably would reveal it is he who seeded the internet with all these videos clips, trying to attract subscribers to his site. Eventually these two will likely go bankrupt and face max prison time for the delinquency of minors.

    We can still be hopeful that Judge Bayslon will refer the matter to Federal Justice Depart for investigation. Brigham and Colette’s products are disgustingly obscene and all over the internet for minors to watch. Just a matter of time before this all catches up with them.

  9. Not sure historically what cases this judge have ruled on or his general views about pornograhy and family values, if he goes to church, involves in youth programs etc. Having read countless John Grisham novels, I feel a preemptive strike to pressure this judge to rule against pronographers and all the morally wrong things they are peddling. One such move could be having local news channel cover this bench proceeding or news article whether pornograhy is generally wrong and what the likes of Colette and Fields are doing are nothing more than prostituting young girls. And if the judge so much as side with Lipscomb, the judge is pro-smut. Same as when politicians are portrayed as pro guns or anti guns (abortion, illegal immigration etc). Touchy subjects.

    Steven Yuen in the case over at CA did not get a chance to debate legally if pronography is copyrighted. Even the judge said as much (.. If any of the jury find the material obscene, it is then not copyrightable ..).

    The best outcome from Monday’s ruling could be, 1) it is not clear if defendants did download anything coz plaintiff has no proof of surveillance software actually works, 2) porn is not copyrightable 3) recommends all cases to be dismissed 4) worse case, all cases to be settled for 10x fair use which amounts to ~$100 for a one month subscription fee to MM.

    One can only hope .. But I fear the worse as judge gave defendants a chance but no one took it. Who could blame them though?

  10. I will start off by saying I’m saddened by the set-back the PA Bellwether trial has taken. That said – I don’t believe it the end of the world for this struggle. Any battle has its ups and downs and the best we can do is learn from the varying results. The Copyright Trolls and their clients have done this and adapted their operations. We have to do the same. We have effected a great change so far and this set-back will not change that fact. I expect on 10 Jun 13, we will hear Collette ‘explain’ how bad she is being harmed by infringement and the mean infringers who are calling her names. 😦

    Copyright infringement is wrong and if you are doing it – stop it. That is probably the best way to avoid being involved in something like this. That does not mean that all the accused people are in fact an infringer or the Plaintiff are justified in their actions – WRONG.

    Now by saying that, I’m in NO way saying what Malibu Media or the Keith Lipscomb crew have done (and continue to do) is right. I believe real Plaintiffs have a right to protect their product. What they are doing is essentially a shot-gun blast approach to collecting settlements AND not taking any real steps to STOP the infringement. The shot-gun blast approach affects non-infringing people and the Copyright Trolls know this – they just don’t care. Why??? Because it is easier to rationalize their actions and collect the settlement money. To them, “The end justifies the means.” They cannot with a straight face claim that everyone who has paid a settlement to them was the actual infringer. Their business model is explicitly designed to make it easier and more advantages to settle than fight. The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a factor in this business model.

    They will no doubt try to distance themselves from Prenda Law. The fact that Malibu Media is a real producer of copyright protected content does not mean their actions are above-board. The operation Keith Lipscomb is conducting with Malibu Media is basically the same as the other Copyright Trolls – Collect public IP addresses, obtain ISP subscriber information, and threaten to sue unless a settlement is paid. You notice I did not say “take allege infringers to trial“ or “Conduct an adequate investigation to determine the true infringer.” That is because that is not in the business plan – takes away from the profit margin. The only reason this trial has occurred is because one Judge forced it.

    I am glad the case made it this far. We have gotten some good insight into the Lipscomb operation and it will be used in adapting to future actions.

    Do not let this change of events sour your outlook. We have effected change and will continue to do so. I want to thank all the defense attorneys in this case, as well as Judge Baylson.

    DTD 🙂

  11. One thing that I do not get. Perhaps someone who knows more can help me here.

    These were 5 RANDOM subscribers selected by the judge. If the technology was not accurate then why has everyone admitted to doing it?

    I mean, this is 5 out of 5 for them. I would have expected 5 losses….

    This looks like a hands down victory for Malibu Media.

    What is worrying is that all of these subscribers thought it was smart to file a motion to quash and sever. They were picked to be defendants BECAUSE they filed documents to oppose.

    I am not sure if it is a good idea to file anything anymore. It just seems to make you a huge target.

    • A school probability theory exercise:

      Initial number of Does: 16. let’s have a look at two scenarios:

      a) all 5 selected are guilty;
      b) only 4 are guilty, and one is innocent despite the fact that he has settled (which is plausible: to the best of my knowledge, one of the selected does who settled has been maintaining his innocence all the time).

      1. IPP detection method is 70% accurate (Mark Meier’s Constant):

      Probability of (a): 11%; (b): 30%

      2. Give more benefit of doubt to IPP, let the accuracy be 90%:

      Probability of (a): 46%; (b): 23%

      Not that low.

      • Just because they settled and part of the deal is that they plead guilty doesn’t mean they were actually guilty. If you face a $ 4.5 million plausible judgment and can get rid of it for a thousand or a few thousand dollars, wouldn’t most be willing to unanimously pretend they were guilty?

        There is nothing legit about this. This is not art, the obscene videos of young girls’ genitals is not copyrightable.

      • Malibu didn’t go 5 for 5 on subscribers!

        JD #6, a member of the subscriber’s family admitted downloading.

        JD #16, the subscriber’s husband denied, falsified evidence, and eventually admitted downloading.

        That’s 40% inaccuracy right there. I don’t know the specifics of the settler who maintained innocence but if that isn’t #6 we’re up to 60%.

    • It is unfortunate, but doesn’t mean every public IP address they collect equates that the ISP subscriber (or family member) is the infringer. Malibu Media/Lipscomb would like you to believe this, but it is NOT true. The simple fact that a WiFi Firewall Router (WFR) could be run open and/or abused by unknown/unauthorized people kills the 100% accuracy claim they make. Their methods of targeting people have only changed after we started to fight back. They have tailored their targeting of people and those new Does need to tailor any actions according to their particular situation. Filing a motion was not the problem here. Filing a motion or doing anything regarding a case you are involved in is very subjective and personal – case-by-case basis.

      DTD 🙂

  12. I’m really confused now. These Does ended up in full litigation because they filed motions to quash, didn’t they? It was not out of choice. The Judge forced them. They did not want to be part of this.

    Malibu will now say that they have attempted to take 5 Does to trial and were able to obtain 5 findings of liability and damages. I think this will add a ton of weight to their campaign. There is a difference in saying – every IP address is an infringer and every investigation leads to that they conduct will LEAD eventually to an infringer. That is the point. Either one is fine as far as the courts are concerned. Every motion for discovery will reference Bellweather for sure.

    Whatever new strategy is done needs to be created without putting Does at risk of a Bellweather order. It is really unfair to put them through that. Can we stop this in the future?

    • They didn’t take them to trial. They all settled. The main issue is that Malibu Media does not want to go to trial. Between all the defendants they likely owed about $ 20 million in statutory fines. So why would Lipscomb settle for less than 1% of what is owed, if he has such a solid case?

  13. Do we get to find out how much each Doe settled for? it would be telling if the settlement amounts got lower and lower. Might show a level of desperation to get them settled before the trial.

    A $1 or $1,000 settlement is one thing. A $50,000 settlement is another.

    • JD 6 stated in a filing that he settled for $10,000.

      JD 1 and 13 have undisclosed high-low agreements with Lipscum. My guess is 10K range as well.

      JD 16 has settled for a fixed but undisclosed amount. JD 16 royally screwed himself in formatting his drive after the court ordered it to be produced so the sky was probably the limit here. I suspect he’ll be paying this one off for a long time.

      Damages will be set for JD 1, 13, and 16 at the bench trial on Monday and Lipscum’s fees will later be attached to that judgement when they’re calculated. The bottom line will likely be OMG, WTF, BBQ high, much higher than Lipscum will actually collect (and much higher than these Does likely have) and that verdict figure will be used to threaten other Does into settlement in the future.

      • “Doe 16 had a six figure verdict entered against him, which will be close to $500,000.00 once you add in attorney’s fees and costs. Willful copyright infringement is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, either.”

  14. I’m afraid they could use this ruling to go after does ignoring them in earlier dismissed cases. Since most of them were without prejudice.

    • Except this doesn’t make their case any stronger.
      If someone reads the headline ‘Pirates Forced to Pay’ they might be more inclined to settle, guilty or not.
      It still has all of the other problems the cases have always had.
      Had Doe 16 been the person we had hoped he was, we’d be moving to trial and the trolls would be in a panic.

      An example, Steele once trotted out a “Win” of $250,000 against an alleged/admitted pirate that another lawyer won. It was all over his letters telling people to pay up or else. If you dig into that $250,000 win you discover all sorts of things.
      – they matched a paying subscriber to content and uploads.
      – they entered into a settlement, this was not decided at trial.
      – the actual amount due from the person was NOT $250,000 but a smaller amount in monthly payments. As long as he made his payments in a timely fashion, and never infringed anyone’s copyright ever again it would be settled. (protip most of us violate copyright on a daily basis without being aware of it… think ringtones or an MP3 ripped from a CD or a DVD ripped to a file your tablet can play back)

      The reason for this large splashy win was to scare more people into settling, because who would look any deeper into it? (well other than me).

      If you did it, trying to hide that fact is going to screw you.
      If your an innocent, it still is cheaper to settle than to fight.
      The evidence sucks, their methods suck, and they will make your life as miserable as possible.

      And that is why the system is broken. All of the weight is on their side of the scale, armed with just an IP address and some software, that still has NEVER been reviewed by a US court, they get to extract money from people.

      On a side note, has anyone wondered out loud how much it would cost for you to be willing to take a dive in one of these cases?

    • Time will tell!

      We don’t know what Judge Baylson will recommend concerning how these cases should be handled. We didn’t get to see the depositions, interrogatories, etc. The Judge has an excellent reputation and was a super litigator before becoming a Judge. So he should be able to spot a weasel and/or extortionist.

      The earlier EDPA cases began under the theory that it was all a conspiracy. There was a problem with who owned the copyright at the time. So much time has gone by that most people probably have discarded old computers. So there is no evidence besides the unproven German part-time college investigators’ claims, who probably works on a commission. That likely would not be admissible in a trial. So Lipscomb has absolutely no evidence.

      Although some have claimed this is a big win for Lipscomb, I seriously doubt it. When he used joinder, his cost to get subscriber address and phone number to demand money was about $ 25 per person. Currently it is $ 400 per person. If he gets only 30% to hand over money quickly he can still make some money but, not like he used to.

  15. Seems very quiet for the first ever does to be taken to court all the way to trial. What did the Judge say after hearing evidence from all of Malibu Media’s people?

    I suppose there is only one outcome from all of this. This was a battle we had zero chance of winning. Particularly when everyone has admitted to doing it! Why did they not deny it all the way?

    So their tech isn’t that bad after all.

    Ok, let’s play a game… how many of us are infringers here?

    I AM an infringer and admit it.

    =) so what?

    •… “Justice is sweet and musical; but injustice is harsh and discordant.” ~ #HenryDavidThoreau…— Colette(@colettexart) June 10, 2013

      So join our website, admit you did it, settle and encourage others to stop stealing.

      And thank you for appreciating our content.

      Can I ask you why you would not pay $24.95/month of $99.95 for a whole year of daily updates? We update the site every day now 🙂

      We are not bad or unjust people,we just want the chance to continue doing what we love with a viable business model. I hope all will work out for you.

      With best regards,

      Malibu Media LLC

    • No games, buddy. We are all totally innocent here. Never thought of infringing, no idea about torrents, never heard of X-Art, and btw porn is absolutely disgusting. We hates porn.

  16. …or, in alternative, if you are innocent (this definitely does not apply to Anonymous who admitted wrongdoing), go full Fantalis, and make Lipscomb/Colette pay a hefty sum to avoid revelation of uncomfortable (and maybe illegal) details of the shakedown factory called Malibu Media.

  17. Guys, you gotta see this:

    1. Porn is copyrightable.
    2. Malibu Media has reliable evidence, people do pirate stuff off the internet (and they do it at an alarming rate), and bittorrent cases can absolutely be proven in a court of law.
    3. “But… an IP address is not a person!” has never been a good argument in court, and it never will be.

    Etc., etc. Includes links to trial audio.

    • Whoever wrote that article is very handsome and manly. Probably a great trial lawyer too.

      Also, those were the court’s findings. It’s towards the end of the second audio file.

      • Whoever wrote this article often forgets that beside the game of thrones benches, there is a ruined life out there. $500K is more than 3 times an average american family lifetime savings.

        No matter how not likable people are the defendants, those who insist that punishment fits the crime, or hide behind the convenience of the “life is cruel” argument, have no heart.

        • C’mon…

          Doe 16 denied the infringement, so he was court ordered to turn over his hard drive to the plaintiff.

          Two days after getting hit with discovery requests he wiped his hard drive and renamed it “squeaky” (clean). Then he turned over an unreadable hard drive to Malibu. Then he turned over another hard drive that had evidence planted on it, in order to try and defraud the court and a jury that it was legit. Then Judge Baylson asked him to come in and explain what happened, and he lied right to the judge’s face. In person.

          Then the Judge Baylson appointed an expert for the court, who concurred with the Malibu’s expert that evidence had been planted in an attempt to cover up a wiped hard drive. It took a few months to uncover the concealment and planted evidence.

          That is really, really, really bad. Judge Baylson called it inexcusable.

          Doe 16 is lucky that he isn’t in jail. $500k is generous.

          • Maybe, but… 100+K was awarded to starving pornographers not because of perjury.

            Lipscomb’s behavior was not much better (do you dispute Smith’s allegations? especially “extended surveillance” v. changed IP address). L. deliberately unmasked Doe 6th identity: not once but twice. Etc., etc. But one has the ability to weasel out (“great litigator”), and high court/low court situation is quite obvious here (I hope you read my latest post too).

        • When someone bashed in my parked vehicle’s windshield and 4 of my house’s windows – the cops wanted to know the total estimate for the damages. The prosecutors wanted to know only what insurance didn’t cover. $100k for 5ea $5-10 vids because you supposedly uploaded them to 100-1000 people.. and then going after the rest of those 100-1000 people to get $2,500-7,500?
          >I< can't get more than I lost, yet they can collect thousands of times what was lost from EVERY ip# on their list? (Oh wait.. those that DL aren't 100% losses, as they're not likely to buy the item.)

      • Mr. Rushie, I’d at least like to hear your honest/frank response on whether or not MM and Lipscomb are serious about stopping copyright infringement. I don’t believe for one minute they put the effort in to stopping infringement as they do capitalizing on it. That is where part of my disgust lies with this lawyer and his client.

        Frankly, this trial was a sham. It was not judged by a jury of the defendant’s peers. Did the defendants have the resources to put up an adequate defense? Obviously they were guilty but letting one man make decisions without knowing his credentials seems ridiculous. Was the judge qualified to weigh in on the technical aspects of a case like this? Plaintiffs had an army of “evidence” and “witnesses” some of who are scumbags.

        Furthermore, Lipscomb raises himself on a pedestal as a lone voice in the night to wipe out copyright infringement. In reality he is a liar who has forged a defendant’s signature. He’s an extortionist who if he was really serious about copyright infringement would actually take people to court and not settle. He’s a weasel who gets evidence thrown out when it doesn’t suit him and put back in when it does. What a hypocrite. Why would you settle for a few thousand when you have just pointed out he could get six figures from these guilty people. Because he cares about the money only, not what he claims to be fighting for. This man and his clients are soulless, pure and simple.

        Copyright my @$$. It’s about money. And I hope they choke on it.

        • My personal view? I think Colette testified very truthfully on the stand. I think Malibu wants to be compensated a reasonable amount of money from people who stole their works. And I think they get angry when people steal from them, because they are paying taxes, actresses, camera people, staff, etc. That would piss me off, if I invested all this money into creating content only to have people steal and share it over the internet because they can.

          And yeah, they could probably take everyone to trial and get a huge verdict like they did Doe #16. It would cost everyone a lot of time, money, and effort to do that, and it would probably leave the Doe completely financially crippled. But no one wants to do that.

          In the grand scheme of things, I am of the opinion that copyright holders want some compensation because they have been wronged, in addition to sending the message that piracy is wrong. There is no denying that piracy is a huge problem – Judge Baylson addressed that at trial, and said copyright laws are a cornerstone of a free society.

          There is an easy way to avoid problems – don’t pirate stuff. Buy your content online. It’s there for the purchase at your fingertips.

          If you didn’t pirate the material, fight it like hell in court. (or better yet, have your own lawyer convince the plaintiff’s lawyer that you are not the pirate).

          • Colette is not the brightest fruit: I have no doubt that she believes in what her much more clever husband and lawyers want her to believe in. Adam Curry said that Brigham acknowledged that what he had been doing was morally wrong and even said that he would stop. But greed is a powerful force. And what about 90% cut Lipscomb gets? Fantalis came close to this an other damning revelations and was bought.

            Or better yet, have your own lawyer convince the plaintiff’s lawyer that you are not the pirate.


        • I don’t pirate stuff. But as you so eloquently pointed out I must have evidence that I didn’t do it. To do that I have to turn over my hard drives, let them question my spouse, sit through depositions and answer questions that have no right answer (e.g., “Do you still beat your wife?”). This costs money, lots of it. Since they have had such success extorting people they have deep pockets. I have enough to cover monthly expenses and maybe take a vacation once a year.

          Even supposing they realize I’m not guilty they’ll just dismiss the case so I can’t recoup costs spent. And . . . they . . . don’t . . . care. If they really had a soul they would either accept piracy as a cost of doing business (just like every other business accepts losses/theft as a part of doing business) or VOLUNTARILY pay all discovery and attorney expenses once they realized someone didn’t do it.

          The system isn’t geared towards a defendant getting justice. It’s designed to shake people down for hush money. God forbid you get wrongly accused and are able to settle. What stops it from happening again? How much can someone endure. The system is broken.

          • >>>>
            VOLUNTARILY pay all discovery and attorney expenses once they realized someone didn’t do it.

            Very well said. Mr Rushie, would you be so kind to defend those of us who are innocent on a contingency? Heck, I'll even forgo any awards when we win against MM. You spend all the time and money, win the case and I won't ask even a dime from you.

            Yeah. I thought so too.

            Problem is if the innocent wants to fights, it is costly. A few lawyers I talked to said right off the bat, retainer of about $4-5k. That's just for the preliminary stuff. If it goes beyond quash, answer exculpatory, then it is extra at roughly $200-$250 an hour. Expects around $40k and then plaintiff may dismiss the case. So I'm out $40k which I don't have and no way to recover.

            My options, was told to settle for less than that. Win win for everyone literally. Far cheaper for innocent to settle as well as guilty.

            Unless of course Rushie would represent me for free.

        • And yet another thing. You HONESTLY believe that the films they infringed upon warrant 1000 years worth of subscription fees to Malibu Media? Ten CENTURIES of fees?! Seriously?! Purgery, fine the $300K still seems excessive, but for just the infringement damages ten generations worth of fees?! Utter nonsense.

        • Mr. Rushie,

          You didn’t answer the most important part of my question. Do you think MM is serious about stopping copyright infringement? You say they want to be compensated a reasonable amount of money from people that steal their works. So you’re saying they should only sue people that are downloading their films to try and extort a settlement, not take steps to try and stop the infringement.

          Are they sending DMCA notices? Are they using IPP to find “seeder zero”? Are they going after the one person (someone posted above) that is uploading their films. No? They are just shaking people down? Weird. I’ll ask it again and I (and others) would like a simple yes or no (although you are under no obligation to answer of course).

          Do you feel Lipscomb or MM are serious about wanting to stop copyright infringement?

        • Mr. Rushie,

          If you believe that this is about copyright holders that want / deserve compensation because they have been wronged, and want to send the message that piracy is wrong .. why is it that torrent litigation (if you can call it that when thousands of suits against hundreds of thousands of people and the only one that’s ever been litigated other than harvesting default judgements against people too unsophisticated to respond was when a judge ordered them to do it) nationwide is only practiced by a literal handful of tiny firms representing eastern european pornographers and indie film companies that nobody ever heard of? Why doesn’t this desire to correct a wrong and protect their content seem to exist with legitimate media or traditional IP focused law firms?

          I agree with you Colette is pissed about people watching her content without paying for it. I agree with you that she has every right to be. Is suing 100 people a month when that content is on tube sites being viewed 100 times an hour a rational means to that end?

  18. “The evidence to catch infringers is reliable, too. At trial, two witnesses from IPP Limited testified about how their software works. Their testimony was corroborated by an expert witness, Patrick Paige. Paige legally downloaded a movie which was assigned a hash value. He then put it in a bittorrent swarm, which IPP Limited was able to trace back to his.”

    The Author of the blog did not care to elaborate on how “IPP Limited” actually got the hash value that they were able to track to the Doe’s in question? Someone legally purchased the content, IPP Limited had the caoorect hash value to track, any guesses on who uploaded the material? lol There are hundreds of torrent files for each video/movie out there, someone game them the correct hash to track.

    I wonder on what Liscomb would actually be able get out of the Doe #16? 500k is a lot of $$$, even if they put a lien on the house and garnish wages, he would be luckly to recover his fees.

    • >>>>
      I wonder on what Liscomb would actually be able get out of the Doe #16? 500k is a lot of $$$, even if they put a lien on the house and garnish wages, he would be luckly to recover his fees.

      No lien on the house since PA is a state that follow joint tenancy in entirety. Only way a lien can be place is if only JD16 name is on title and not the wife. Though this may not be entirely true since some states recognizes equal rights to property. For sure JD16 is off talking to a bankruptcy lawyer now.

      I'm not a lawyer and have no experience in this. But have researched in bankruptcy due to real estate properties going south. At least in my home state, this is how it works.

      Garnishing wages though is most likely going to happen. Willful, malicious, causes harm/damages etc if up to bankruptcy court. It is not automatically granted that he cannot discharge this judgement in bankruptcy court. Will depend on the judge.

      Good luck JD16.

  19. Sure you are “serious” about stopping infringement. That’s why the SAME person uploads film after film for Xart every damn day on every torrent site there is. Pirate bay = 1click. Same user on KAT. Seriously, do five minutes worth of research and anyone can find this information. If you were serious about stopping infringement, then target the source. Bottom line, until you stop the one pirate, I will never believe you are in this for the “good fight”. This is entrapment, plain and simple. Don’t feed me your legal mumbo-jumbo, as long as free content is available to download, some poor fool is gonna go after it. And you, and your lawyers, are COUNTING ON IT. You’re lawyers are better than Steele, ill hand you that, but the game is the same. Every game has to end someday and your day is coming with a fury.

    • They are either uploading the files themselves, ala John Steel, or have the same tracking LLC doing the deed for them. If Collete would be serious of people stealing her work, how about encrypt a file with specific ID, when that file is found on the torrent they know exactly what copy got leaked. Moreover, removing the so called art movies from bunch of free tube sites would also add to their credibility.

    • I’m surprised nobody in the suits has brought up the fact that X-Art uploads almost all of it’s content to YouPorn where there is a big fat “download” button right there.

      They have abandoned their copyright.

  20. Willful copyright infringement can’t be discharged in bankruptcy apparently. Which almost makes defaulting the best option for a poor doe in a MM case who is not innocent. At least in a default judgment willfulness is not proven and then the judgment could be discharged.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s