Guardaley | X-Art

Judge prescribes some legwork to troll Paul Nicoletti

This is not some dramatic news, but I wanted to write about it anyway: Christmas Eve demands a light and cheerful mood, so I want to share a recent order in Malibu Media LLC v. Farler (INND 13-cv-00071) that made me chuckle.

Lipscomb / Nicoletti / Malibu Media / X-Art trolls continue to game the judicial system boldly, pretending that thousands of their extortion lawsuits are about justice, recouping of damages, and deterring piracy. Reindeershit. It’s all about squeezing money from low and middle class, while purported victims — pornographers — are making obscene amounts of money by filming yesterday’s children having sex.

These lawsuits were never meant to see the courtroom: even a fourth grader, who has just started mastering math, can easily prove that if trolls were serious about litigation, Lipscomb and his local puppets would need to clone themselves dozens of times to handle the load and not to run afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct:

A lawyer’s workload must be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently.

Some judges see the root of the problem. While they cannot rule against the law, no matter how unfair that law is, they have a lot of leverage to call out trolls’ scummy strategies. Like this: Indiana Magistrate Christopher A. Nuechterlein used some harsh words to deny Paul Nicoletti’s motion to appear telephonically at the January 17 hearing in South Bend, Indiana:

The court is aware that Plaintiff’s counsel is from out of state, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, but the court also assumes that Plaintiff’s counsel is and was aware when this action was filed that this court sits in South Bend, Indiana. As a consequence, Plaintiff’s counsel must also have been aware that there may be occasions when counsel must personally appear in South Bend. This is one such occasion.

We need more orders like this, let the trolls run like rats in the wheel to our amusement.


Merry Christmas everyone!


wordpress counter


4 responses to ‘Judge prescribes some legwork to troll Paul Nicoletti

  1. Merry Christmas and thank you for the work you do here and same to DieTrollDie. You are the Davids of David V Goliath in this epic battle of what is obviously broken and corupted copyright legal system.

    It is truly amzaing that US Federal Judges cannot or are unwilling to see a difference between intellectual property such as cancer research and some porn producer such as Colette and Brigham Fields of Malibu Media/X-Art taking phots oand/or video of young gilrs genitals.

    Very likely Lipscomb will never let a Maliu Media/X-Art case go to trial because it is probably them or one of their agents seeding this stuff or the internet and perhaps Brigham first made the porn availale as advertisement and promotion. It is truley sad that any Judge would award more than a dollar for trash as opposed to their multi-thousand dollar awards for 3 to 6 minutes of stuff that damages and corrupts minors. We can only hope that some States Attorney General or Federal prosecutor will take a look at the operation. The German Court found no intellctual content and possiby harmful to minors.

    The day will come when it is discovered that the vast majority of Does were innocent and settled just to not have to deal with threats from evil people, and unjust damage to family and reputation (an ip address is not a person). A really good lawyer is needed to bring this to an end with a class action lawsuit.

    • It is truly amzaing that US Federal Judges cannot or are unwilling to see a difference between intellectual property such as cancer research and some porn producer such as Colette and Brigham Fields of Malibu Media/X-Art taking phots oand/or video of young gilrs genitals.

      That’s pretty inaccurate since cancer research tends to use patents rather than copyright for erecting fences, so of course there is a difference in applicable and applied law and case law.

      Now assuming that we were talking about the same actual involved laws, judges don’t have the freedom to see differences beyond those resulting in different laws being applied.

      If pornography is considered a legit business, its output is covered by copyright just like the output of other media productions. There is a certain threshold regarding the amount of creativity involved, but that barrier is rarely truly given a litmus test, regardless of whether we are talking about smut or not.

      Whether a certain business is inappropriate is usually decided using community standards, and the extortions make use of there being double standards regarding pornography: many want some, nobody wants to admit it.

      But that’s nothing you can blame pornographers (or rather, smut producers as “pornography” in the legal sense is prohibited) for. They are entitled to play in the same market according to the same rules as other people do.

      The extortion schemes are only vaguely linked to pornography as such. As an example, the smut video portal Redtube is actively fighting in Germany against injunctions and threat letters and malware that an extortion group fabricated in order to cash in from Redtube users.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s