Guardaley | X-Art
Copyright trolls Lipscomb/Malibu Media follow Prenda’s lead – don’t pay court-imposed fines
It is ironic that copyright troll M. Keith Lipscomb cries on every corner that his gang is not like Prenda, yet he consistently continues following the lead of the self-proclaimed “original copyright troll.”
In September 2013 I wrote about sanctions imposed upon Malibu and its counsel in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by Judge Conley. I did not cover a similar event in the Western District: I was busy at that time, and Judge Randa’s order was basically a reference to Conley’s ruling: even the fine was the same — $200 per case, $600 in total. That happened on 12/12/2013, almost half a year ago.
During approximately the same time frame, Prenda’s principals were sanctioned, did not pay and were found in contempt for not paying. Today I learned that Lipscomb is not eager to pay his dues either (apparently his definition of the term “cash flow” assumes only the single direction → to his wallet). And while I can understand poor Prenda stooges — quarter a million dollars is not a pocket change even for them — in Malibu’s case, not paying mere $600 is nothing more than the middle finger to the court.
P.S. Formally the sanctioned person was Lipscomb’s Illinois and Wisconsin counsel Mary K. Schulz. It seems that she fell out of favor recently: Paul Nicoletti appeared on many Illinois cases, and trolls are definitely done in Wisconsin. Lipscomb and Nicoletti continue using her ECF login (I bet they don’t even bother notifying her), but I have a feeling that she is finished as a part of the shakedown conspiracy. Imagine that our trolls decide to throw Mary under the bus (hello, Brett Gibbs!): if you look like Prenda, swim like Prenda…
Prenda (oops) Malibu media paid its fines on 5/5/2014.
41 responses to ‘Copyright trolls Lipscomb/Malibu Media follow Prenda’s lead – don’t pay court-imposed fines’
We can hear a gigantic sucking sound coming from the Colette & Brigham Fields’ $16 million Malibu home and X-Art porn production studio.
You people are truly beneath contempt. Just “oops” after posting a court document alleging unpaid fines? The only sucking sound coming from the Fields home is when both the back and the front doors are open causing a huge Pacific Ocean breeze. No one is being blackmailed by Malibu Media, but content is being stolen at a much slower pace now that thieves or would be thieves know that the nets are out for them.
You are brainwashed, kid. It’s good that you are curious. Read more, think harder, and maybe you’ll understand what’s really going on.
I am not brainwashed. I just think if you are going to make allegations, they should be accurate.
In example, there is no correlation between a performers stated age at the time they first did a shoot and the veracity of everything else stated by the same writer. Or blogger whichever you prefer. It is common practice to use the first age shot, as purveyors of porn don’t want the objects of their fantasies to age. This is not the same thing as the subscriber wanting underage models. After all what they may want and what is legal could be two very different things. In all areas of life it is more advantageous to look younger than your actual age, but I am certain that in porn it is quite the opposite, both for the performer and the subscriber!
Also I am pretty sure I know what is going on. Just as sure as I am that the guy with PTSD who was the topic of and the alleged victim of a shake down had his own agenda in joining the group condemnation of copyright trolls. Not once did I read a line where he denied downloading illegal porn. Only that he was gravely harmed and had thoughts of suicide.
I am a realist. Every action has an equal opposite reaction. In this case stolen porn and bit torrents are on the sharp decline, coincidence? I think not.
What you and I think about content is irrelevant because it is legal. Stealing copyrighted material is not.
As far as the purely bottom feeding shakedown artists are concerned you are right, they are despicable. I just don’t happen to believe this is the case in a production company that has said enough! We are going to do everything in our power to stop illegal downloads. Cast a wide enough net (no pun intended) and you have some dolphins to set free but the majority of what you keep is what you intended to catch in the first place. No one wants to see innocent people suffer.
As Ernest Hemingway said; “All things truly wicked started from innocence”.
Is BT copyright infringment of porn declining? I don’t torrent, but I’m sure if you search for porn torrents you will find a huge amount to choose from to include Malibu Media/X-Art. I would love to read any reports that BT infringement (any type of content) is on the decline, as well as why. I have serious doubts that any noted decline is due to the actions of the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)/Lipscomb/Collette/Brigham.
I laugh at the claim that “We are going to do everything in our power to stop illegal downloads. Cast a wide enough net (no pun intended) and you have some dolphins to set free but the majority of what you keep is what you intended to catch in the first place. No one wants to see innocent people suffer.” Sound fair and just, but the actions of Plaintiff through their attorneys tells a bit different story. There are “dolphins” that have not been released and they are only offered a “walk-away” deal (pay your own attorney fees) AFTER they have run up a large attorney bill.
As far as the “wide net,” it is really “selective spear-fishing” based off of research of who has the funds and likelihood of paying a settlement. There is no concerted effort to try and stop BT copyright infringement. Malibu Media/X-Art still does not send DMCA take-down notices to the ISPs of the offending IP addresses. Why? Because it is likely to affect their cases – reduce the number of them and thus the number of settlements. Hell, Malibu media hasn’t even filed a case in CA (its home turf!) since late 2012 (CA Central District) & early 2013 (CA Southern District). So I guess the fine people of CA do not pirate Malibu Media/X-art?…. More likely that the CA courts are skeptical of the claims of the Trolls and will be asking some very hard questions. There are also some very good attorneys in CA who would take them to task on their claims. Much easier to simply avoid answering the questions by filing cases in a small selection of friendly US jurisdictions. Lipscomb talked very big in the PA Bellwether trial and touted they were not afraid of the light, as well as that Malibu Media/X-Art is not a Copyright Troll. Well talk is cheap.
Just because Malibu Media/X-Art makes it content does not mean it does not wear the mantle of BT Copyright Troll. Brigham/Collette may have started out simply trying to trying to stop the infringement of their content. I understand that. As it has been some time since they signed on with Lipscomb and company, they have had ample opportunity to see what is going on and reassess their actions. If they are smart enough not to film porn in their residence, they are certainly smart enough to see that what Lipscomb and company are doing. The law suits have nothing to do with stopping or reducing piracy and everything to do with profit. Brigham/Collette may not see a majority of the Troll profits, but they are still a “Key player” and thus earn their title fairly.
The business model of BT Copyright Infringement Monetization was not started to reduce, stop, or even vaguely affect individual (non-profit) copyright infringement. It never started from innocence. It was design to generate funds for the people/organizations in the background, as well as the attorneys who run these cases. The cases are run as cheaply as possible and settlements are for the most part cheaper than fighting back with an attorney. If they don’t like the title then I hope they do something to change it. Just because they are a victim of copyright infringement, that does not clear them of any responsibility for what the Troll Attorneys and background companies do in “Their” name. Yes, this is my opinion.
Oh and by the way, the attorney who told that disabled person that his SS and SSI could not be levied against or attached per Social Security regulations, gave him gravely flawed advice. Once the money has been deposited into a bank it is no longer relevant WHERE it came from, it is considered an asset and as such can be seized. Perhaps you should pass that message on. Attorneys are schmucks, every single one of them and some of them grow up to be Judges!
Risking to be ridiculed by such a renown legal expert, I want to humbly note that SSDI disbursements cannot be “levied or attached” per Social Security Regulations. Specifically, Section 207 of the Social Security Act which reads, in part:
So, I dare to say, no: once the money is in the “bank” it is not suddenly considered an asset that can be seized.
If you are still confused by yet another imperfect law (I’m hinting at a certain bad, hence unnecessary to follow, Ventura County regulation), feel free to drop me a note: I’ll reply with the contact info of the attorney who provided the advice: I’m sure he will be thrilled to learn the law basics from a famous legal scholar.
Maybe now, but not in 2013 https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2014/02/07/x-artmalibu-media-sues-alleged-file-sharers-over-illegally-produced-videos/
While copyright infringement is a civil matter, Fields broke the CRIMINAL law, and each instance carries max 6 months in jail. How many instances exactly? You know better: you were there.
No I was not there. However I do know what a lethal outcome can come of a cat and mouse game. The photo of all of the film equipment was not in the personal residence. To my knowledge there have never been any condoms used and yet no criminal complaint has materialized. Who would be the percipient witness to such a criminal offence? This is totally irrelevant because Colette and Brig are far too savvy to be brought down by doing such a foolish thing. A private residence is just that, private. Why would such wealthy people want their privacy constantly invaded for a home operated business that is not necessary? The filming is done elsewhere.
Honestly if you believe everything you read on a porn site you are quite naive.
Steven Hirsch, Vivid’s founder and co-chief executive officer, said in an interview: “We will fight for our right to express ourselves as we please.” This is a perfect example of see no evil, speak no evil, etc. By the time the issue has been litigated to fruition both LA and Ventura will have advocates clammering to repeal the ordinance as the short sighted proponents failed to take into account the mass exodus of a high tax paying base.
Elsewhere? Savvy? Oh really? Are you willing to undergo a polygraph exam? 🙂
Or are you insisting that you have no idea about this room’s location?
The argument of yours is essentially Bob Dylan’s in Jersey everything is legal as long as you don’t get caught.
You are not an attorney, but one phone call to the bank will prove I am correct. Once a benefit has been deposited into a bank account Social Security is no longer the authority. A person with a court ordered judgement can walk into that person’s bank and seize all moneys up to the judgment amount. It is no longer safe. It is, for better or worse a liquid asset. If you don’t like that, blame the system don’t tell me I am wrong. I know whereof I speak. To be sure the judgment holder must know when the money will be there and who the person banks with. But that is a simple matter if one knows what they are doing when preparing to collect on a judgment.
So you “don’t have time” to address the fact that you were caught deliberately lying (that Fields didn’t shot at their mansion), yet you continue to argue on a tangential issue using the heavy weaponry of an argument “you are not an attorney.” Good.
Credibility’s a bitch.
All sarcasm aside, you are still wrong. Once it’s in the bank, it is an asset. Insulting me, or in this case trying to, does not alter that fact. This applies to bank accounts, not debit card only accounts or any account without a bank account attached to it. I don’t know how I can make it any plainer. In the bank as in Chase Manhattan, asset. The Social Security no longer issues paper checks so direct deposit is mandatory. Have it deposited into Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citibank in YOUR name, it is subject to seizure with a Judgment in hand by any court.
You think I care about your contempt, that’s so cute.
As to the person threatened with his SSI being taken away, did you have someone read the story to you or did you choke on the big words all by yourself?
Because if you read and comprehend, you would understand he was threatened by those copyright trolls who have been called liars by multiple Federal Judges.
You know they guys who were their own clients, stole someones identity and were actually uploading and making the files available so they could collect the cash.
Or did you gloss over that when you pulled your holier than thou law degree from the cracker jack box?
You are technically correct, Malibu Media is not blackmailing anyone… however through their attorneys they are getting a whole bunch of money from people who would rather pay them than to suffer that legal team assassinating their character publicly. You might want to read some recent filings with the courts where those upstanding lawyers played hide the ball with the results clearing the accused and then in violation of the courts instructions found OTHER evidence and tried to use it to leverage a settlement from someone who was INNOCENT of what they found when they violated the courts instructions.
Or do you think it is fair to threaten to talk to the neighbors about scandalous porn titles, as leverage to get paid.
Perhaps the content is being “stolen” at a slower pace because it is boring, or perhaps their campagin of terror against people is creating a negative image of these law breaking pornographers.
So other than showing everyone you are completely detached from reality, was there a purpose to your visit here? Hoping by pushing your FB page you might get more hits? Or were you hoping to get something that sounded like a threat on the record for your bosses so they could try to silence people?
Run along little girl, let the grown ups talk.
I’m sorry daddy didn’t love you, here’s a dollar start dancing.
Leave it to trash to talk down to someone they cannot otherwise best. You are not worth my breath or words. Maybe later.
This is not in any way showing up on Facebook and they don’t count hits. You must be thinking of the online porn you watch. I don’t have the time today but do not underestimate my intelligence or insult me again. You criticize X-Art’s content and suggest that is the reason that theft is on the decline? It is very amusing to read such ignorant reasoning. It is down because it has better coding and a state of the art security system. A few really good computer geeks can put hackers to shame, or in words you can understand, make the dogs run away howling in pain. One thing about me is I never, ever speculate.
By the way you just showed which dog you have in this race when you said my Daddy didn’t love me so I should start dancing. For a dollar. Very bad form to show your hand. I would feel sorry for a porn actor before I would feel sorry for MR PTSD. Don’t sneak into the movies and don’t steal porn. Neither one was produced for free.
Now you say X-Arts piracy is down to better coding?… Please explain. I’m still don’t think piracy of their content is down in any of the countries OR US jurisdictions they do not file cases in. What about the the people that use VPNs? Are you saying they encode each movie with an ID to to find out who purchased it? Are they going after the seeders of the movies? That would be a novel idea. Still, your friends know how low the Troll attorneys are and they do nothing. That makes them complicit and equally as low. My words are in no way justifying piracy. But the fact that it happens does not protect your friends from the scorn they have rightfully earned. They voluntarily got in bed with the Trolls, so wear the mantle.
You linked to your FB account you disingenuous brain dead idiot, hence trying to tie your amazing career to a page with much more traffic improving your SEO rating. Derp.
I will insult you all I want to, because you are a sanctimonious ignorant woman pretending you are smart.
Shall we discuss your booking photo instead?
Feel sorry for a porn actor before someone who was extorted for a crime they didn’t commit? Seriously what color is the sky in your world?
I notice you like to ignore the magical way the content keep getting placed online often within moments of its release (or prior to). Can you explain that?
Can you explain how they keep getting “hacked” every SINGLE TIME a new release happens?
Either they are lying or do not know what that word means. You might also want to look up the word speculate because you don’t know the meaning of that one either.
You might want to find a grownup to reread my post to you and help you actually understand what I said, rather than opening your mouth and removing any doubt that you can’t comprehend anything the adults are talking about.
Oh please please accuse me of taking their content, then explain why you are claiming the gay guy is the one stealing the ‘teen’ porn.
You might want to do some research on the people you pick fights with, because you’d know I give 2 shits about porn, I hate bullies. I hate people who lie on the stand. I hate people who lie to the courts and are involved in a really large scam to get paid for putting their own content online. You understand there is more evidence of their lawyers breaking the law than they use to file these lawsuits right?
Go look at the actual evidence, then explain how their busted for drug possession ‘expert’ can be trusted when he refuses to abide by the courts rulings. Explain how the lawyers they use are being sanctioned for conduct that is meant to get payments from people they can’t prove anything against, but need to leverage other fanciful claims to embarrass them into paying.
Or you can keep popping up here and making yourself look like the brain dead porn star without any actual facts to back up her wild claims.
And I’m pretty sure daddy didn’t love you, because if he did he would have made you get an education and stop believing in fairytales.
You are ignorant, and refuse to consider ALL of the evidence that exists. You should really stop talking now.
There is something so nice to read TAC going off on an idiot.
I knew about the mugshot and charges before my first post, but didn’t mention it… I was being polite.
We might have noticed, I decided to stop being polite.
Anyone know if there are online court records?
ProTip: Know your enemy. 5 minutes of research can teach you all sorts of things that might be useful. This would also explain the conspicuous lack of troll apologists taking me on, I’ve faced worse than you and still haven’t blinked.
Nice mug shot Apparently your not too smart. Theft is wrong but I would guess you already found that out by getting caught.
Lol! Go figure. Sweet pic girl.
I wonder WHO else is on this site???
Well considering theft is a an issue Franziska seems to be versed in, I see why this is so near and dear to her. I wonder when she is going to model those wrist braclets for Colette’s site
Keith has redecorated his office:
LOL Now that’s funny!
I can only assume they do this for trying to preserve their image, This is pocket change for any competent lawyer- I’m guessing they just cut Schulz off to whither and die. Maybe she’ll turn on the gang? (One can hope)
I wonder if we are seeing a Prenda Deja-Vu moment. Could it be that Lipscomb doesn’t believe he is at fault in regard to the fine imposed by the court and that it is Schulz who is to blame and should have to pay.
We all remember how Steele and Hansmeier were trying to get Gibbs to take the fall and pay any sanctions and fines with that ridiculous draft they were trying to get Gibbs to sign so they could avoid any responsibility, which of course Gibbs refused to do.
Now of course Lipscomb isn’t trying to follow the Prenda gang in that respect but I would bet that Lipscomb doesn’t believe he should have to dig into his pocket to pay this and the onus is on Schulz to pony the cash to the court.
Schulz as we all know isn’t willing to concede any wrong doing in her mind, so I don’t see her ponying up the cash for this especially if she is now on the outside looking in with regards to the trolling lawsuit endeavors.
I believe Lipscomb will pay this so he doesn’t end up with Schulz turning into the enemy much like Gibbs turned on the Prenda gang, and we all know how that turned out for Team Prenda.
It will be interesting to see how Schulz takes being on the outside looking in if in fact Lipscomb has shut her out of the troll litigation. If Schulz were to feel scorned she could be a threat to Lipscomb’s troll operation if she ever decided to turn the tables and start to defend victims of the troll lawsuits.
Schulz would make a powerful enemy, much like Gibbs did with Prenda and the subsequent fallout that happened During the case before Judge Wright which effectively did a lot of damage to Prenda’s trolling operation.
Schulz could do the same kind of damage to Lipscomb since she would have been an insider , I would think Lipscomb would be a little concerned and would seek to not “poke the bear” if you will.
An interesting scenario at the least, and for all we know that may be something Lipscomb would be afraid of.
I would like to point out that the sanction was not against the attorney’s but was against Malibu Media. If they don’t pay we may have some coming up against the lawyers, but as of now there are none.
I know, I read it in the Judges order, but while it is issued to Malibu I would suspect that it would be paid by one of the lawyers thru their accounts on behalf of their client.
So that where my thought comes in as to will pony up the dough, I don’t see Schulz doing it, as she does no wrong, even when calling a Judge an Asshole. Lipsocmb I believe will pay to keep from getting Malibu dragged in front of this Judge and further risking Malibu to further financial penalties and any further inquiries in regard to the litigation and his client.
I really hope that it doesn’t get paid and they have to go in front of this Judge and grovel to avoid further sanctions, time will tell
Classy move posting a mug shot from a site that does exactly what you are accusing Malibu Media of doing. Extortion. For $450.00 the private owners of that mugshot site will “remove” the mugshot. I don’t really think a minor offense in one’s youth is going to ruin anyone’s reputation. The case was not prosecuted and it was a petty offense alleged. Alleged. The case was dropped and I don’t suppose you would consider that it was because there was no guilt? What hypocrites you are! It is the EXACT same thing, extortion. I choose not to pay because the ALLEGATION was as far as it went. You know innocent until, in this case prosecuted. You know nothing of the details. I do know why you choose to remain anonymous. You are a despicable troll. And just how does one go about “pretending” to be intelligent? You either are or you are not. It is the lowest insult you can flip my way! Pretending to be intelligent. Now that is funny.
I’m actually with you on this issue: mugshot sites are despicable and I hope they will be legislated out of existence.
People have the right to know if a criminal is in their area.
People need to think before commiting a crime.
The Internet will tell everyone of your crimes.
I would somewhat agree if:
– only convicted, not merely charged/accused, people were posted.
– these sites did not charge for removal.
I will agree with, only the guilty should be posted.
As SJD allude to The Cash Expressway is a one way street.
Dang! I was hoping this wouldn’t get paid so they would have to grovel a little, guess know one from the Troll Department why the fines hadn’t been paid. I so look forward to the day when they have pay Prenda like costs…c’mon, even I have to have a dream
New troll for Malibu: Yousef Faroniya in Ohio Southern.
Franziska Fischer, you are partially correct. If you have your money direct deposited in a bank account and leave the assets in the bank account, assets that exceed two months Social Security direct deposit can be seized. Assets equal to two months worth of Social Security direct deposit are protected from seizure.
Dear Franziska, how are you doing? I’m sorry this message came two years late but glancing at your posts now I do have to wonder: where are you living now with your mommy and daddy now that your home studio of dubious legality is in the shitter? Did mommy simply not have the money to afford a fine after purchasing all that housing and alcohol?
And pray tell, how intelligent do you feel?