Guardaley | X-Art

Copyright troll Lipscomb thinks that if you have a penis, you must be guilty!

It is always sad to observe default judgments against copyright trolls’ targets. There were troublingly many such orders recently. While some are the result of a faulty or outright fraudulent service, the majority of the defaults are due to defendants’ ostrich philosophy. Alas, avoiding trolls’ harassment by burying one’s head in the sand can result in much more severe harassment by professional collection agencies. In addition, these judgments embolden trolls, i.e. create an illusion that their assault on people is legitimate. Also, these “wins,” even uncollectable, have historically been serving as instruments of coercion.

One of such default judgments was ordered by a Pennsylvania judge J. Curtis Joyner in Malibu Media v. Brian Flanagan (PAED 13-cv-05890, troll Christopher Fiore) on 7/1/2014. The memorandum is a long and sad read, but for the purpose of this post I want to concentrate on a single disturbing detail (emphasis is mine):

In response to a third party subpoena, the internet service provider disclosed the Defendant’s wife as the owner ofthe IP address that was allegedly downloading Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies. (Amended Complaint at ¶ 26 (Doc. No. 11)).However, Plaintiff brought suit against the Defendant, not his wife, alleging that the Defendant’s wife likely did not engage in the infringing downloads. (Id. at ¶ 28). Plaintiff suspected that since Defendant resides with his wife and had the means to use the BitTorrent in the house where the infringement emanated, he was “most likely” the person to engage in the infringement. ( ¶¶ 26-27, 40). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that a majority of its’ [sic] subscribers are males, and the Defendant’s online activities, hobbies, and interest implicate he was the infringer, and not his wife (Id. at ¶¶ 28-40).

Implying that being a male somehow proves the guilt is bad enough, but there is more. Doesn’t Colette Field, X-Art/Malibu Media co-owner, state in her endless declarations that

6. Brigham and I both felt that there was a lack of adult content that was beautiful and acceptable for women and couples. We wanted to create this type of content to satisfy what we hoped was an unfulfilled demand.

7. Our goal was to create erotica that is artistic and beautiful.

8. We chose the name ‘X-Art’ to reflect our artistic aspirations, and began investing all of our available money and resources into the production of content — particularly erotic movies with high production value and a cinematic quality.

I’m sure that neither Lipscomb nor Colette is capable of lying. Therefore, I’m confused.


wordpress counter


9 responses to ‘Copyright troll Lipscomb thinks that if you have a penis, you must be guilty!

  1. Funny how these disingenuous fucks are constantly suing single female ISP account holders insisting they are unequivocally the infringer and then, when the shakedown fails, rope in the boyfriend/husband. Seen it dozens of times.

  2. I do not understand why someone who elects not to defend his or herself, does not negotiate a settlement. However if they were demanding $3,000 per infringement. The default judgment is less. It is curious that over half of the infringements occurred either the same day or with a few days of publication. It is difficult not to believe a honeypot is created within hours of publication. And this must be intentional because there are means to secure these video clips.

    Had Malibu Media sent a DMCA notice on the first infringement, likely 19 infringements would not have occurred over almost a year.

    It does not seem justice has been served. $30,000 for what isn’t worth even $10.

    If Brian doesn’t have a college education, it is highly probable that he can no longer afford an education. Insatiable lost for money, destroys another family.

  3. If he was in fact served, then there is no excuse to not file at least a minimal response. Thanks to the internet community there are templates available to use.

  4. Perhaps some Does go into shock when confronted with a $3 million lawsuit and don’t have the money to hire an attorney. They may figure it is easier and cheaper to leave the country. This copyright of poorly made porn and bad movies is undermining the authority of the court.

    It is not cleaver that the German spies and misfit lawyers pursue this, rather that they lack ethics.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s