While it is fine to discuss issues in the blog post comment sections, some threads became too long and unmanageable, so I encourage you to discuss various issues in one of the child pages listed below.
Please leave your feedback on the site organization in the comments below, I’ll be happy to create new topic pages or rearrange the entire site to make it easier and more efficient.
36 responses to ‘Discussions’
Steve – look at the forms on syfert.com. you need to sign the motion with your contact information and phone number if you are filing pro se. you can request the judge to keep your personal information under seal so that your information is not revealed.
Stone’s most recent filing:
Is for a movie called “IP MAN 2”. He does not include the list of IPs yet.
He claims infringement from April 4, 2011 to July 10, 2011.
Slightly off topic (not really): Wait, they made another Ip Man movie? I (legally) own the first one. And here I thought most of the lawsuits only involved degenerate adult movies no one had heard of or cared about. :S
Ip Man 2 is on Netflix. Not as good as Ip Man 1
[sjd – restored from spam]
hi to all at fightcopyrighttrolls.com i thought i had sent this newyears eve but it didnt send so i have sent it again all things good for the new year to every one
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-15226-AC-LJM
K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-18
Assigned to: District Judge Avern Cohn
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 11/29/2011
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
K-Beech, Inc. represented by John S. Hone
The Hone Law Firm
28411 Northwestern Highway
Southfield, MI 48034
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Does 1-18
Date Filed # Docket Text
11/29/2011 1 COMPLAINT filed by K-Beech, Inc. against John Does 1-18 with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Fee Required – Fee Not Paid. County of 1st Plaintiff: Los Angeles County, CA – County Where Action Arose: Oakland – County of 1st Defendant: Oakland. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Rule 7.1 Disclosure, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit A- Def IP addresses, # 4 Exhibit B- Application for copyright registration, # 5 Exhibit C- BitTorrent Vocabularly, # 6 Exhibit D- Screenshot of swarm activity) (Hone, John) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/29/2011 2 MOTION for Leave to File Serve 3rd Party Subpoenas by K-Beech, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Declaration of Tobias Fieser, # 2 Exhibit Decl of TF- Ex A) (Hone, John) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/29/2011 3 Notice of Filing Fee Not Paid (KKra) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/29/2011 A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (KKra) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/30/2011 4 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
12/01/2011 FILING FEE Received in the amount of $350.00 by K-Beech, Inc. – Receipt No. DET037609 [No Image Associated with this docket entry] (KByr) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
ANY ADVICE ON THIS ONE?
K-Beech is suing for the alleged infringement of the DVD “Gang Bang Virgins”. I t looks like the alleged infringement occurred prior to the plaintiff obtaining a copyright registration certificate which it obtained on 10-24-11. If Michigan is a state that requires such a certificate in accordance with 17 USC Section 412 before a plaintiff can recover statutory damages and attorney fees per 17 UCS Section 504(c), then plaintiff is reduced (if it can prove its case) to an award of actual damages which might just be the cost of the DVD ($19.99) divided by the number of defendants. Also, there has been an allegation made that “Gang Bang Virgins” is either identical to or is strikingly similar to a DVD entitled “Grand Slam” which was produced and copyrighted by Combat Zone in 2006. If this is true, then the plaintiff and its attorney are perpetrating a fraud on the Copyright Office and the federal judicial system. Furthermore, Michigan’s Public Act 285 of 1965, as amended, requires that a state private investigation license be applied for and issued to anyone who conducts computer forensics for the purpose of gaining evidence to be used in a court of law. I do not believe that plaintiff’s computer forensics private investigator, Tobias Fieser of Germany, is so licensed by the State of Michigan. If you want to become further informed check out this site thoroughly and this one http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/
The forgoing does not constitute legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.
Do I smell a inexperienced (scared) troll who is trying to troubleshoot his shitty lawsuit? Sniff, sniff.
Me troll? Nope just one of 18 people slammed with a subpoena. I have contacted a lawyer and discussed my options. I will be fighting this as well. Thanks for the advice, the lawyer thing was the only option I saw viable. I will update as this proceeds.
Sorry about the suspicion but the trolls are known to lurk this site for info and to sow misinformation. Best of luck to you and I hope that you and I come out of this wiser and having kicked a certain troll’s b#lls into his brain cavity (God knows there will be enough room).
Also provide this to your lawyer, as a template, in case you get sued individually (VERY doubtful) http://ia700806.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.azd.635399/gov.uscourts.azd.635399.12.0.pdf
SJD-now I think I have an inkling of the satisfaction you must get from maintaining this site and weaponizing the Does. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
That was a lot of reading, and to be honest I couldnt make sense of some of it. I will keep the template just in case. I hope we can squash this and be done personally. Seems the squash success is only around 40% from my reading. Im also guessing Michigan is a new area since I dont see any other cases running on the troll boards atm. Educating the judges of this trend might be what this case does here.
Even If its just 40% success, it brings to the Judges attention whats really going on and the more people do it the better the news gets out. Some judges are new to the Trolls ideas,
This lets them know what and in what chambers this stuff is going on and how many other Judges are seeing threw the trolls BULLSHIT.
Some laughs can be found here http://ia700707.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.casd.363443/gov.uscourts.casd.363443.29.1.pdf in which a defense attorney “…hereby submits the following Memorandum in Support of its concurrently filed Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Strike the Complaint filed against it by Patrick Collins, Inc. (hereinafter “Gangbangers”), a California corporation” and then repeatedly refers to Patrick ?Collins, Inc. as Gangbangers. This motion is interesting for two reasons. The first is that this is the first time I have seen a defendant move to dismiss a troll complaint on the ground that it fails to adequately plead a claim upon which relief can be granted (i.e the complaint does not plead ownership of a valid copyright!?). The second reason is that this motion touches on an issue that is near and dear to my heart and again to quote defense counsel:
… the Complaint confusingly only states that Plaintiff is the owner of the “…Registration for the Work which contains an original work of authorship.” (Court Doc.#11, para 47). The Registration certificate itself cannot contain anything, so it is unclear whether Plaintiff is actually claiming that Gangbangers itself is an original work of authorship as required, or whether it is making an end run around the requirements of the Copyright law to actually prove that the Work itself is an original work, and also importantly if there has been actual copying of constituent elements of the work itself that are original. That the subject matter may not be original is a serious concern particularly since “Gangbang” movies are apparently a type of generically named, non-original pornography that has been around long before the “Work” in question—so there is real doubt that any particular element of the Work is original. Without risking an infestation of malware on its computer by actually clicking on any particular website, the Court could take judicial notice that a simple Google search of “Gangbang movie” reveals a plethora of website entries boasting identically or similarly themed movies and websites.
Clever argument but I am not sure whether it will carry the day. Now whether the content as opposed to the subject matter is original; that is an issue for the future.
Hired our Lawyer and ready to fight. Nothing to really update atm. and I will not until this is done. Once its over however, I’ll post all the details!
Excellent! Best of luck and give them hell.
Not sure if Doe 11 in my case reads this, if so also file a motion to sever. GL if your reading.
Doe1of18, you may wish to give a copy of this to your attorney as it is recent (3-8-11) and well researched IMHO http://ia601200.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.paed.454219/gov.uscourts.paed.454219.6.1.pdf
how can i find the name of the movie that k beech is suing for?
Get a PACER account and look it up with Firefox with the RECAP plugin.
thanx. also havin trouble finding a qualified laywer for less than 5g. outragous qoute if you ask me.
Depends what you need the lawyer for. For shielding a Doe from calls or negotiating with the trolls, that fee is very high. For taking a case to trial, the fee is low. If the fee is a retainer, the remaining cash may be returned after the hourly rate is deducted, depending on the arrangement.
It’s very possible for preliminary things that you can use an out of state lawyer. That gives more choices, including lawyers who have experience with copyright trolls. See the posts about how rarely things get to a trial stage, mainly for default judgements.
Some lawyers around the country might give a free first discussion.
know of any lawyers in MI in this field?
The EFF site lists two in your area https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense
Lalchandani Simon are preparing to file Motions to Quash to protect to the identities of “Doe Defendants” sued in a new Patrick Collins v. Does 1-112, Case No. 12-32595 CA 21 filed in 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County. Internet users have begun to receive letters from their ISP’s, most recently from Florida Cable .
I’m happy that you let everyone know about your defense actions, I wish every other Doe Defender would do the same. One caveat though: virtually no one sees this page (or subscribed to it). The maximum effect (coverage) would be achieved if you post either on the Miami-Dade page when applicable or plaintiff conglomerate pages; In this case it is Lipscomb. Or Florida page (this page is followed by many people, and is mostly about federal cases).
People usually subscribe to comments only to the pages that they are interested in, and won’t notice anything posted elsewhere.
Who is the real Daniel Weber?
Seems there this confusion in how his name is spelled
Click to access gov.uscourts.flmd.274150.40.2.pdf
In the Declaration of Daniel Webber. He is said to have signed with Two B’s
But every where I look I see his name with one one
Even his own twitter account it just one B
Explain why they would be different?
even his own posts have only one B
Daniel Weber @DanielWeber99
Exhausted right now, In LA, Flying to NYC sun, and back to India on Thursday. Over 250k miles flown this year…
I just got a letter dated Feb 21 with a copyright settlement that expired Jan 25 from DunlapWeaver, PLLC anyone else get this?
bQizpIixsLqB [url=http://www.lmsroadracing.se/tmp/canadagoose.html]Canada Goose Jacka[/url] hAokfZlksNxH [url=http://www.puvab.se/includes/moncler/]Moncler Sverige[/url] aXcohQstaGgE [url=http://www.redcrossug.org/includes/domit/true-religion-outlet.html]Cheap True Religion Jeans[/url] gHdheFzkdByC [url=http://www.psaconsulting.com.au/media/oakley-sunglasses/]Cheap Oakley Sunglasses[/url] sQxwlBumlSuY [url=http://www.fitnessvacature.nl/includes/domit/canada_goose_jassen.html]Canada Goose[/url] mOyytJqaeTnX [url=http://www.rckkenya.org/includes/belstaff/]Belstaff uk[/url] wDfohLgoaWzO [url=http://www.easyriderskattuk.nl/joomla/logs/link.php]Louis Vuitton Amsterdam[/url] vJkzrIpluMdP [url=http://www.home4now.ca/components/moncler.html]Moncler Jackets[/url] xQyqmEflaBnZ [url=http://www.reiki-land.de/includes/domit/louis-vuitton-taschen.html]Louis Vuitton Taschen[/url] rDjezPgwxPgT [url=http://www.blueseasoft.de/libraries/belstaff/]Belstaff Outlet[/url]
wNlltTraaAqR [url=http://www.metaalrecyclingvanakelijen.nl/plugins/editors/uggs_outlet.html]UGGs[/url] dVeymZesyAtC [url=http://www.andreagaler.co.uk/dev/cache/exception.html]Louis Vuitton Bags[/url] hWwtpOqfqRyH [url=http://www.aisnet.org/endnote/styles/hollister-store.html]Hollister Store[/url] uZxjsMbzdFiI [url=http://www.castor-suedblockade.de/doc/ugg_boots.html]uggs[/url] uMgnvKiqwSjJ [url=http://www.halshotel.dk/modules/jakke-canada-goose.html]Jakke Canada Goose[/url] oBdzrZxnxYxH [url=http://www.topfloorcarpets.co.uk/cache/ptiterecre.html]Tiffany And Co Uk[/url] fCgaeLqxcQuE [url=http://www.easyriderskattuk.nl/libraries/joomla/goedkope_uggs.html]Goedkope Uggs[/url] kNfqxIcsiYwO [url=http://www.olympicpoet.com/cheapairmax.php]Cheap Air Max[/url] uAimqVjzcTrL [url=http://www.reiki-land.de/logs/ugg-sale.html]Ugg Sale[/url] oZwwhHbxdBaI [url=http://www.trynorway.no/cache/ugg/]UGG Oslo[/url]
No idea if this was already brought up, but typing “fightcopyrightrolls.com” does not redirect you to your site; it redirects to the Trichordist.
Obviously, David Lowery has a keen interest in making sure pornographers and their lawyers are allowed to sue grandmothers.
Hi, I am a new victim of Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe. Different from the traditional multi-John Doe case, I am the only John Doe with single IP address. The plaintiff accuse me of illegally downloading their porns (18 porns totally) which I never did. I consult a lawyer to see if I can file a motion to stop my ISP leaking my personal information. The lawyer said since I am the only John Doe, it will not work. Even it works the plaintiff can still refile the case. So what can I do not? I do not want to pay the settlement with a thing I never did! Please help!
Unfortunately, Malibu is not CEG-TEK, and it is not possible to simply ignore this issue. Motions to quash may or may not work (most likely they won’t), but is is not the end of the world: it does not mean your identity will be publicized.
As in any case, you have two options: to proceed pro se or hire a lawyer. While the former is possible, it requires a lot of learning, and in the end of the day is less efficient and more expensive than hiring an attorney. Again, it is highly dependent on the troll: in some cases one can file a boilerplate MTQ/Answer, and the issue will go away. Alas, not the case with Malibu.
I strongly advise to consult a lawyer that specializes in this cases. If I’m correct about your state, pay attention to the announcement on the state page (Discussions/Discussions by state). I don’t want to downplay other lawyers’ expertises, but it is a big mistake to hire one that never heard about these cases before. One can be a jet pilot, but operating an excavator is a different skill.
To conclude on a brighter note, these cases can be fought and won, it just takes time and effort. Think about it as of any other unexpected disaster that has entered your life.
best hermes birkin replica uk Discussions | Fight Copyright Trolls
Comments are closed.