Please discuss Florida federal cases here. The issues related to Florida state/county courts (Pure Bill Of Discovery loophole), please visit this thread.
Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Cynthia Conlin (Orlando FL)
- Graham Syfert(Jacksonville FL)
- Lalchandani Simon (Miami FL)
- Jeffrey Antonelli (Chicago IL)
- Bradford Patrick (Tampa FL)
- Francisco Ferreiro (Miami Beach FL)
- William R. Wohlsifer (Tallahassee FL)
- Michael Savage (Punta Gorda FL
- Mark Santi (Minneapolis MN)
- Yet another lawfirm sues its former client Malibu Media (1/9/2020)
- Malpractice insurer alleges that Lipscomb lied on the application, sues to rescind the coverage (8/13/2016)
- Malibu Media (X-Art) sues its former counsel Keith Lipscomb and his firm for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty (6/28/2016)
- Righting the wrongs: Malibu Media defendants appeal bad rulings (6/17/2016)
- Malibu Media fails to find a new counsel, judge dismisses the case (5/23/2016)
- Blaming X-Art’s owners, Lipscomb wants to withdraw from Malibu Media representation in three cases (4/18/2016)
- Copyright trolls hit a new low: Keith Lipscomb wants to depose defendant’s teenage daughter in a porn case (2/21/2016)
- Malibu Media expert’s report deserves some scrutiny (11/1/2015)
- Defendant’s expert witness report suggests that Malibu Media’s investigators doctored evidence (10/25/2015)
- Bloody paralegals! (10/12/2015)
- After prevailing-party fees were denied, Malibu Media defendant petitions the Supreme Court (10/8/2015)
- Verizon is fed up with Lipscomb’s increasing arrogance (10/5/2015)
- How Lipscomb & Co take advantage of unrepresented defendants (8/30/2015)
- Florida man teaches the troll a lesson in persistence (7/28/2015)
- Florida Judge: infringement of 47 XArt’s “works“ warrants only $6,000 in damages (5/12/2015)
- Malibu Media v. Roldan: the battle continues (3/26/2015)
- Despite an overwhelming proof of innocence, Malibu’s lawyers continue dragging the defendant through a frivolous lawsuit (2/16/2015)
- Good Man Productions, Inc.: a zombie troll plaintiff (2/8/2015)
- Friday was not a merry day for Keith Lipscomb (1/25/2015)
- Keith Lipscomb shakes down a family in extreme hardship (1/23/2015)
- Copyright troll Mike Meier sends a frivolous DMCA takedown notice to my registrar (8/25/2014)
- The first appeal is filed in a Malibu Media case (8/13/2014)
- Week of 7/6/2014: news and updates from the Bittorent litigation front (7/13/2014)
- Judicial jujitsu: why not to use Florida’s Pure Bill of Discovery against the troll? (6/16/2014)
- Déjà vu all over again: Pure Bill of Discovery is still being abused in Florida (6/10/2014)
- Florida Judge dismisses a Malibu case because Lipscomb failed to establish a connection between an IP address and person (3/22/2014)
- Florida magistrate recommends to sanction Keith Lipscomb (2/23/2014)
- Florida judge to Lipscomb: No good cause to allow early discovery (2/14/2014)
- Two quotes (7/17/2013)
- Copyright troll Keith Lipscomb “acknowledges” his mistake… by continuing to twist arms of an undeniably wrongly accused (7/2/2013)
- Copyright troll Lipscomb makes up facts, forges signature and gets away with it (6/9/2013)
- Sunlust v. Nguyen: from comedy to absurdist play (5/3/2013)
- Graham Syfert withdraws his call for sanctions against Gibbs and Wasinger; Gibbs claims that Steele and Hansmeier have been driving litigation in Florida (4/12/2013)
- Copyright trolls Prenda Law, Paul Duffy, and John Steele commence three lawsuits v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and our community (3/4/2013)
- Attorney, who has been bastardizing the litigation process for years, gets offended by the word “bastardize” (2/5/2013)
- Graham Syfert reiterates his demand for sanctions, accuses John Steele of fraud (1/3/2013)
- Where are you going, Mark? Why now? (1/1/2013)
- Does “under penalty of perjury” mean anything? Apparently not for Prenda and one of its plaintiffs (12/30/2012)
- “White collar criminal defenders” attempt to defend Prenda’s scam artists. Surfacing of a new evidence of others’ identity misappropriation by Prenda (12/21/2012)
- A quick update on dismissed Sunlust Pictures v. Nguyen case (12/18/2012)
- Copyright troll M. Keith Lipscomb loses on home turf, traditionally troll-friendly Tampa court (12/7/2012)
- Expected development in a courtroom comedy: attorney Graham Syfert moves for sanctions (12/5/2012)
- A hearing transcript or a comedy screenplay? A must-read for those who think about settling (11/30/2012)
- The first individual lawsuit filed by a copyright troll Lipscomb results in a dual blooper (10/16/2012)
- Two judges dismiss troll’s single Doe lawsuits due to sleazy litigation tactic (9/3/2012)
- Two simple questions for troll M. Keith Lipscomb (7/26/2012)
- Prenda’s “Letter of request for informal discovery”: an attorney explains why it is patently invalid (7/24/2012)
- Prenda’s continuous disregard of ethics leads to a motion for sanctions (7/23/2012)
- New low of Prenda Law: trolls indiscriminately and inappropriately send out “Letter of request for informal discovery” (7/18/2012)
- Prenda Law starts using robocalls to intimidate its targets. Will IARDC continue keeping its head in the sand? (6/17/2012)
- Who and where is Prenda Law? What happened to John Steele? (5/25/2012)
- New copyright troll tactic: Trademark infringement (4/22/2012)
- Attorney’s opinion: Lightspeed’s claim is a farce (4/16/2012)
- Prenda’s lawyer files a motion for sanctions; response in opposition delivers an elegant blow to the troll (3/25/2012)
- Copyright trolls have been abusing Florida’s ancient “Pure Bill of Discovery” for too long. Enough is enough – says judge (update: …and than takes his words back). (3/20/2012)
- Copyright Enforcement Group distances itself from Terik Hashmi (2/23/2012)
- Mark Lutz harassment calls remix (2/19/2012)
- No more IO Group v. People cases – the last one is over (1/17/2012)
230 responses to ‘Florida’
In Boy Racer v. Doe (FLND 12-cv-21099) Troll “Fuckabilly” Perea bring a lawsuit against a single Doe who files a motion to quash/issue a protective order. Judge reluctantly allows the discovery BUT royally hamstrings the troll by having the ISP deliver the info to the Judge under seal, prohibits the discovery of phone number, email address or MAC address and the Doe info is to be used “only for the purpose of litigating the instant case” (no settlement letters, Troll!). A decent 12 page read. http://ia600806.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396864/gov.uscourts.flsd.396864.14.0.pdf
(3) “Intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.
Tomorrow Troll Lipscomb needs to submit papers explaining why he is not a scumbag. Good luck with that! http://ia701208.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653.25.0.pdf
That order was based on doe 11 filing a motion for a protective order, at which time the judge/court realized there were other related cases.
Then Lipscomb on June 26th. dismisses said john doe, with prejudice, claiming the defendant has settled the matter with plaintiff.
How does this not make the judge scratch his head?
OMG! SJD and DTD heads are going to explode when they read the bald faced lies and half truths here http://ia701208.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653.28.0.pdf
Can anyone advice what is the biggest case Lipscomb currently handles and/or handled recently? Worth exposing the lies.
I was part of one that had more than 1000 IP addresses from the middle of last year. I can email you the info if you’d like.
I’m writing a quick post about Lipscomb’s lies. If it was a federal case, I would appreciate the info. If it was a Miami-Dade fishing, I don’t want to touch it at this moment.
The heads of SJD and DTD are going to re explode as this explanation as to why Lipscomb dismisses Does without prejudice is yet another example of lying to the Judge’s face. It also gives some insight into Troll strategy once you cut away the half truths. An example”
“Following the receipt of the Doe Defendants’ identities from their respective ISPs,
Plaintiffs seek to ascertain from the Doe Defendants whether they have any exculpatory
evidence, and also seek to ascertain what their intentions are with regard to the parties’ dispute.
This process takes time – often several months. To explain, while many Doe Defendants simply
call undersigned and say mea culpa, you caught me, and settle for a reasonable amount — many Doe Defendants do not, and in these situations Plaintiff engages in a substantial amount of informal discovery with these Doe Defendants” http://ia701208.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653.36.0.pdf
Of course we all know this “informal discovery” as “ruthless harassment without court supervision”
Docket is here http://ia601208.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653/gov.uscourts.flmd.269653.docket.htm
I’m not sure how they can define a reasonable amount as 175 times the amount of a DVD ($3500/$20). It boggles the mind how they are twisting copyright law that was clearly aimed at someone profiting off of another party’s works. There is no profit here in 99% of these situations. No one is selling these downloads and a just because someone downloads a file doesn’t equal a lost sale. Not everyone who downloads would have purchased the product.
Judge Toomy orders Troll Lipscomb to explain the extortion racket, again http://ia601201.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269665/gov.uscourts.flmd.269665.24.0.pdf
Looks like the Weretroll has moved to some un-used turf in Florida. You will love the names of one of these.
Question: Is it incest if it is your daughters bff?
Mike Meier I assume? That entire group is like a clown car for trolls… They change their name from CEG International to CEG TEK International.
Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG), the largest provider of anti-piracy services worldwide, today announced its new company name, CEG TEK International.
As the company has grown, CEG has continually strived to develop a substantial technology foundation, strengthen its reach into Business Intelligence, Trademark and Brand protection, and expand services to satisfy a diverse portfolio of clients. The new name, CEG TEK International, more accurately reflects the company’s market position, a commitment to advancements of current and future products, and exciting future expansion.
CEG TEK International has built an advanced, proprietary system – SATellite (Scan,Authenticate, Track) – which provides the flexibility to offer customized solutions for the specific needs of all content and rights owners of audio, video, image, text, logos, trademarks, brands, video games and software.
Here is the full press release – With a lot of doublespeak
Anyone know what would happen if I let the date pass and my info is released to the troll lawyers? Do i just get harassed by letters and phone calls like a collections agency? I have 2 of those calling me and I never answer.
What do they expect to get from me? I can’t afford a lawyer or to settle with them for $2-4K. They can get in line like everyone else. What if I file bankruptcy after they get my info, will it be wiped away like the other debt I have?
This whole thing is absurd and there’s no way they’re gonna get any $$$ from me, mainly because I don’t have much lol
Has anyone found a good Motion to Sever/Dismiss/Quash that was used in Florida state courts (e.g. 11th Circuit of Miami-Dade County)? I found one, but it referenced Federal rules of procedure, which aren’t applicable in state court. Almost all of the motions reference Federal rules and other federal cases – is Fla state court a new turf for the trolls?
Wondering if you found any good examples for Florida State courts as I am also looking for the same thing.
DIGITAL SIN INC v. DOE
Filed: July 17, 2012 as 3:2012cv00349
That just popped up on Justia not too long ago. Anyone know whats the deal with the single Doe?
It’s 8 “does”
Looks like Justia and Pacer cropped the number.
Anyone know if they case has been uploaded anywhere yet? Other than PACER that is.
Wow the judge singed off on the discovery the same date as the case was filed. You would think given the sheer volume of troll suits clogging the Florida courts that he would at least be informed enough about the trolls and their questionable legal tactics to at least think before just rubber stamping the trolls request for discovery.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I wish I could find the case files for this one (3)12-cv-00349-RS-CJK) uploaded somewhere with the complaint and all since I’m curious about something. The trend of smaller amounts of Does in cases is continuing as well as the Trolls try to geolocate the people to proper jurisdiction to make the case seem more “legit”.
You can find most of the copyright troll cases here:
Most of them are eventually posted to the case list, some sooner then others.
The most recent one by Digital Sin, Inc filed was in same district on 626/2012 for the film My Little Panties #2.
Digital Sin, Inc. v. John Does 1-16
Click to access Digital-Sin-Inc-v-Does-1-16-No-12-cv-0136-(NDFL).pdf
The dates of alleged infringment range from February through May.
My Little Panties #2 its one the main tiles found in the Digital Sin cases, it is higly likely that the case filed on July 17 is about the same film.
On a side note, I have noticed that the recent infringement claim suits filed by the trolls of the Copyright Law Group have been leaving out the pornographic tiles of the works in the complaints, only listing the copyright registration number instead. I wonder what the reason for this could be?
The trolls have been using that particular title (My Little Panties #2) for their extortion for a long time.. I want to say since the last year or whatever? I’d imagine they don’t use the actual movie title to come off as being more “serious”? I don’t know.
All people targeted by Lipscomb, Eisenberg, and Baker:
These guys are fairly new on the scene. These “attorneys” seem to be playing more by the rules, and are attempting to appear more legit. They aren’t the scumbag people at Prenda, and they aren’t taking the scummy, desperate actions Prenda appears to be. They’re coming after “siterip” cases, which contain several copyrighted videos in one singular torrent file after smaller numbers of Does in their best attempts at proper venue through IP geolocation.
In the end, however, they still have the same business model of serving up scary and personally-defaming litigation to coerce settlements against many people.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Lipscomb is WORSE than Steele. He is one of the masterminds of the ongoing racket. The website is bogus. They refer to the “news” events that don’t exist.
I’ll talk about this piece of shit, who has the audacity to call himself a lawyer, later today in a post about the events in Colorado (not the sad events in the theater, but good events in the court). For the starters, look at the emails that this “fairly new” paragon of virtue wrote to a defense lawyer: 1 & 2.
Somebody must have stole his lunch money as a kid.
I am part of the 27 Terik Hashmi cases that were consolidated and dismissed without prejudice earlier this year. My question is how will I be notified if the cases are refiled? Will I get something in writing from the courts or another notice from my ISP? What are the chances of the cases not being refiled?
An interesting development in Mike Meier’s trolling in FLND.
Upon review of the papers filed in the cases listed herein, the court has sua sponte
determined that these cases present common questions of law and fact such that they
should be assigned to one district judge.1 Accordingly, the following cases shall be
reassigned to Judge Robert Hinkle:
Eighteen cases have been reassigned to Judge Hinkle.The very same judge that slapped Hashmi to the curb, and dismissed Meier’s other cases.
The order should be up on recap soon
I just noticed this as well. Maybe Rob can give us his thoughts? I think it looks bad for the Weretroll. Didn’t this happen to Meier already in the NDFL. Maybe he should try a friendlier court in NY or DC? Hehehehe
Troll master and puppeteer Lipscomb filed a new mass doe case in the Florida Middle District Court on July 26.
In Patrick Collins v. Does 1-8 (FLND 12-cv-155) Judge Jones denies Troll Meier expedited discovery because the troll needs a refresher course in geography. http://ia600509.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.flnd.66676/gov.uscourts.flnd.66676.5.0.pdf
What about the fact that he’s not on the Bar in Florida? Does that count for anything? Isn’t that what got Buffy in trouble down there? It would be fitting to have Whore Troll Meier go the way of his friend Terek.
Troll LIpscomb harasses a nonagenarian http://ia600804.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.400181/gov.uscourts.flsd.400181.10.0.pdf
Troll Lipscomb names a defendant (I think this is the first one for him), a case to keep an eye on http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/florida-southern-district-court/101069/malibu-media-llc-v-leo-pelizzo/summary/ Unusual last name so I wonder if he is a distant relative of Snooki or this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Polizzi
Still just sitting on it.
Was browsing trolll cases in fl, this one is still open. Troll is still trying a shakedown?
Florida seems to have more trolls than sunburns these days. A new troll, George Banas, http://www.banaslaw.com/georgeBanas.html has filed 2 lawsuits on behalf of a Prenda client, Ingenuity13 LLC:
Is Troll Perea on the outs?
Good Evening! I was wondering if someone could guide me in the right direction regarding these troll extortion practices. I received a letter from Comcast regarding an alleged copyright infringement I supposedly committed. “Aerosoft GMBH vs John Does 1-50, I’ve been doing a lot of research regarding almost identical cases, except that this case is new in nature as it comes from a video game company rather then porn…I’m confused as to what I should do?! Should I file a MTQ? I consulted with a couple lawyers, but most seem oblivious to these types of cases and charge from $2000 and higher just to write an MTQ. I guess my question in plain words is, should I write my own MTQ from templates found here? Should I pay a lawyer? I just don’t know what to do. FYI theres not much info on Dorta & Ortega <- the plaintiff's lawyer, except that they were also involved in a case which was dismissed earlier in the year "World Digital Rights vs Does 1-80" Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. Apparently the band itself and manager where not aware of the suits being filed in their name. Any advice is greatly appreciated, Thanks!
Looks like Troll Lipscomb may have too many balls in the air or that Judge Moore is not fond of troll lawsuits, you decide. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/florida-southern-district-court/96013/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-7/summary/
Fuckabilly Troll Perea has a slippery Doe on his hands http://ia600805.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396865/gov.uscourts.flsd.396865.13.0.pdf
EDNY’s M.J. Gary Brown’s mighty ORR https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/05/02/new-york-judge-blasts-trolls-practices-recommends-banning-mass-bittorent-lawsuits-in-the-district/ shows up in Tampa causing Lipscomb to drop his bag of frosted doughnuts (with sprinkles) http://ia600309.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.272979/gov.uscourts.flmd.272979.4.0.pdf
First M.J. Whittmore then M.J. Wilson, is a pattern starting to emerge and do judges discuss the plague of copyright trolling? http://ia600501.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.272949/gov.uscourts.flmd.272949.10.0.pdf
Interesting to say the least, check out part 7 of the Relief http://ia600404.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.272988/gov.uscourts.flmd.272988.7.0.pdf
New way to kill a troll lawsuit: sever and then set an impossible deadline to discover and serve Doe 1 http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/florida-southern-district-court/96013/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-7/summary/ Bravo Judge Lynch!
In Malibu Media v. Does 1-22 (FLMD 12-cv-340, 575 and I believe all pending 24 Malibu Media lawsuits) Doe Defender, Cynthia Conlin, has filed a motion to :
“transfer case no. 3:12-cv-00575-MHM-TEM and all other related pending cases filed by Plaintiff, MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, in this judicial district to the judge assigned to Malibu Media, LLC. V. Does 1-13, 2:12-cv-00177-JES-SPC, which is the first-filed among the related cases; and respectfully asks this Honorable Court to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant”
Nice motion! http://ia600302.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269589/gov.uscourts.flmd.269589.22.0.pdf
Docket is here http://ia600302.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.269589/gov.uscourts.flmd.269589.docket.html
Keep an eye on this one!
In Malibu Media v. Does 1-8 (FLMD 12-cv-1822) Judge Whittemore allows expedited discovery but with major Doe safeguards including no access to email addresses or phone numbers and ISP Doe info is to be delivered to court under seal.http://ia600204.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.274618/gov.uscourts.flmd.274618.5.0.pdf If we are lucky Lipscomb will pull a Kotzker.
In Malibu Media v. Does 1-14 (FLND 12-cv-337) allows TRoll Lipscomb discovery of names and addresses but, noting Evan Stone, warns:
“The plaintiff and its attorney should take note: the
information obtained from the subpoenas may be used only to prosecute this
copyright-infringement action in good faith. The track record of other plaintiffs
and attorneys in similar cases is not good. See, e.g., Mick Haig Productions E.K. v.
Does 1 – 670, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 2849378 (5th Cir. July 12, 2012).”
Click to access gov.uscourts.flnd.66675.7.0.pdf
It also appears that Judge Hinkle is starting to round up these lawsuits.
I like this order much better than the previous one you linked. While it’s nice that Judge Whittemore only partially granted the order, he still calls the prima facie evidence “Good cause,” when we all know the IP evidence they have amounts to “Because I said so.”
If you can come to a court with evidence that can be completely fabricated and collect the name, address, telephone number, and e-mail of any individual, what’s the point of even involving the courts? What’s the point of a subpoena when these cases are routinely rubber stamped? I can write down an IP address on a napkin and call it evidence, and it’s as good as what the trolls are bringing to judges and getting a subpoena out of it.
I really wish these kinds of rulings started coming out of Florida a couple weeks ago. Malibu Media got my information on the most dubious terms. Joinder was completely absurd, since no one in the suit even downloaded the same video (88 separate films and separate swarms); and jurisdiction was even more bogus, since no one even resided in the state of Florida.
In Malibu Media v. Does 1-18 (FLMD 12-cv-1419) Troll Lipscomb ask for clarification on an order permitting discovery with safeguards and Judge Wilson hands down an amended order on 8-20 which provides, in part ,that the Doe can provide exculpatory evidence to the troll as an objection which is then filed with the court, under sea, for the judge to consider?! Plus the subpoena notice has to notify the Doe that if Doe is misidentified Lipscomb could be on the hook for Rule 11 sanctions. http://ia600501.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.272949/gov.uscourts.flmd.272949.14.0.pdf
I’m not sure about this one; weird.
Docket is here http://ia600501.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.272949/gov.uscourts.flmd.272949.docket.html
Part of that motion bothers the crap out of me, it is the concept that the Doe needs to provide the name of who might have done it, or evidence clearing them.
How the hell does one prove a negative?
All it takes for a 3rd party to do wrong is to connect to a wifi signal.
You could open up your wifi for a visiting guest, but that does not mean your aware of what they did with the connection.
How can anyone prove it was “hacked”?
Does the court understand that people can believe they are secured, but the wrong setup can be hacked in under 5 minutes?
Why do the Does have to jump through a single hoop, when the Judge has not made the same demands on the accuser?
They filed the standard our supersecret tech is never wrong notice I am sure… why does the Judge not require the Trolls to pay for a 3rd party technical expert to vette the system as accurate and explain to the court all of the ways it fails to accurately find the infringer… only the person who pays a bill.
We end up on car analogies a lot but I’ve got a new one.
Your honor we saw a blue car with the logo of this rental car company on it fleeing the scene, we want you to order them to turn over the names of everyone who rented a blue car from them for this 3 month period. Then rather than investigate, we will just send letters to all of them saying we will tell the world we saw you driving away from the scene of the crime unless you pay us.
We will ignore the claims of people who point out the rental car was stolen and have proof of it, we will ignore that they can prove the car was parked out of state during the time we claim they did something bad, we will ignore anything other than people asking where to send the check. And if your honor finally gets pissed that we haven’t done anything, we’ll dismiss the case and just keep sending scary letters to the names we got threatening to sue them.
What does the judge consider to be exculpatory? A forensic exam of Doe’s personal computer without any porn on it? Forensic exams of ALL devices EVER connected to Doe’s wireless network showing the act wasn’t downloaded? Something in between? If someone used the WPS hack (reaver), it can take upwards of a week to brute force the wireless PIN based on the access point, no handshake required, but it will be broken and the router will be compromised even if your PIN is completely and utterly randomly generated. In layman’s terms, if you haven’t disabled WPS, you’re vulnerable. People need to disable WPS and use WPA2-PSK encryption with a fucked up ass PIN with alphanumeric upper/lowers and symbols.
This is literally guilty until proven innocent. Exculpatory, absolving of guilt, blah blah. So a DEFENDANT is supposed to absolve himself of guilt at his own cost or even feel so much pressure that he dumps it on someone else? That’s not the way our justice system works.
Forensic exam – costs more than settling.
There is no master list on most routers showing every device ever connected, and a vast majority of people wouldn’t know where to look if it did.
Pursuing this might end poorly, because if a Doe has an ISP issued/installed access point, they will just turn and sue the ISP for a failure to secure the connection they installed.
There are a couple brands that come the default settings that can be guessed from the SSID.
They make them easy for consumers, because you target the lowest common denominator. (I actually use more offensive phrasing in my daily life.) Nontech people need to be able to plug it in and make it go by just following the 1 page picture instructions with color coded wires laid out. Otherwise they are on the phone wasting company time and money.
I’m happy the Judge gave Does methods to avoid the letters, but the other requirements really show an ignorance of technology and make me sad.
Like you I have mixed feelings about this order for the reasons you spelled out plus any Doe who has exculpatory evidence/explanation should be allowed to file that with the judge under seal without relying on Lipscomb’s office to do it. I do like the threat of Rule 11 sanctions directed at the troll though.
Common sense would tell one that if someone manages to compromise your wireless router, they have FULL control over it including, but not limited to the activity and access logs. Common sense would also tell one that that “someone” who has compromised the router does not want to get caught, so he or she alters or deletes the logs. The judge is woefully unaware of this.
I broadcast my SSIDs (dual-band simultaneous) because I don’t care. I’ve got that thing locked down tight. Packet forwarding, MAC filtering, WPS disabled, and a PIN that would take years to brute force. I was just lazy last time and didn’t feel like dicking around with the settings, packet forwarding, filtering, white lists, black lists, etc. Now I’m vigilant but if someone REALLY wants in, they’ll get in…it’s just a matter of how dedicated they are. I’m not even sure if my router was compromised or it was some Guardaley shit with my IP being thrown out by the tracker to confuse monitoring companies (yeah that works out great for 30% of people), who knows. I just know that I’m innocent.
The best way to secure your router against amateurs is to use MAC filtering, not broadcasting your SSID, and using a PIN that’d take a century or more to crack. However, MAC addresses can be spoofed but I don’t expect some script kiddie to be able to do it. Running a program like reaver is easy as hell. “./reaver” then it does damn near everything. Back before there was stack overflow protection, I used to write exploits in C and ran Slackware (old school…really old school) among other things so I’m no script kiddie. The ironic thing is that most of these innocent people had their ISP set up their router, obviously by incompetent techs.
The judge did one thing right, and everything else wrong. He needs to allow an accredited expert to come in and ascertain the veracity of the evidence, which won’t be hard. Then, if he gives an adverse opinion, which he will, the judge should automatically slap Lipscomb with sanctions and dismiss the case. He shouldn’t be putting the burden of proof back on the defendant. It’s totally fucked.
So I’m one of the many unlucky Does part of one of the troll Lipscomb’s Malibu Media cases in Florida. When I received my letter from Comcast I was floored and had no idea what to do. I did some research and talked to a few lawyers, some recommending that I settle if there’s any chance that this happened through my router. I was concerned as I have a netbook that may have had utorrent on it a few years ago but that we simply use as a baby monitor display now. Also around the time this happened we unsecured our router for over a month because we could not get the right security setup up with the IP cam we were using. I had at least 20 family/friend guests over 3-4 months staying with us, and I dont even care if one of them did it. I’m not about to drag them into this. I’d rather fight it.
Needless to say, I decided to go with counsel that strongly recommended I DO NOT settle as they understand how these cases play out, and without full discovery of the plaintiff’s entire operation, it’d be difficult for them to move forward with a lawsuit. I’m uncomfortable rolling the dice and when they present settlement I’m still not sure I won’t try to figure out how to scrape up whatever I can to just end it.
Last thing I’d like to mention is that while I retained counsel to help comfort me, I spent an entire week without sleep. I feared the worst, thinking that they could take what little I have and that my family would suffer. My lawyer told me to relax, and that they would handle it from here on out. I should go on with my life and my lawyer would let me know when they contacted him.
I recently received a phone call from them, despite retaining counsel. They said they had no record of retaining counsel and that I should contact them as soon as possible. It upset me, my wife, and now I’m back to the no sleep thing. Is this ethical? Can anything be done about this? Can this help my situation? I want to file a complaint with the Florida Attorney General. Lipscomb should not be able to get away with this right?
Anyone else having this problem after retaining counsel? And why do they call from a California cell number?
It is absolutely unethical and you should let your lawyer know right away that they contacted you. He will know what to do. I would file a complaint with the attorney General as well, since the Arizona situation offers some nice evidence that they listen to these complaints.
Yes, this is avery good question for your attorney. Yes, others have gotten phone calls after retaining a lawyer. Your attorney will have a record of his notification to the trolls. Also, if you answered in person and told the trolls “Do not call again”, they also should have stopped.
The trolls call from out of state numbers because it is a nationwide racket, and each troll group has some troll serfs doing the calling. The troll gang shifts tasks to the cheapest worker. The courts should ask lawyers for the porn purveyors such as M. Keith Lipscomb about this, since information about phone harassment alone is revealing about the scam. How are the phone banks chosen, what are their financial incentives, who pays for them, why is there little attorney supervision, do the troll callers who threaten legal actions have any legal training, etc. This often has low visibility, probably because few areas have responsiveness and numerous or extreme complaints. The AZ government investigation and others may alert more states.
The complaint process is different depending on the state. You might consider complaining to the attorney general’s office under more than one category, like both under lawyer complaints and under telephone “do not call” telemarketing.
You could also contact the Florida Bar:
Hopefully, as the numbers add up, Doe defense attorneys may use the complaint statistics in filings involving these lawyer groups and plaintiffs.
do in FL,
Check this out https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/07/23/prendas-continuous-disregard-of-ethics-leads-to-a-motion-for-sanctions/ as it is a very similar situation as yours
Large mass Doe case filed in Florida today by West Coast Productions by copyright troll Weaver of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver PLLC.
On 8-6 in AF Holdings v. Does 1-31 (FLSD 12-cv-20922) Judge Ungaro pounds Troll Perea before ordering the severance of Does 2-31. She takes him to task for his sleazy third part subpoena practices, improper venue, evasiveness regarding geolocation accuracy and his joinder theory. It is a nice 22 page read http://ia600808.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396034/gov.uscourts.flsd.396034.32.0.pdf
Docket is here http://ia700808.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.396034/gov.uscourts.flsd.396034.docket.html
Perea argues: “…a single individual can be associated with multiple IP addresses. Due to the dynamic nature of consumer IP address assignments, an individual’s IP address can change frequently. Thus Plaintiff’s monitoring software, which identifies infringing activity by IP address, may identify multiple instances of infringing activity that are actually associated with a single
I haven’t actually seen that argued before. Normally they argue joinder is proper because the does were each involved in the same series of transactions. This is arguing joinder is proper because in fact, all the does could be the same person.
Seems very flimsy (and the judge calls him on it), but it’s interesting to see that argument nonetheless. Has anyone else seen that in other lawsuits?
Oh… I think I see. The “series of transactions” argument is for so-called permissive joinder, and that is the common argument we see (and is again argued in the complaint).
The “Does could be all the same person” line of argument is in support of so-called necessary joinder, which, again, I don’t think I’ve seen before.
The argument is a joke but I have seen Duffy and Gibbs tout it before.
Probably because it’s a stupid argument.
Steele has used this argument before. He had an IL case that went past the deadline for service and the judge issued an order to show cause. He dismissed the case claiming that *all* the IPs were the same person and he had settled the case. The list of transactions was over a period of like 2 days, so basically he was claiming an entire BitTorrent swarm was one guy with a dynamic IP address that changed tens of times over the course of a day or two, it just didn’t make sense. I mean, even if one guy was changing IPs fairly often, what are the chances the all the IPs in a single case would just happen to be that guy? And remember, it can’t be one guy hopping around on different hot spots or whatever, because the subpoenas go to the account holders no the infringers, so for all the subpoenas to end up coming back with the same subscriber, the same physical network would be getting a new address like every couple hours. Someone called Steele out on it and he personally showed up to respond, claim it was true, and that he was bummed because he only got one settlement out of the deal. More likely, he was called out correctly and somebody struck a nerve 😀
The thing about these claims is since the subpoena returns are never filed as court documents, and none of these cases are going to trial, the Trolls cannot point to any documented evidence of this happening, they just make their statements without providing any evidence, as always.
Maybe we should be asking for the licensing number for the gathering software and express in motions that it must not exist if they can not produce it. Futhermore accuse plaintive’s counsel of just writing the numbers down with a pencil incorrectly since no software exists. And challangeing the Geo-technology vs Dynamic IP address. Do what they are doing and make wild accusations with some facts thrown in to the mix. Either way good precedence.
I am being pursued by Malibu Media in case number 12-CZ-01421
They have called to suggest I get a lawyer to settle out of court. They asked me for my IP address, I refused to give it to them. They have told me that my IP address is being charged with distributing “adult content” and that it will become public information unless I settle out of court.
I told the bitch that I already have a DUI on my record, that I don’t care.
I am not going to pay for a lawyer, I don’t even have a fucking job. These motherfuckers won’t get a cent from me, not even from my cold dead hands.
Perea / Prenda Law dismiss Millennium TGA v. Does 1-60, 1:12-cv-20938-MGC in the Southern District of Florida rather than face rulings on Tamaroff Law’s Motion to Sever & Dismiss, Vacate, and Issue a Protective Order and Motion to Quash (filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:12-mc-412-RCL).
Oh noes! Spam filter sides with Prenda and filters out David’s comment!
On a serious note, great news, and thank you for the heads up!
Troll Lipscomb files his first individual lawsuit against a 61 year old married man who was working in Venezuela when the vast majority of the alleged infringement occurred. Additionally he lives in a 700 unit condominium complex where the ISP bill is billed to and paid by the condominium association and “his” IP address does not match the one set forth in the complaint. Accordingly his attorney just dropped a two megaton bomb of a motion to dismiss on the troll. http://ia600800.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.404544/gov.uscourts.flsd.404544.7.0.pdf Almost forgot to mention the case is before Judge Seitz 🙂 This is beyond great.
Docket is here http://ia600800.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.404544/gov.uscourts.flsd.404544.docket.html
What bad luck for lipscum? Only individual he sues for copyright infringement wasn’t even in the county during the alleged infringement. Waw waaa!
Rather than risk a powerful motion to quash by Doe 1 http://ia700802.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.51.0.pdf Troll Perea shuts down the lawsuit http://ia700802.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904/gov.uscourts.flsd.393904.docket.html I doubt Perea will ever be able to walk past a gum display without shuddering.
Today Judge Patricia Seitz severed Does 2-50 from Aerosoft v Does 1-50 case filed by copyright troll Omar Ortega.
Hat tip to Daniel Simon.
7 cases filed yesterday MDFL by Richard E. Fee of IP Enforcement Law Group on the behalf of Bait Productions Pty. Ltd. (an Australian company) for the motion picture ‘Bait’ which i assume is the 5 Sept. 2012 released version. They apparently spent 20 million and have only taken in 5.44 million. What better way to make up the difference then by trollin. Watch out for sharks in the frozen food isle!
I am one of those contacted by Fee. Cant afford an attorney, guess i’ll have to see if they carry on with this
I redacted your name. Please be careful: trolls are frequent lurkers here, and stating your real name is not in your interests. I don’t know anything about Fee (except that he is a bottom feeding scumbag), but the worst representatives of human race, such as Steele, take a special ill joy in going after people who inquire help here.
And since I’m already replying, yes, attorney is always preferable (and Florida is packed with excellent Doe defenders like no other state), if you cannot afford it, just live through harassment. If you choose to do just this, make sure not to talk to the scam artists.
MM filed a single doe suit: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/florida-middle-district-court/114447/malibu-media-llc-v-john-doe-1/summary/
Another mass doe Bait Prod. case in FLMD.
I’m beginning to think they made their crappy movies for the sole purpose of copyright trolling.
Jim, not only have you identified yourself, you identified your grandson as the infringer. Do you realize that you’ve set him up to be sued as well? Talk to a lawyer!
Thanks for the heads up: I left a message under that post, and later found that the post was removed. Best of luck to the guy.
I see Celestial, Inc. has been very busy in Florida the last couple of days. They have filed three suits for a total of 1072 does. Anyone have any info on any of these? From what I can see in Google they are a gay pornography studio. Anyone have a list of their titles (that sounds like a weird request . . . I know)? Are they CorbinFisher, SeanCody, etc.?
I got a call today, about MM 32591 case. Contrary to what’s usually described here, the woman just asked me if I had an attorney already (I said no – bad?), because I did not download any files, then she just advised me to get attorney ASAP and that was all.
Is this new tactic or what?
I got a call, also on the 26th and also for the 32591 case. The woman basically kept telling me she was “concerned” that my attorney had not contacted her yet and implied that I should have an attorney by now. I kept telling her that the case was absurd and not to contact me except through legal avenues. She finally backed down and said okay. The fact that she kept repeating one thing, did back down pretty quick, didn’t identify herself as a lawyer or as part of any firm (to me at least), and that the call came from another state (California 818 area code), makes it seem to me like she was just someone at a call center with a script. I can’t be sure of course. At any rate, it seems like it’s just a scare tactic – maybe one that is cheap or that throws people off who come to sites like this and expect normal tactics. My two cents.
And I can’t imagine any reason that we should HAVE to have a attorney at any point.
Anyway, thanks for posting this, I’ve been wondering the same thing.
I don’t know for sure of course, but my bet is that it’s the latest scare tactic designed to get you to call an attorney and see how much it would cost to defend one of these cases (should it go to court it’s expensive–of course they almost never go to court which somehow never gets mentioned). A LOT of calls come from the call center at 818. I believe our favorite (retired?) caller, one Mark Lutz, used to have his calls originate from those same call centers. Your answer was pretty much perfect though–I’ll get an attorney when I’m contacted through legal channels is a great response. Shows them you’re willing to fight should you need to, and that you know whoever you’re talking to doesn’t have any authority. The very first thing I used to ask waaay back when I was getting those calls is “are you an attorney?”–surprise, surprise they always said no (sometimes I had to press as they’d start saying “uh…uh…we represent interested parties…” blah blah blah). Press them for even more information like thier name, who they represent, etc and they get even more uncomfortable. The facts are still the facts: they have an I.P. address and a name on an account. Other than that they have ZERO evidence that you are the person that did anything, and they haven’t actually accused you personally of doing anything as that would open a whole new can of worms–namely countersuits.
Also how can I obtain full records for the case, nothing on pacer?
I just got my PACER login info and tried to look up the 32591 case. I think case isn’t on there because it’s not filed in one of the federal courts but in one of Florida’s regional circuit courts. I don’t know why… Does anyone know how this might change things? Especially if you are not a resident of Florida (which I am not).
Oh wait… I think I am mistaken. Nevermind. Still can’t find any info on the case though.
PACER is only for Federal court cases. The case you are referring to is in Miami-Dade county State court of Florida.
And type in the name of the plaintiff, then scroll through the cases. You’ll have to click on the docket once you find the (8/17/12) case. I’m not able to give a more direct link. As you’ve probably read, those cases are harder to track from out of the region. This may apply to others even in Florida. It’d help for more Does in these state cases to upload documents to the web.
There is an 11/26/12 item on the docket noting voluntary dismissals of 2 Does, usually indicating they have settled. Be aware on the Miami-Dade site that the listings have both a local and a state case number for each case, although here the 32591 number is contained in both.
“PACER (acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is an electronic public access service of United States federal court documents.”
Thank you so much for your help. It’s greatly appreciated.
West Coast Prod just filed a big 450 doe case in FLMD.
Fitting first name for a copyright troll, Robby.
And Robby and West Coast filed another 84 doe suit.
This is interesting though:
DECLARATION of Matthias Schroeder Padewet re 2 MOTION for leave to take Discovery prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. (HG) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
Haven’t been able to find it on pacer yet though.
Anyone else targeted by lipscum on case 3:12-cv-01100-HLA-TEM. Malibu vs Doe’s 1-27.
nope, not that case but a different one involving lipscum and malibu media
I am, I’m waiting for the calls to start.
I don’t recall any one reporting this…… but i was going through some cases to check activity and found West Coast Productions 1-581 NDFL. Judge Smoak dismissed without prejudice Does 2-581 from the case on 12/21/2012. 5:12-CV-00277-RS-EMT. Judge Smoak also has a Celestial 1-377 on the plate from the same law firm.
Bait Prod. just sued 10 people individually in FLMD.
Yeap, mr. Cashman already has a writeup on it. Names look random, not the people that you think they can milk for a lot of $$$. Sounds like trolls are pinned to the corner, and decided to call the Judges bluff. I hope it backfires and burn them badly.
Good News! On 1-26 FLND Judge Hinkle adopts the reasoning and holding of FLMD Judge Whittemore https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/12/07/copyright-troll-m-keith-lipscomb-loses-on-home-turf/ and smashes at least two of Lipscomb’s troll suits. Here is one http://ia600703.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.flnd.67651/gov.uscourts.flnd.67651.30.0.pdf
Looks like everything on here is 5 years old.
I have a topic that people don’t say anything about.
Ok.. tired of this never ending continual lawsuit crap..
they’re still suing, and people are getting judgements…..
Question. this “Copyright troll” Judgement, does it get dismissed in a Bankruptcy?
While it is up to the bankruptcy court to decide whether the judgment is dischargeable, to my knowledge, if the infringement wasn’t willful (which is 100% of judgments I’m aware of, including defaults), it is dischargeable.
Hey Thanks ! I just found this answered. I’ve decided to file.
In process now. I think i’ll post my outcome here and add advice for hopes
that It might help someone else in the future. Wish me luck.. and … Thanks.
Pingbacks & Trackbacks