Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Samuel Perkins (Boston MA)
- Edward R. Molari (Boston, MA)
- BoothSweet LLP: Dan Booth and Jason Sweet (Cambridge MA)
- Nicholas Guerrera (North Andover MA)
- Catherine Rajwani (Northborough MA)
- Eric Menhart (Washington DC)
Relevant posts
- Copyright troll victim prevails in the first action against trolls (4/24/2014)
- Prenda’s local attorney Daniel Ruggiero denounces his employers (8/14/2013)
- Alexandra Capachietti of Burson and Levinson LLP is NOT a porno troll (4/6/2013)
- IBM to sue Marvin Cable for trademark infringement (4/1/2013)
- Booth Sweet LLP tells court a story of Prenda’s deception and abuse, asks for a bond to be posted by AF Holdings (2/2/2013)
- How do you call a lovemaking act without a partner? (1/23/2013)
- First powerful defense in Prenda/Guava individual federal case (12/17/2012)
- Judge Leo Sorokin is tired of troll Marvin Cable’s lies, denies ex-parte discovery (11/7/2012)
- A motion that made my day (10/9/2012)
- Another Massachusetts Judge issues a strong anti-extortion Memorandum and Order (10/4/2012)
- Attorney Samuel Perkins: Troll Marvin Cable must be stopped, all the 34 of his cases should be dismissed with prejudice (8/25/2012)
- Another day, another defendant is fighting back (8/20/2012)
- The Fifth Column: Marc Randazza attempts to sabotage defense against copyright trolls (8/6/2012)
- Lightspeed Media v. John Doe: a must-read motion written by a real IP attorney (7/13/2012)
- Do you still think that talking to plaintiff’s lawyer is a good idea? (10/14/2011)
- More light under the bridge (6/10/2011)
Fight © Trolls 
Comcast letterhead:
Copyright infringements –
Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-80.
Are people settling and if so, for how much?
Are there other recourse?
The proper place to discuss this lawsuit would be in thread of the state where it was filed, not the state of your residence.
> Are people settling and if so, for how much?
Yes, mostly those who succumbed to fear and did not educate themselves. The valid exception is those whose carrier or marriage may be damaged, but even they can hire a lawyer to defend their good name. 2000-3400 is the settlement demand. Those who unnecessarily pay the ransom help to keep this scam sustainable.
on the allegation paper cable leaves a timestamp, the file size, port, protocal etc. should i be worried?
i recieved a dumb letter from cable and hired mr perkins to overlook this. Mr Perkins said cable is not the brightest crayon in the box and i shouldnt worry about a thing. He rarely does anything with most of these and leeches of the people who just send him the 3-5k reluctantly
I just found out the guy who is filing these in Massachusetts used to DEFEND people being sought by the trolls. Greedy SOB.
Troll Cable is working some sleazy shit right under a judge’s nose. Check out part 10 of this expedited discovery order prepared by Cable and signed by a lazy or stupid judge http://ia601200.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142861/gov.uscourts.mad.142861.8.0.pdf A more alert and sharper judge catches the sleaze and strikes it from the order http://ia601201.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142864/gov.uscourts.mad.142864.5.0.pdf
Also a Doe in the latter case has filed an excellent MTQ http://ia701201.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142864/gov.uscourts.mad.142864.12.0.pdf Check out footnote 6.
Excellent MTQ. Mr.Sweet and Mr.Booth have a ton of knowledge in this area and come highly recommended to does in MA.
About the MTQ; I really like how Booth& Sweet have by paragraph 2 identified 7726 potential clients-OOPs I meant Doe defendants- in other Patrick Collins litigation.
He just filed a bunch more on April 28th.
Marvin “Ira’s Puppet” Cable, filed eight new cases today.
1:12-cv-10803-DPW New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1 – 46 filed 05/04/12
1:12-cv-10804-JCB SBO Pictures v. Does 1 – 41 filed 05/04/12
1:12-cv-10805-NMG Discount Video Center, Inc. v. Does 1 – 29 filed 05/04/12
1:12-cv-10810 Kick Ass Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1 – 25 filed 05/04/12
1:12-cv-10813 Exquisite Multimedia, Inc. filed 05/04/12
1:12-cv-10814 PW Productons, Inc. v. Does 1 – 19 filed 05/04/12
1:12-cv-10815 Paradox Pictures v. Does 1 – 20 filed 05/04/12
Missed one….
1:12-cv-10816 Vineyard Entertainment LLC v. Does 1 – 23 filed 05/04/12
I hope the judges come to their senses and figure out what this is all about.
The troll lawyer Marvin Cable (Law Offices of Marvin Cable, 73 Bridge Street Northampton, MA 01060 ) has started new activity recently. He filed 8 new troll cases last week and 7 the week before. If recent patterns continue, Marvin Cable is acting as attorney of record for business that are porn purveyors. Mr. Cable has reportedly appeared to defend Does in porn purveyor copyright troll cases but more recently has worked as attorney for porn purveyor plaintiffs.
One different thing on 5/4/12 was each of Mr. Marvin Cable’s cases had different plaintiffs:
Vineyard Entertainment LLC, SBO Pictures, Discount Video Center, Inc., New Sensations, Inc., Kick Ass Pictures, Inc., Exquisite Multimedia, Inc., PW Productions, Inc., Paradox Pictures. Aside from agreements with Mr. Cable, the relation of the different businesses/names is not discussed. This would make things appear like many plaintiffs doing one thing instead of one plaintiff doing many things.
Of the 7 cases filed by Mr. Cable on 4/28/12, 3 were for Patrick Collins Inc. and 4 were for Third Degree Films. Beginning in March 2011, M. Keith Lipscomb of of Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker, PL was the attorney of record for 10 Patrick Collins cases and 4 Third Degree Film cases, involving hundreds of alleged Does, filed in Miami-Dade County state court in Florida.
One Patrick Collins Inc.(Elegant Angel Inc.) case was for the timeless classic ‘useful work’ “Big Wet Brazilian Asses 7”. In that case, Comcast Cable I.P. addresses were listed for 29 out of 33 alleged Does. As in many previous cases across the country, the Declaration of Jon Nicolini was used to support the purported surveillance technology.
I am part of one of the Patrick Collins cases filed in MA on 3/23. IP info was supposedly given up on 4/26. There was one MTQ filed by an elderly woman who thought she was being scammed for money. If she only knew how right she was.
Maybe it’s time for a separate discussion about flagrant collateral damage incidents, including harassing the elderly. Like phone scammers, the trolls may view the elderly as good targets. There are many examples of wrongful allegations harming decent people. It’s hard to find lengthy lists. A single outrage raises attention briefly.
According to the update to RFC, Marvin Cable filed 15 new cases involving 497 Does at the end of last week, 5/4-5/6/12. Among the most recent plaintiffs are: Media Products, Inc., Combat Zone, Inc., and West Coast Productions, Inc.
What’s happening here ? Many cases have been filed for (what appear to be) many plaintiffs. Did Cable and some supervising lawyer offer some limited time bulk discount to porn studios ?
Have trolls given up hope of sneaking cases in gradually? Are trolls rushing to find an unwary judge among the seven assigned to the newest cases ? What if judges realize improper joinder has deprived the court of $168,700 is filing fees last week alone?
Do they fear consolidation and dismissal like in New York? Are porn copyright trolls rushing to discover and demand cash from Does, fearing the extortion window is closing ?
This is great! In Third Degree Films v. Does 1-80 (case no. 12-cv-10535) Doe #57 makes a motion to quash. Troll Cable NEGLECTS TO OPPOSE THE MOTION and Judge Young grants the motion. Troll Cable moves for reconsideration without acknowledging his neglect. http://ia601201.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142864/gov.uscourts.mad.142864.docket.html
Troll Cable attempts yet another sleazy maneuver which catches the eye of Judge Young in Third Degree Films v. Does 1-39 (case no. 12-cv-10763) http://ia601207.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143655/gov.uscourts.mad.143655.7.1.pdf
Boy it would be funny if the judge would add Fight Copyright Trolls and DieTrollDie to the resource listing at the bottom.
DTD 🙂
I was just thinking the same thing!
Funny how he writes: “The organizations listed below have appeared before other courts around the country in similar lawsuits as “friends of the court” to attempt to protect what they believe to be the due process and First Amendment rights of Doe defendants”
What a bunch of crap!
Here is a link to a recent DMCA notice for a Kick Ass Pictures Inc., movie. http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/td_notice1.pdf Not sure if this will turn to be part of a future case.
DTD 🙂
anyone else here a doe? We are and are trying to figure out what to do.. has he ever brought people to trial?
I got one of the notices from Comcast from TDF vs Does 1-80 Mass. Is this thing gonna get squashed or what? I live in a condo complex and not to mention a convicted felon next door. Anyone could have hacked me…..WTF
There is one possibly entertaining strategy. As you all know, Mr. Cable used to defend victims of Randazza/Silverstein in the past. Particularly, he fought against infamous Randazza’s open wi-fi negligence argument : it is all well documented.
So, in my opinion, if anyone files a motion to quash, he should consider including “open wi-fi” defense and quote Cable’s arguments.
It would be entertainment on a scale of Circus du Soleil to see how Cable responds.
Interesting ,Where can we find these quotes?
So, in my opinion, if anyone files a motion to quash, he should consider including “open wi-fi” defense and quote Cable’s arguments.
*big sigh*
Media is here 1 and 2.
In (1) correspondent is clearly confused and as far as I know misinterpreted Marvin’s words in the second to last paragraph. On a side note, it is funny and pretty revealing that correspondent, who never heard about statutory rates in copyright law, said it’s 3,000-15,000 instead of 30,000-150,000. A normal person can’t believe that rates can be that insane. It’s not simply a typo, but a sign of the broken copyright.
So sad for Cable. When, where and why did he ditch his noble idealism for the easy buck?
I have a feeling that he is not a completely lost soul (like Steele, White, Lipscomb or Anderson, to name a few), and he is aware that what he is doing is wrong, and suffers, yet can’t quit. Just like an average alcoholic.
I received good insight into Cable from some attorneys who know him well. Apparently the guy was a bit conflicted about whether to go from defending these cases to litigating them, But you know what? You make a deal with the devil…
I belive this case was dismissed by Cable.
Which one are you talking about?
My sister got a UPS in the mail of being sued by this sleeze ball Third Degree Films in vs John Doe 1-72 CV 10760. She is freaking out, anyone have any input on if she should retain a lawyer
Getting a lawyer is personal and isn’t cheap. Have your sister start reading up on the issue and then make a decision. Here is one place to start – http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/
DTD 🙂
I echo DTD and would add that, to date, Troll Cable has yet to serve a Doe with a summons and complaint so it is expected all your sister will be subjected to is harassing letters and e-mails. The docket of the lawsuit is here http://ia601200.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143652/gov.uscourts.mad.143652.docket.html Also check out https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq/faq-from-tac/ and https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/about/
Raul, On that docket I noticed the following (Document #6) –
Summons Issued as to Does 1 – 72. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (York, Steve) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
I have noticed a couple of these Doe summons in recent cases. Isn’t it a bit pointless to have a summons for Doe or 72 Does? Any idea why they do this sometimes?
Thanks
DTD 🙂
I think it is just a matter of a careless routine.
SJD,
Thanks for the heads up on this new “tactic” (example, http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/massachusetts-district-court/96997/third-world-media-llc-v-does-1-21/summary/)
OMG and WTF?! I cannot believe this…incredible! Speechless…Will sleep on it. Wow! Immediate impression? Cable’s soul is no longer his own.
SJD tweeted about this topic several hours ago:
Seven new lawsuits in MAD are listed on RFC for 5/26/12, divided among 6 plaintiffs-New Sensations, Inc., Digital Sin, Inc., Third World Media, LLC, Celestial, Inc., BlueBird Films, LLC, and Media Products, Inc. (It’s a holiday weekend-the new list may be incomplete.)
ALL of the cases on RFC list the Plaintiff Counsel as the plaintiff, Pro Se. Is this a technical error in entering the case in a database, or does this represent a new troll tactic? I doubt representatives of 6 different porn purveyors just happened independently to file copyright troll case in the same jurisdiction on the same day. Marvin N. Cable of Law Offices of Marvin N. Cable has represented several of these plaintiffs in Massachusetts District Court earlier this year.
If not an error, this could represent a tactic to get around the few ethical constraints that attach to a troll lawyer.
On further investigation it looks as if rfc express misreported the 5-26 filings, the plaintiffs are not pro se but are being represented by Troll Cable.
I would apologize to M. Cable for my tweets if he was a man of honor. Instead, I simply tweeted.
Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1 – 45
Filed: May 26, 2012 as 1:2012cv10945
Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1 – 41
Filed: May 26, 2012 as 1:2012cv10946
Recent cases filed in Mass.. anyone know what the details are such as movie in question, etc?
Does anyone know is Cable has served anyone yet?
Hey Guys. I’m a John Doe is the Paradox Pictures vs. Does 1-20 case in Massachusetts. Just looking to see if anybody has any idea what’s going on with this. Got a letter in the mail today from Verizon, and it is Troll Cable on the case. I’m reading a lot about this guy. Any advice on what to do? If I send in a motion to quash, do I need to do that through a lawyer or can I send in something myself? Will this go to court? Do I just ignore this? I need some tips please!
Another thing I noticed on the subpoena I was sent. There is no date or signature by a judge underneath where it says SO ORDERED.
If there is no signature, and no date… was it actually ordered?
I would check RECAP first and then PACER to check the court records based on the case number provided on the document received.
Here is the RECAP docket for the Paradox lawsuit http://ia601208.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143786/gov.uscourts.mad.143786.docket.html First off, try to relax, do not speak with Troll Cable and do file a MTQ. DTD has an arsenal of them here http://dietrolldie.com/motions/ if you decide to DIY. Read this http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/ , this https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/about/ and this https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq/faq-from-tac/ Also read this http://pietzlawfirm.com/slaying-the-copyright-troll-help-i-got-a-letter-from-my-isp-seeking-to-subpoena-my-identity-because-a-copyright-troll-wants-to-sue-me-for-copyright-infringement-what-do-i-do Troll hardly ever haul Does into court as it is not part of their business model. The more you learn about this scam the more relaxed you will become but you will get pissed off.
I got one of these from Cable the other day. Could anyone recommend a copyright attorney? What’s his history with this?
Undeniably, the best in MA (and one of the best in the USA) are Booth Sweet &mdah; these guys currently litigate a clas action lawsuit against the father of US copyright trolls, DGW.
Any word on how successful any of the MTQs have been in Mass thus far?
If the MTQ is accepted is that the end of it? Cable wants the ISPs to give your information so he can serve you, but if the MTQ blocks his request then it all goes away? How much could this trouble end up costing me?
Doe Defender Jason Sweet puts in a motion to sever Troll Cable’s malicious lawsuit http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/massachusetts-district-court/92489/patrick-collins-inc-v-does-1-79/summary/
Pacerized.
Did Cable dismiss 1:12-cv-10535? Looks like he got settlements from 9 does before the ISP info was even released, and before any MTQs were ruled on. He then dropped the case. Am I reading that right?
The case is still ongoing with the Troll having received 19 settlements and with the MTQs (including one by Jason Sweet) still pending. http://ia701201.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.mad.142864/gov.uscourts.mad.142864.docket.html
Saw the Comcast article. Does this mean user info for current open cases will not be released to Marvin Cable from Comcast? In Case 12-cv-10763, dealine for ISP user info release from Comcast is 6/22…
Unfortunately no, regardless how big Comcast corporation is, it’s impossible to find (and fund) enough lawyers to fight on all the cases. And if they don’t file motions, they can’t just ignore subpoenas… Glad they pay more and more attention. It’s like they follow my tweet (that was retweeted by Rick Falkvinge!) where I said to ISPs not to underestimate the return on investment in fighting copyright trolls 🙂
It’s the same story as with EFF: good guys and girls, do a lot of good stuff, but they simply can’t fight with each and every parasite, so they have to pick cases. Hope you are lucky and Comcast will appear on your case, though I hope you already understand that regardless of what happens, you are not in danger if you don’t talk to the scumbag. Annoying — yes. Harmful — no.
SophisticatedJaneDoe, you seem to be extremely knowledgeable about these kind of cases. I appreciate all of the information you have provided on this forum. One question I have, as I am a Doe in the Paradox (Troll Cable) case. By sending in a MTQ, am I sending this to both the cable company AND to the troll himself? Or do I just send in something to the cable company, and then let them worry about getting it to Cable? I would like to maintain my anonymity, but it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be easy to do. I’m going through a lot right now. Going in for a pretty personal surgery in a few weeks, my wife had a miscarriage recently, and this is the last thing I need on my plate these days.
If I chose to just bury my head in the sand, will this eventually go away? This really sucks.
Well, maybe I know a lot about these cases, but I’m still not a lawyer and may be wrong when answering legal questions. To the best of my knowledge, yes, you always have to send a copy to the plaintiff, and maybe even to other parties who filed motions – on either side, but at least to the plaintiff. You don’t have to specify your return address, and ideally mail it from a location far from home. See the FAQ about remailing services.
Also you have to add a “certificate of service” page (only to the copy yo send to the court), where you notify the court that you sent a copy to the troll. See real time motions – they all have such an addendum.
Marvin Cable is relatively new troll, and it’s hard to predict his behavior, though it reasonable to assume that he is more like other CEG related trolls, i.e. works based on big numbers, i.e. expect certain percentage of Does to settle and does not bother to pursue those who fight or reluctant to settle. While settlement discussion can be on the table when we talk about Randazza, settling with CEG trolls is a stupid move.
I was wondering if anyone has heard anything about the 1:12-cv-10814 PW Productons, Inc case. I myself am a doe and am filing an MTQ. This letter at first had me S***ing my pants but after doing research on the net i feel a little bit better about this. On my letter from Comcast it says i have until 6/22 to file it but the court date for the subpoena was today in NJ. If i send out my MTQ tomorrow can i still maintain anonymity or was this a misprint my comcast? Any idea how much Cable is looking to get for settlement?
Has anyone heard anything about 12-CV-10535-WGY, is it being dismissed?
Why? Just checked Pacer – last doc is 19, where only a handful of Does is dismissed with prejudice (most likely payed up).
Marvin Cable’s hubris: his briefs use Century Old Style font, a font family required for the Supreme Court briefs.
Got a letter from Comcast today re this Cable guys suit for zero tolerance vs does 1-80.
Anyone interesed in defense? Anonymous mtq via Boothe sweet?
Sorry , meant combat zone vs 1-84. Docket # is 3:12-cv-30085
Anyone else popping by here that’s located in this case, let me know
new one here: 3:12-cv-30083 media products inc. v. john does 1-64…these M***** F***** making easy money huh…what is going on with this world
listen people…DO NOT CALL COMCAST-worthless, just spent 2 hours on the phone with them = total waste of time
and thay are going to release all ur personal information after whatever 30 days
Anyone heard updaes on 12-cv-10763? (Does 1-39)
I was telling my wife earlier tonight that I was thinking I might just settle when the letters roll in, because in the long run it would be the cheaper option, but that I felt horrible thinking about it. Then while browsing the reprehensible Mr Cables other cases on pacer, I saw a woman who filed a MTQ with her timecards and paystubs attached proving she was at work and not at home downloadaing “seduced by a cougar”, probably not realizing these things were going to become a matter of public record. Now I’m furious, and I will fight until there isn’t a penny left to my name.
Moving from terrorized to royally pissed off is a welcome and healthy response. MA judges are going to get fed up with the extortion, just watch it happen.
As, for instance, a Texas judge. Every judge will end up furious. Maybe except Beryl Howell, but she will experience a plethora of other emotions after being lashed by 9th circuit judges.
The way her mind works, she’s the kind that will actually enjoy a good lashing.
Has anyone filed a motion Pro Se in Massachusetts? If so, what is the logisitics of filing a motion in massachuetts? Do I just modified one of the motion to my situation and mail to the US district court of Mass and the plainiff? Thanks
I think you’d be better off going to one of the court offices (Worcester & Springfield I believe) if possible, as it prevents your motion from being postmarked with precisely where you are from. If you’re trying to seperate it from yourself (eg; file on behalf of all does, not just doe ##) then you don’t want them to know “this letter came from one of these 3 does” after they get the info from your ISP. That way they can’t single you out for retaliation.
Sorry for being slow, but do you mean to hand in the motion at one of the court offices? And file it on behalf of all does?
Yes, if you’re trying to hide who you are in filing, you’d hand it in at the clerks office, and file on behalf of everyone. You could also file just on behalf of doe # whatever, it’s just that you run the small risk of making yourself the person who a) stood up to them, but b) didn’t get a lawyer in doing so. That , to me, seems like the easiest prey for them to go after if they decided to make an example of anyone. Just my 2 cents
H E L P:
if i’m filing MTQ myself, does anyone know if it needs to be notary verificated…this sucks
Can’t verify a John Doe signature, just sign it.
u right…hw stupid i am…thanks
How long does it take for a judge to rule on a mtq? In 1:12-cv-10535 the mtqs were filed 2 months ago.
Aaah, now we get to talk about the roulette wheel of the federal judiciary. Quick answer, it all depends on the judge from 30 days to 90 days being the usual range. But sometimes you will see a very lazy judge who will sit on the motion forever as the troll collects settlements, gets sated and dismisses the lawsuit without the MTQ ever having been ruled on.
I’m a Doe in 1:12-cv-10814 PW Productons, Inc case. Would filing an MTQ possibly make me a “Target” to the Troll? As in would they decide to pursue me more aggressively should my motion get denied?
To the best of my knowledge Troll Cable has not pursued a Doe aggressively for filing a MTQ.
I am also a doe in the pw productions case. Sent a MTQ in the other day anonymously. We’ll see what comes of it.. . .
As my Dad used to say “if you throw enough shit at the wall some of it is bound to stick”. Best of luck to you!
I’m a Doe in 3:12-cv-30100. Seems like the best way to proceed is drop off a MTQ anonymously and odds are this troll won’t pursue?
I am involve in the Media products vs. Does 1-120 and I actually checked the Ip adresss of my computers to the Ip address that allegedly did the copyright infringment and they dont match! I dont know if anyone else noticed this but I just wanted to put that out there for those who are in the same situation.
I believe your IP address changes periodically and is documented by your ISP. So at the time of “the infringement” your ISP says that was your IP