Discussion

112 responses to ‘Keith Lipscomb and his shakedown enterprise

  1. M. Keith Lipscomb’s porn purveyor plaintiff clients in Miami Dade county Florida state court have also included:

    DIABOLIC VIDEO PRODUCTIONS INC
    NUCORP LTD
    BERLIN MEDIA ART JT EK
    ZERO TOLERANCE ENTERTAINMENT INC

  2. Florida Middle Disrict Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1-72 Docket #:8:12-cv-02301

    As noted in Raul’s tweet and SJD’s re-tweet today, Mr. M. Keith Lipscomb’s response (as lawyer for the porn purveyor Malibu Media/X-Art) of 11/14/2012 states:

    “Statistics from Plaintiff’s prior cases demonstrate that this process accurately predicted that a Doe defendant’s IP Address would trace to the correct district 99% of the time.”

    http://ia601506.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.276619/gov.uscourts.flmd.276619.9.0.pdf

    A few points about this gross misrepresentation:

    1) Lipscomb bases his argument on “the uncertainty of the geolocation software”, but only when the uncertainty that he alleges are in his favor.
    2) He wants to “find” Does with I.P. addresses in the district who are “mistakenly” geo-located outside the district. He offers no assurance that Does “mistakenly” geo-located inside the district (when really OUTSIDE the district) will be left alone.
    Of course, the whole scheme is about getting individual contact information to berate Does (regardless of un-involvement) into a quick settlement.
    3) A 99% accuracy geo-location regionally is VERY doubtful. It’s doubtful that a long plaintiff list of Doe residence addresses are themselves 99% accurate, let alone that they are accurately located within a district.
    4) If the Plaintiff lawyers is going to make an outrageous claim based on alleged statistics, he should produce those statistics, particularly when the questionable statistics are at the heart of his argument.
    5) Mr. Lipscomb’s percentage assertion BLATANTLY CONTRADICTS the statistic on HIS OWN agent’s “geolocation tracing service”. This is from Maxmind’s own web pages:

    In our recent tests, the GeoIP databases tested at 99.8% accurate on a country level, 90% accurate on a state level in the US, and 83% accurate for cities in the US within a 40 kilometer radius.
    http://dev.maxmind.com/faq/geoip

    But wait, there more!

    (For the U.S.)
    Correctly resolved within forty kilometers (25 miles): 81%
    Incorrectly resolved: 15%
    City is unknown: 4%

    http://www.maxmind.com/en/city_accuracy

    Remember, the service itself has no incentive to understate their accuracy. The “Maxmind” tracking service itself states that 4% of the locations are “unknown”. So Lipscomb’s own provider says that there’s an 81% chance that the location would be accurate ONLY WITHIN 25 miles. That’s way different than 99% correctly identified districts.

  3. It’s interesting, I had a look at the complaint in the ILND filing. They are siterip cases. A page or two of videos. And even though they are against single does, and through my reading didn’t mention any hidden does, they ask to permanently enjoin the defendant and others that are infringing.

    • Not sure, it’s siterip case. I checked the one of dockets in maryland. They listed files over a quite long period of times. They also included so called a solicitation of exculpatory evidence which lists other movies (some porns, some movies and dramas). Other interesting case is the one in NDIL. It’s malibu media pro se vs Dr (?) John Doe. Pacer docket is not available now.

  4. Wow. Lipscomb’s gang started up again. 8 cases in Illinois Northern District and 16 cases in Maryland listed so far in only 4 days in February.

    On behalf of porn purveyors, Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC has now filed at least 58 troll cases (Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, K-Beech) in Maryland since July 2011.

    On behalf of porn purveyors, Mary Katherine Schultz or Paul J. Nicolletti have now filed at least 51 troll cases (Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, K-Beech) in Illinois (Northern or Central Districts) since June 2012.

  5. Douchbag Lipscomb is targeting as 89 yr. old disabled, terminally ill grandmother. This man has absolutely no class at all. I guess they do no type of background check?

  6. Lippy is officially EVIL EVIL EVIL.

    Reading
    http://ia601500.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279682/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279682.1.0.pdf
    it seems to me that along with this example plus the others like it filed in recent days, Lipscomb is greasing the skids for the Mother of all IP Address collection reigns of terror. His partner “IPP Limited has also engaged in enhanced surveillance” and of course finds an IP Address the troll can label a “persistent online infringer of Plaintiff’s copyrights” , complete with “Plaintiff has included as Exhibit D a solicitation of exculpatory evidence in the event that Defendant chooses to deny the allegations” and the troll seeks to “Permanently enjoin Defendant and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant” …

    Does anyone else get a sense that this is just step the first step on the way to a bigger goal of harvesting more and more and more IP addresses. How many of them will be situations where elderly / grandmothers / other innocents are simply paying the ISP bill.

    • Leave it to Lipscomb to refine the douchebaggery, paragraphs 21-24 are a new twist:

      “21. An overview of the Copyrights-in-Suit, including each hit date, date of first
      publication, registration date, and registration number issued by the United States
      Copyright Office is set forth on Exhibit B.

      22. IPP Limited has also engaged in enhanced surveillance of other digital
      media files being distributed by Defendant. The results of this more intensive
      surveillance are outlined in Exhibit C. The Copyrights-in-Suit are solely limited to
      content owned by Plaintiff as outlined in Exhibit B. Exhibit C is provided for evidentiary
      purposes only.

      23. As the subscriber in control of the IP address being used to distribute
      Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies, Defendant is the most likely infringer. Consequently,
      Plaintiff hereby alleges Defendant is the infringer. Plaintiff has included as Exhibit D a
      solicitation of exculpatory evidence in the event that Defendant chooses to deny the
      allegations.

      24. Defendant is the only person who can be identified as the infringer at this
      time.”

      In the WTF Department check out Exhibit C (results of enhanced snooping). http://ia601500.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279682/gov.uscourts.ilnd.279682.1.3.pdf This could backfire as expedited subpoena requests would be much more intrusive inquiring into copyrights that Malibu Media lacks an interest.

      This shit is evil but much better pleading than previous versions so expect Prenda to begin copying it immediately.

      • The question has to be asked, how are they getting the information about the supposed other torrent files being downloaded by the defendant, the only conclusion that I can think of is that IPP Limited (Guardaley) is monitoring many torrent files with content that I seriously doubt they have any kind of agreement on to do so from the contents copyright owners. Which means they are more then likely illegal sharing the content themselves in an effort to harvest as many IP addresses as possible for current and possible future cases by copyright troll law firms in Europe and the US.

        It would be the height of irony if one of the cases went to trial and through discovery it was learned that IPP Limited was itself guilty of numerous actions of copyright infringement for illegally distributing content that it had no permission to.

    • By rfcexpress, MM filed 56 individual cases on Feb.

      Indiana Northern District Court – 5
      Illinois Northern District Court – 15
      Colorado District Court – 13
      Indiana Southern District Court – 6
      Maryland District Court – 17

  7. In case you missed SJD’s Twitter feed today Judge Howard of the FLMD made an Order that partially reversed a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (an unusual occurrence) to reaffirm the severance of all Does but Doe 1 from troll lawsuits. For history buffs this turn around began with Judge Whittemore on 12-7-12 https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/12/07/copyright-troll-m-keith-lipscomb-loses-on-home-turf/ who is cited twice in today’s Order. What is unique about this Order is that it cleverly turns one of the usual troll arguments on its head. The usual troll argument is that allowing joinder is the only way they can cost effectively protect their precious porn copyrights otherwise they would incur filing fees and attorneys fees that
    would be prohibitive. Judge Howard pulls a 180 as follows:

    ‘those defendants who are represented by counsel, such
    as the moving John Doe Defendants in this case, would have to pay fees for their attorneys
    to review the filings made by and against all of the other defendants. Interscope Records
    v. Does 1-25, No. 6:04-cv-197-Orl-22DAB, 2004 WL 6065737, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2004)
    (“[I]f joined in one action, defendants would be subjected to an overwhelming onslaught of
    materials and information unrelated to the specific claims against them—all of which they
    would be required to pay their attorneys to review.”). In view of these considerations and
    weighing Plaintiff’s interest in pursuing these claims jointly against the Defendants’ interest
    in avoiding annoyance, delay and undue burden in the litigation, the Court is of the view that
    severance of the claims is appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.”

    Order is here: https://fightcopyrighttrolls.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/doc-036-order-severing-case-malibu-575-1.pdf

    Hat Tip to http://cynthiaconlin.com/

  8. Man, Lipscum seems to be winding up for the big extortion finale with this ton of new cases. His greed is going to be his undoing, I’m hoping. Took a look at a couple docs from the new DC case that showed up on RFC Express today. Local troll Jon Hoppe. Doe is a Comcast subscriber, 26 counts of infringement. I guess they are trying to go after Does with a lot of alleged activity, and possibly ones they have vetted for assets or reputational concerns. Am imagining they are somehow going to try and somehow pull other Does into these cases, though.

    • Remember, the complaints also ask to enjoin all “co-conspirators” as well. So they could still be mass doe cases masquerading as single doe cases.

        • You need a pacer account, I think they charge .10 per page to download, get a firefox extension recap and you will be able to see any page that someone with recap already paid for, and if you pay for some pages then others can access via recap.

        • Well, its a government site. Just register as a student, I think if your total is less than $10 they don’t even bill u. Its safe as trolls will not have access to your info, but the site itself look from 1995 days. I did register like many others here, no issues so far.

    • Its a gov site, they will email you within 24 hours or so. They probably need to validate u before access to what supposed to be a free document is given to u..

      • He’s hitting New Jersey also with individual lawsuits, there’s even one stating doe with ip address so and so.

        Would be interesting to see the details on these to see what the alleged hit dates are.

        I need to sign up for a pacer account, but I computer handicapped.

      • Yeah sent me the email but say I will recieve my info through mail idk I just wanna look at court docs lol I’m not a victim of MM and thank to god I’m not cause these cases look way more freakier than the Guava ones

  9. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

    ROGER W. TITUS
    6500 CHERRYWOOD LANE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770301-344-0052
    M E M O R A N D U M
    TO: Counsel of Record
    FROM: Judge Roger W. Titus Judge Paul W. Grimm
    RE: Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe Cases in the District of Maryland
    DATE: March 1, 2013

    * * * * * * * * *

    Malibu Media, LLC (“Malibu Media”) is the Plaintiff in thirty-two (32) open cases in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, as listed in the Appendix attached hereto. Malibu Media’s litigation activity has been substantially the same in these matters, as described below. The complaint in each case asserts a claim of copyright infringement against a single,unnamed “John Doe” Defendant. The Defendant is identified as the subscriber to a listed Internet Protocol address (“IP address”). Malibu Media alleges in the complaint that the John Doe Defendant infringed Malibu Media’s copyrights by using the BitTorrent file distribution network (“BitTorrent”). Malibu Media claims that the John Doe Defendant used BitTorrent to illegally download movies for which Malibu Media has copyrights.Malibu Media has moved pursuant to Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to serve a third-party subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. Malibu Media asserts that it only knows the John Doe Defendant by its IP address, and requests that the Court issue a Rule 45 subpoena for service on the John Doe Defendant’s Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) so that it may learn the Defendant’s true identity.Malibu Media has also filed a “Memorandum Explaining Why It Has a Clear and Undeniable Right to Issue a Rule 45 Subpoena.”See, e.g., Malibu Media,LLC v. Doe,No. 13-cv-508-RWT, ECF No. 6. Malibu Media asserts in this Memorandum that in similar cases, “federal courts have consistently permitted copyright owners to identify Doe Defendants through a Rule 45 subpoena, and two Federal Circuit Courts have held that Rule 45 subpoenas are permissible.” Id.at 6, citing Exhibit A, ECF No. 6-1 (captioned, “Courts That Have Permitted a Copyright Plaintiff to Subpoena the Identity of At Least One John Doe Defendant in an Online Infringement Case”). Malibu Media argues that “a ruling to the contrary [in this Court] would catastrophically undermine the rights of copyright owners by denying them the tools necessary to identify on-line infringers.”
    Id. Malibu Media most recently filed a Declaration by one of its principals to further support its request for a subpoena to an ISP. The Judges of this Court have requested that Judge Roger W. Titus and Judge Paul W.Grimm jointly preside over a hearing on all cases listed in the Appendix to this Memorandum for the purpose of addressing the pending discovery motions. Judge Titus and Judge Grimm will hold the hearing on Tuesday, March 19, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
    , to last no longer than two hours.At this hearing, counsel for Malibu Media should be prepared to address the following questions:

    • What is Malibu Media’s affiliation, if any, with Patrick Collins, Inc., Third Degree Films,Inc., K-Beech, Inc., Hard Drive Productions, Inc., Raw Films, Ltd., and/or AF Holdings,LLC?

    •Is there any method other than using full discovery to determine if a John Doe Defendant identified as the subscriber to a particular IP address is the same person who allegedly used that IP address to download the copyrighted work(s)?

    • Does a complaint alleging copyright infringement state a plausible claim under federal pleading standards when it identifies the Defendant only by an IP address, and not a name,address, or other identifying information?

    •A number of federal courts have been reluctant to grant a subpoena to an ISP when confronted with a request similar to that made by Malibu Media in these cases. See, e.g., Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 12-cv-1154 (ADS) (GRB), __ F.R.D. __ , 2012 WL5879120, at *4-*5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012) (noting some courts’ “skepticism of the use of IP addresses to identify file sharing defendants in cases involving pornographic films,” and finding that an IP address alone is insufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that it will lead to the identity of the defendants who could be sued). Malibu Media does not cite this case, or similar ones, which conflict with cases cited by Malibu Media for the proposition that the Court should issue a third-party subpoena to an ISP. How does Malibu Media distinguish such contrary authority? Cf.Massey v. Prince George’s Cnty., 907 F. Supp. 138,142 (D. Md. 1995) (“Failure to pursue applicable legal authority in [a] timely fashion may well constitute a violation of” the Rules of Professional Conduct. “Particularly disturbing is[where] . . . a litigant who was an unsuccessful party to a directly relevant adverse precedent .. . has failed to cite that precedent to the court.”); Noohi v. Toll Bros., Inc., No. 12-1261, at14 n.3 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013) (describing failure to cite an applicable case as “inexplicabl[e]” and “glaring”).

    •If Malibu Media is granted a subpoena to serve on an ISP and determines the name and address of the IP subscriber, what does Malibu Media intend to do with that information?

    •Some plaintiffs who, like Malibu Media, have requested that the Court approve subpoenas to
    identify IP subscribers, thereafter have demanded settlement by threatening that the subscriber will be named in a case alleging that the subscriber illegally downloaded pornographic material if he or she does not make the settlement payment.See, e.g.,MediaProducts, Inc. v. John Does 1-26, Nos. 12 Civ. 3719 (HB), 12 Civ. 3630 (HB), 12 Civ. 2962(HB), 2012 WL 3866492, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2012) (“The relatively small group of lawyers who police copyright infringement on BitTorrent have customized the concept of extracting quick settlements without any intention of taking the case to trial.*** Particularly troubling for courts is the high probability of misidentified Doe defendants (who may be the bill-payer for the IP address but not the actual infringer) settling a case for fear of the disclosure of the allegations against them or of the high costs of litigation.”) (citations omitted). Please explain how issuing a third-party subpoena in these cases, which allege that defendants illegally downloaded pornographic material, could be limited so as to avoid any potential for exploitation.A two-hour hearing before both of the undersigned to address the questions identified above and pending motions is hereby SCHEDULED for Tuesday, March 19, 2013, at9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2C, located at 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770.Because of the importance of the issues, counsel who have previously appeared in cases of this nature will also be notified and will be permitted, should they choose to do so, to participate as amicus curiae. Any attorney desiring to do so may submit a single-spaced letter not exceeding three (3) pages in length by March 12, 2013. If an oral presentation is desired, the letter shall so state.Despite the informal nature of this ruling, it shall constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly in all cases listed in the Appendix hereto.

    /s/Roger W. Titus /s/ Paul W. Grimm
    United States District Judge United States District Judge

    • “Malibu Media does not cite this case, or similar ones, which conflict with cases cited by Malibu Media for the proposition that the Court should issue a third-party subpoena to an ISP. How does Malibu Media distinguish such contrary authority? ”

      Awesome, awesome critical thinking skills by judges. Amazed to see this given how unconcerned and disinterested other federal judges seem to be by these cases. I know that’s starting to turn around now, but it is still disheartening to know that judges let these cases continue for so long.

      • “Because of the importance of the issues, counsel who have previously appeared in casesof this nature will also be notified and will be permitted, should they choose to do so, toparticipate as amicus curiae. ”

        That too.

        I really shouldn’t be surprised. This is how justice and the courts SHOULD work. I shouldn’t be so surprised that this is occurring, yet I am. It really is sad.

        But yet I am at least happy that judges are starting to ask these questions now, rather than never.

        • Perhaps SJD Should make a nice little email and send it out to some of our favorite lawyers who are winning the various hearts and minds around here to ensure they’re aware of the welcome invitation of briefs.

          This almost screams for Pietz eloquent writing skills to be utilized. If he can drive home the message in this case as he has done in Wright’s courtroom, it could be a fatal blow to this action on the other coast, if not downright eye opening and compelling to get this information in the record across all of the cases across the land.

          • As a matter of fact you double my thought, only instead of emails I plan to make a post with a plea to Doe Defenders. Maybe even EFF will chime in.

      • I’m hoping to see some awesome court documents from defenders across the country. Can’t wait to read them.

    • Considering that Jon Hoppe only seems to be Lipscomb’s local frontman and doesn’t appear to have any IP law experience, it should be very interesting to hear him answer pointed questions from judges about Malibu Media for two hours.

  10. I was looking over a copy of one of the supporting infringement documents filed and started wondering how IPP is gathering all these additional details. I smell collusion with a torrent website, has anyone looked into this possibility yet? I did some research and found that all the malibu media torrents listed on KAT are all uploaded by the same person, someone named “1click”. I would think someone could request dicovery on who is uploading these and more than likely tracking them. I might be way off , but something seems too convenient here.

    • That truly is scary how they find ALL history and not just the history pertaining to their claims. Do they still intend on settling with these people since most likely someone in the home is guilty? I could see suing them for 1-5 titles and settling but adding 50 seems like they want to disgrace someone in court and get 2mil default judgement.

      Just my thoughts, anybody from these cases get settlement offers? Malibu media is one of the scarier companies from what I have read, and actually Patrick Collins has attached “surveillance in their recent cases as exhibits” so I do believe they are owned by the same entity.

  11. Absolutely they intend to settle these cases. Remember the game is still the same, they’re just playing it differently. The mass cases stopped being effective so they moved on to individual. When cases were dismissed due to too many questions about a single infringement, they’ve now raised the bar by attempting to establish a pattern of behavior. However, they still have not addressed the basic bottom line fault in all of these cases; an IP address does not equal a person. Its obvious that all the media attention has made this much less profitable so instead of asking for 3400, I recently saw one MM request was 10,000. Asking for that much for a settlement, they know they have to provide as much fear as possible in the hopes their targets will fold. Its disgusting when you think about it.

    • Is there like a list or something of movies they own? And I know they sue for X-Art but all these other titles what are they from lol sound like they are really old!

      • You can search the copyright office, but most are x-arts, however some say they own or are affiliated with Patrick Collins, but literally every MM case is an x-art case. Last I checked they have 199 copyrights. One of their cases is for a 107 movie siterip, and another 57 video siterip and another 16 video siterip, all of x-art films, so they seems to have quite a following. I saw (1) x-art films available on KAT with 19,000+ downloads in less than 2 months. They are popular apparently,

      • That’s why I think they’re pulling someones download history from a torrent site. The 10 page list I saw had everything from kids movies, britney spears(seriously) recent blockbusters to software downloads. They didn’t own the copyrights to anything but the xart material. One of our community lawyers has got to go after details on how this discovery process, there has to be invasion of privacy going on somewhere in all of this mess.

    • Thanks for the update. I too am fortunate to not be contacted by MM but they seem like their new cases are stronger than the old cases due to 50 or so infringements and the pattern of infringing for that specific IP. It just seems like they are making it harder for someone to plead innocence with multiple counts so they are scarier than AF holdings or Ingenuity13 films. Anyone notice Patrick Collins using the same enhanced surveillance in all Feb+ cases? Leads me to beleive they are owned by the same firms, especially since in the bellwether Patrick Collins jumped in against another doe for another alleged infringement when MM invited them.

    • I think ddragon29 is correct. Took a look at the docs from the three DC cases filed yesterday. Each case has infringements from mid 2012, but all have a couple new ones tacked on from 2013. Imagining these Does have already been ‘discovered’ and harrassed once via one of the FL pure bills of discovery filed by Lipscomb last year. Now the local ploy is to use the added 2013 hits as establishing a ‘pattern’. More fear, higher asking prices for settlements (unless these really are multiple Doe suits in disguise via enjoinment later). Disgusting indeed.

  12. Lookinjg over on the Kat website under the DCMA tab, it says that there is no copyrighted material on thier associated with it’s and that the files hosted can not be copyrighted! Take a look and read for yourself, for I may be wrond about interprepatation.

    • Patrick Collins jump ship to Copyright Enforcement Group or something? Got a “DMCA” notice from my ISP with a forward from CEG-TEK, representing Elegant Angel, with a link to go to copyrightsettlements.com (or something) and log in with an ID and password to access a settlement offer.

  13. What its saying is that none of the files are stored on their servers, therefore they can’t be liable for copyrighted material being hosted on its site, this is the normal legal disclaimer all torrent sites post on them since the actual data to complete each file is pulled from various other users. What stood out to me is where they state that they will still take down a torrent hash file if you fill out their form as the copyright owner. You think if MM was serious about stopping piracy they would have removed their torrents that have been on that site for over two years now with thousands of hits. But then again doing that would ruin their busness model and stop the easy cash flow 😉

    • You are right, I am not techie but the circumstances regarding the Malibu Media f/k/a X-Art warrant a serious look see. Also noticed the sole uploader who might me a member or a confederate.

      • BTW, someone mentioned in the twitter feed recently that Malibu Media opened 519 cases in 20 days or so. On RFCexpress I see only 521 in all since they began suing. Can someone direct me to the most up to date reference or websites to check MM’s latest filings?

    • Yep. They don’t want to stop piracy. They’re full of $#!+. A bunch of liars and crooks as far as I am concerned. Maybe a judge should ask them how many DMCA notices they have sent to the various torrent sites and require documentation of such. It would be a blank sheet of paper. I sure wish Fantalis had gone the distance. They must have paid him a lot of $$. Just proves what cowards they are. For all their talk about wanting to try one of these cases on its merits, first real chance they have they turn tail and run.

  14. What is Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC up to Indiana? (Isn’t he the same attorney who got in trouble for some real estate scam in Michigan?) According to RFC Express he filed 5 new single Does in 1 day! All for Malibu Media, LLC//X-Art//Brigham Field & Colette Leah. (also wondering why there are only 2 female attorneys on this list? seems odd that a professional female would even be involved with the likes of pornographers)

  15. Paul J. Nicolletti, attorney for porn purveyors doing copyright trolling, has filed cases in bunches repeatedly. Examples are:

    in Indiana Southern District, 5 cases on 2/5/13. and 4 cases on 3/8/13;
    in Michigan Western District, 8 cases on 2/13.

    The guess is that the number of cases per week depends on Nicolleti’s convenience. He might submit things in batches at a courthouse or electronically. He might call this “judicial economy”. It’s clear whose economy is boosted.

    Nicoletti has filed 138 cases so far for the porn purveyor Malibu Media (42 in Indiana, 31 in Michigan, 65 in Illinois). He has filed for other porn purveyor plaintiffs having the pattern of being Lipscomb group clients. He filed about a dozen cases for the porn purveyor Patrick Collins.

    Word is local lawyers are paid on commission by the overseer of the scheme. If Nicoletti’s commission on settlements is hundreds of dollars per Doe, he’s collected tens of thousands just for the Malibu Media cases since August 2012.

    It’s a sad reminder that other large copyright trolling operations are at large even if the Prenda group slows.

    • In my opinion, Lipscomb has done a far better job at staying under the radar. He hasn’t been committing any obvious fraud but I believe it’s there. Why pay Fantalis to go away otherwise when it was obvious that he was going to have to give up his methods via discovery in that case? He’s still an extortionist and a coward who has no interest in stopping piracy or concerning himself with a person’s guilt or innocence because then the gravy train will stop. He’s the copyright troll’s equivalent of “shoot first and ask questions later”. He’s just enough of a greedy son-of-a-bitch to keep it together. Steele and Co. will be undone by their own Hubris. Again, this is just my opinion.

  16. Patrick Collins jump ship to Copyright Enforcement Group or something? Got a “DMCA” notice from my ISP with a forward from CEG-TEK, representing Elegant Angel, with a link to go to copyrightsettlements.com (or something) and log in with an ID and password to access a settlement offer.

    didn’t mean to post this in reply to a post earlier. my bad

    • Intriguing. I’ve not heard of this method. The conspiracy theorist in me has the following thoughts: a settlement website could be set up and if a person doesn’t go to the site, the troll might think they have a chance at someone who will default. If you do go to the site and pump in the login information they provided, they then think you’re someone who might be persuaded to settle. They’d also have your current IP address (unless you use public wifi – which is what I would recommend.) I don’t know, this seems creepy on so many levels.

      • If it’s necessary to visit some troll site that might conceivably harvest IP addresses, I’d recommend using VPN or Tor even when using public wifi.

      • The “forwarding” of troll solicitations bundled with DMCA takedown notices has been underway for a few months at least. Its attraction for trolls is the minimal work involved. They can collect names and settlements without even filing a case, for the cost of mailing.

        It’s an entrapment via snail mail that resembles phishing, exposing the unwary to financial exploitation. Mr. Cashman has some articles describing it:

        https://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/ceg-tek-dmca-ira-siegel-chances-of-being-sued/

        We need a short hand name for it. How about:

        phishing 4CFUD ?

        (phishing for copyright troll Fear Uncertainty Doubt)

  17. (http://thecyndicate.com/Communication/showthread.php?703-%26%239432%3B-Download-Torrents-SAFELY-Without-Your-ISP-Tracking-You)

    this link may provide some insight into downloading torrents and tracking – for any so inclined to check it out for this community of DOE’s

    “The thing is, you just have to understand how this all works in order to understand why this method works. With Torrents, you have trackers. Now if you have your own website and want to upload your own torrent, you have to make your own tracker for that torrent.

    The tracker is placed at a permanent URL Address. Now inside this tracker, it has a list of IPs and a list of portions of that torrent connected to those IPs. This is how Torrent programs know where to get the pieces to download.

    Now inside of the Torrent file(NOT the tracker), it has a list of the trackers attached to that specific torrent download. One of the features of the BitTorrent protocol, is that if a tracker goes down, ANYONE,.. ANYWHERE can add a new tracker to the main torrent file. That way, no download ever goes dead. It just gets the trackers updated with new tracker locations/URLs.

    So what the RIAA and other Anti-Piracy companies do,.. is they make their own trackers for torrents, then they attach those trackers to an already existing Torrent file. Then, when people download the file, their IP gets stored in the Anti-Piracy’s tracker file. They just write a simple program that stores these IPs like once a min to a database. Then they send this Database of offending IPs to the ISP’s and people get warned or lose their service.

    Demonoids trackers are legit and run by them only. You cant edit or get direct access to IPs in the tracker because it is encrypted.

    That is why this works.

    The only way they could get IP’s fromt he demonoid tracker, is if they, themselves were uploading/downloading that torrent and keeping track of every IP that they connected to.

    The problem with this method, is that legally if they do that,.. Since they OWN the content and they are uploading it themselves, that torrent then becomes LEGAL to download.

    So legally, they cannot use these methods to farm IPs of “offenders”. They have to to run their own trackers and collect the data that way. So if you delete those trackers, they can not track or report you AT ALL.”

    Just wishing to get a hold of the torrent file(s) in the some of the Malibu Media LLC//
    X-Art//Lipscomb claims to get a list of the actual trackers to see who else is tracking it.

  18. Hey “Lipscum” (is that how you pronounce it – the judge in the bellwether trial pronounced it like that) it looks like porn revenue is up double-digits (%-wise).

    http://www.xbiz.com/news/legal/160692

    I guess your clients bitching about not making any money means they just can’t create a viable product. Maybe instead of suing people they should be looking at their business model (which currently is blackmail and extortion). You’re quite a lawyer. Shaking down people for tens of thousands of dollars for a $100 a year subscription. You make my blood boil you loser. This is of course all opinion on my part.

    • I’m sure this has nothing to do with the economy recovering and people spending money again. It must be due to anti-piracy efforts. [insert sarcasm here]

  19. “We’ll get by with a little from our friends”

    Comments – doePissedOff at 2013-03-13 01:18 CET:
    WARNING TO ALL: If you reside in US and do not use any kind of VPN, you are being tracked by X Art Studio.
    X ART VIDEOS ARE OWNED BY MALIBU MEDIA, A NOTORIOUS COPYRIGHT TROLL THAT IS CURRENT SUING THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
    ALL X ART TORRENTS ARE TRACKED BY TROLLS(AND MOST LIKELY UPLOADED AND SHARED BY THEM) AND DATA IS COLLECTED BY AN NOTORIOUS TROLL MICHAEL K LIPSCOMB, AN ATTORNEY OUT OF MIAMI.
    PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DOWNLOAD ANY VIDEOS FROM THAT STUDIO, GOOGLE MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS.

    (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wVN-AvLXr4sJ:thepiratebay.se/torrent/8244985/+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (This is Google’s cache of http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8244985/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 23, 2013 05:14:06 GMT.) ***NOT INTENDED FOR VIEWERS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD***

    Google Search Results – (https://www.google.com/search?q=x-rt+malibu+media+do+not+download&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&gs_rn=7&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=x-art%20malibu%20media%20do%20not%20download&cp=83&gs_id=m&xhr=t&q=DO%20NOT%20ATTEMPT%20TO%20DOWNLOAD%20ANY%20VIDEOS%20FROM%20THAT%20STUDIO%2C%20GOOGLE%20MALIBU%20MEDIA%20LAWSUIT&es_nrs=true&pf=p&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=DO+NOT+ATTEMPT+TO+DOWNLOAD+ANY+VIDEOS+FROM+THAT+STUDIO,+GOOGLE+MALIBU+MEDIA+LAWSUIT&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.eWU&fp=aa7899e64e1d28d6&biw=1920&bih=845)

  20. “Manwin International the owner of some of the most visited adult sites on the net, including Youporn.com and PornHub.com, which has filed a couple of UDRP of their own as a complainant, has just been hit with a UDRP on a domain name they own, Xart.com

    While the complainant of the UDRP is not showing up yet, I found one trademark on the term Xart in the US Trademark database, and it was just filed in November 2012, by Click Here LLC of Malibu, California for use as Adult entertainment.

    The domain name Xart.com has an original creation date of November 1998, or some 14 years earlier.

    The domain Xart.com was owned as early as 2010 by D.C.I. Daily Capital Investment with a contact of the current CEO of Manwin Fabian Thylmann, but Manwin did not show up as the owner of the domain until January of 2013.

    The domain name is not currently resolving.

    Screenshots.com last has a record of a site on this domain in January 2011 (graphic).

    Should be an interesting one”

    http://www.thedomains.com/2013/01/31/manwin-hit-with-udrp-on-the-domain-name-xart-com/

  21. Manwin International the owner of some of the most visited adult sites on the net, including Youporn.com and PornHub.com, which has filed a couple of UDRP of their own as a complainant, has just been hit with a UDRP on a domain name they own, Xart.com

    While the complainant of the UDRP is not showing up yet, I found one trademark on the term Xart in the US Trademark database, and it was just filed in November 2012, by Click Here LLC of Malibu, California for use as Adult entertainment (a.k.a.Malibu Media LLC a.k.a Brigham & Colette Field)

    The domain name Xart.com has an original creation date of November 1998, or some 14 years earlier.

    The domain Xart.com was owned as early as 2010 by D.C.I. Daily Capital Investment with a contact of the current CEO of Manwin Fabian Thylmann, but Manwin did not show up as the owner of the domain until January of 2013.

    The domain name is not currently resolving.

    Screenshots.com last has a record of a site on this domain in January 2011 (graphic).

    Should be an interesting one

  22. http://news.priorsmart.com/hawk-technology-systems-v-vicon-industries-l7Hb/

    Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Vicon Industries, Inc.
    Complaint for Patent Infringement
    Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-20632-CMA, the Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga presiding.
    Filed on Feb. 21, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida;
    Plaintiffs: Hawk Technology Systems Michael Keith Lipscomb

    • According to the complaint, Hawk Technology Systems just happens to be located in the same office suite as Porno Lipscomb’s law firm.

      Hawk’s website contains no information beyond a few PDFs of its IMO indefensibly broad and ambiguous 15 year old patents. The patent in question in this suit loosely describes every DVR system on the market.

      Two of Hawk’s three listed principals aren’t inventors but are in fact other lawyers.

      Porno Lipscomb, you stay classy.

  23. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/florida-southern-district-court/89246/fame-ip-holding-llc-et-al-v-micki-free-et-al/summary/

    RFC Case Number: T-F12-60195M
    Court Case Number: 0:12-cv-60195-JIC
    File Date: Friday, February 03, 2012
    Plaintiff: Fame IP Holding, LLC The Seminole Tribe of Florida First American Music and Entertainment, LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Michael K. Lipscomb, Jose S. Talavera, Steven E. Eisenberg of Lipscomb Brady & Eisenberg PL
    Defendant: Micki Free American Horse, LLC
    Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

  24. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/florida-southern-district-court/224090/the-learning-experience-holding-corp-et-al-v-education-1st-inc-et-al/summary/

    RFC Case Number: T-T13-20253E
    Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-20253-CMA
    File Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013
    Plaintiff: The Learning Experience Holding Corp. MWR Holdings LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Michael K. Lipscomb, Jose S. Talavera of Lipscomb Brady & Eisenberg PL
    Defendant: Education 1st, Inc. Darphine Snell
    Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

  25. MM dismissed their 2012-32591-CA-01 case today, “due to settlement as with all parties”, which is strange, since it looks like a few does have settled out of 99 they subpoenaed

  26. does Lipscomb think the Courts & community have been distracted by Steele’s/Prenda & goons ?

    http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Malibu+Media%2C+LLC+

    Cases filed matching “Malibu Media, LLC ”
    Display as Search Results
    Cases 1 – 20 of 701

    ——————————————– The “games the same”—————————————————

    • With so many lawsuits being filed it is inevitable that some will be assigned to judges who have a track record of being hostile to this extortion racket. Some have. Just waiting on the benchslaps.

  27. Google search summary “getoutofdebt.org/16903/square-one-debt-settlement-review
    Jan 29, 2010 – Here is the other SCAM – Deborah Baker (this new attorney) still really works with Lipscomb, Brady & Eisenberg, a Miami law firm. THIS IS ALL …”

    Sub: #68 Here is another follow up on the Square One alter ego sham law Tue, 08/03/2010 – 06:24

    Here is another follow up on the Square One alter ego sham law firm “Credit Advocates.” I read the articles and there was an attorney named David Philips. Now, this guy appears to be the real-deal as I Google his name and founds several articles. Now, David Philips is gone, or more likely bolted, David Prince replaced him with Deborah Baker. Here is the other SCAM – Deborah Baker (this new attorney) still really works with Lipscomb, Brady & Eisenberg, a Miami law firm. THIS IS ALL A SHAM!!!! Really, is the florida bar or the state of florida going to do something??????? (http://ad.www.debtconsolidationcare.com/settlement/square-one-6.html)

    Sub: #72 Posted by Anonymous Here is another follow up on Tue, 08/10/2010 – 17:57 (http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/settlement/square-one-7.html)

    http://getoutofdebt.org/16903/square-one-debt-settlement-review

  28. http://gregpiccionelli.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=115&Itemid=29

    1. What are the firm’s credentials and experience in the area of copyright enforcement involving peer-to-peer file sharing systems?

    2. Has the firm ever been sanctioned by a court or sued for abuse of process?

    3. Does the firm have a sufficient level of expertise in the area of adult entertainment law to properly prepare an adult entertainment client for the special risks faced by adult entertainment companies and their principals in civil litigation? Some domestic and foreign “copyright enforcement” or “copyright protection” firms tout the fact that they have represented “mainstream” companies in similar mass copyright enforcement actions. But it is important to remember that adult entertainment companies are subject to a large number of regulations that mainstream companies are not, including a large number of very serious criminal laws.

    Any material lack of compliance with applicable regulations on the part of an adult content producer plaintiff can become a serious litigation vulnerability if exploited by a knowledgeable opponent.

    Since many adult entertainment companies are simply not in compliance with all the applicable regulations (e.g, the “2257” regulations, obscenity laws, etc.), the filing of a copyright enforcement lawsuit may not always be in the best interest of an adult content producer and/or its principals. Adult entertainment companies should always consider the fact that filing a lawsuit can trigger a defendant’s right to legal discovery, which might include, for example, the right to depose the company’s principals and employees.

    It is important to always remember that litigation is a two-way street. And once started, the party initiating the litigation may not be able to control the outcome or dismiss the case. For these and other reasons, seasoned adult entertainment attorneys will always try to make sure that their client’s commencement of any kind of lawsuit will not result in the legal equivalent of throwing stones while living in a glass house.

    4. Will the firm or any associated company be uploading or downloading any of the production company’s content into a BitTorrent or any other peer-to-peer system?

    5. Will the firm indemnify the adult company and hold it harmless for the payment of court sanctions and any other damages that might result from liability to defendants for abuse of process, privacy violations, etc., that might result from the firm’s use of relatively unorthodox or unusual litigation techniques?

    6. Will the adult content producer be required to license or assign any rights in or to the subject adult content?

    7. Will the firm be employing a litigation strategy that seeks to shame or intimidate defendants into settling? I strongly suggest that adult companies seeking to enforce their intellectual property rights avoid strategies that explicitly or implicitly employ intimidation or seek to exploit negative societal views regarding adult content. Such strategies can backfire badly and, in some cases, can produce zealous defendants, particularly if the party was erroneously named and was not in fact involved in the alleged file sharing of the subject adult content. It’s good to always remember that it isn’t just adult entrepreneurs that get pissed off and fight light hell when they are wrongly hauled into court.

    8. Do the infringement location and data mining systems used by the firm, directly or through one or more third parties, infringe any patents, and, if so, will the firm indemnify and hold harmless the adult content producer from any liability for patent infringement? I can assure you that an adult entertainment company is well-advised not to become embroiled in patent litigation for directly or indirectly infringing a patent involving infringement detection.

    9. All agreements presented by the “copyright protection” firm should be reviewed by the producer’s regular adult entertainment attorney.

    10. How much professional liability coverage does the firm have? Is it sufficient to cover potential liability for class actions that might be brought on behalf of defendants?

  29. http://www.xbiz.com/articles/161835?ln=legal

    The Proper DMCA Takedown Notification –
    “This article will discuss what must be included in a properly formatted DMCA notification of claimed infringement (commonly referred to as a “Takedown Notice”).”

    Comment: Be very careful before you send out any DMCA notification. Abusing the DMCA notification procedures or misrepresenting facts in a DMCA notification can result in legal liability including damages, court costs and attorneys’ fees. In fact, the DMCA contains specific language for dealing with any individual that “knowingly materially misrepresents” when making a DMCA notification. Take a look at 17 USC § 512(f)”

  30. http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130415/02185722706/deftones-guitarist-people-who-download-our-music-are-fans-theyre-welcome-to-do-so.shtml

    Deftones Guitarist: People Who Download Our Music Are Fans, They’re Welcome To Do So
    “I say hallelujah to them. I say it for only one reason, the truth is people who download your music are your fans, or people who are potentially going to become your fans,” he said. “And if you’re going to be upset that someone is interested, or becoming interested in your stuff, then what’s the point? What are you doing?”

    He continued: “If it’s all about money then certainly you’re going to be offended. But if your intent is to enjoy what you’re doing and have others enjoying it, then it should be a no brainer. I welcome all people to download the music. They won’t be the first, they won’t be the last, and for anyone to fight that … it’s futile.”

    ————————–“You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”—————————–

    Remember this – Brigham, Colette, Malibu Media, Lipscomb and Schulz !!!
    “Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character”. ~Albert Einstein

  31. does anybody else have a problem with these statements?

    25. “For the first three years (when our site was not as popular), we didn’t have as many issues with piracy. Now, that our videos are highly desirable, more people steal our videos that pay for a
    subscription.”

    IANAL – but this “attitude” and lack of action seems negligent. Plaintiff seems just as responsible for allowing “unauthorized use” for the first three years and negligent for NOT taking reasonable and prudent action that would prevent continued “unauthorized use”.

    “A person has acted negligently if she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.”

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/negligence

    Wonder if any “John Doe” defense lawyers could interpret for use with Collette’s declaration or find something similar for use in regards to these circumstances?

    26. “We are even getting many complaints from our members (asking why they should pay when they are available for free on the torrents).”

    Again, IANAL, but this also seems negligent as the web master’s/admin responsibility is to make sure their site is secure enough to prevent “unauthorized use”. Its highly UNLIKELY that the web
    master’s/admin has NO IDEA which one of THEIR OWN users “downloaded” referenced files and
    subsequently uploaded same referenced files as a .torrent file.

    ANYBODY who says they KNOW ANYTHING about .torrent files will also KNOW they multiply, like
    children’s stuffed animals, especially when your not looking…

  32. DECLARATION OF COLETTE LEAH PELISSIER FIELD (dated 12-5-2012)

    24. “We have worked hard and invested millions of dollars in out business in order to produce the best quality product.”

    http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/girls/articles/2013-03/13/brigham-colette-field-x-art-sex-scene

    “accessed by viewers in the hundreds of millions (100, 000, 000) ” X $99.95 annually per
    DECLARATION OF COLETTE PELISSIER FIELD (dated 12-5-2012) = $9,995,000,000.00 – $99,000.00 = $9,994,901,000.00 (is the math right?)

    Colette Antigua – https://twitter.com/colettexart/status/290238360528748545/photo/1
    Colette Praque – https://twitter.com/colettexart/status/323507808949645312/photo/1

    Colette riding her pretty little horses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzh3Vqteu6Q
    Colette riding her pretty little horses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJh7Mynu6Bo
    Colette riding her pretty little horses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-qVZoZVBIA

    Brigham – $17.00 smoothies – https://twitter.com/BrighamField/status/257658574778540032/photo/1
    Brigham Prague – https://twitter.com/BrighamField/status/277180613902098432/photo/1
    Brigham St. Barts – https://twitter.com/BrighamField/status/291026670155091968/photo/1
    Brigham Formula 3 car – http://brighamfield.com/post/45031121587

    did we mistake they were all about the “copyright”? Silly Us!!!

    • The math, and its absurdity, seem correct. Colette Leah Pelissier Field is claiming that alleged infringements have caused losses of ten of billions of dollars. That’s the market cap of DIsney, or more.

      If we take, as with do-you-know’s calculation, begin at a “single” one hundred thousand viewers, and figure that most are in the U.S.,the Fields/x-art.com/Malibu Media/Lipscomb group is claiming that, at least, over 40% of the ENTIRE U.S. adult population is allegedly infringing on x-art.com’s “useful works”.

      If, as trolls suggest, the claim is that most alleged infringers are male U.S. adults, then the math suggests allegations involve 80% or more of ALL U.S. males.

      On this basis, the claim is outrageously far fetched.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s