American Censorship Day

PROTECT-IP is a bill that is up for hearing in Congress on November 16. This is a bill that directly impacts the issue we write about in this blog. The lawsuits will become more prevalent and pervasive. Check out the websites, watch the video. Protect your rights.

On November 16, you will see the banner below block our own as we take part of American Censorship Day Campaign. Join the campaign, write to your congressman.

"PROTECT-IP is a bill that has been introduced in the Senate and the House and is moving quickly through Congress. It gives the government and corporations the ability to censor the net, in the name of protecting 'creativity'. The law would let the government or corporations censor entire sites-- they just have to convince a judge that the site is 'dedicated to copyright infringement.'  
The government has already wrongly shut down sites without any recourse to the site owner. Under this bill, sharing a video with anything copyrighted in it, or what sites like Youtube and Twitter do, would be considered illegal behavior according to this bill. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would cost us $47 million tax dollars a year — that's for a fix that won't work, disrupts the internet, stifles innovation, shuts out diverse voices, and censors the internet. This bill is bad for creativity and does not protect your rights." ~PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet by Fight the Future

DieTrollDie

DieTrollDie is a Doe in one of the mass copyright cases. The case against DieTrollDie was dismissed thanks to motions filed.

DieTrollDie recently filed a Declaration to Refute Plaintiff's Declaration. This was in response to Plaintiff's Attorney Declaration in Support of Motion for Reconsideration where he specifically mentioned DieTrollDie & blog.

Please, do take the time to read both declarations as they are a wealth of information.

Another dismissal in Virginia, Judges considers Rule 11 Sanctions

In my previous post, I posted a decision in the Hard Drive Productions v Does where Judge dismissed the action for improper joinder. Another case was also dismisse din Virginia, Raw Films, Ltd. v. Does 1-32.

Judge John A. Gibney not only dismissed the case and it "swarm theory". The court ordered plaintiff to show cause why his conduct did not merit Rule 11 sanctions. The court suggested that it appeared that plaintiff was merely to obtain enough information to "shake down" defendants and get them to settle and had no intention of litigating the case.

I just got a copy of the case. See the decision below.

Raw Films v. Does

Dismissal in Virginia

Fighting Copyright Trolls, the best blog to get this information, posted today a decision in Virginia. The decision is by Judge Tommy E. Miller. Judge Miller dismissed the action for improper joinder. Moreover, Judge Miller makes a note about the phone calls the defendants are receiving, the "opportunity to settle before being named in the Complaint."

"On October 13, 2011, another anonymous Doe Defendant (“Doe Defendant X”) filed a letter under seal with the Court. Letter, ECF No. 16. In this letter, Doe Defendant X stated that he had been contacted by John Steele, Esq. regarding this matter. During the phone call, Mr. Steele offered Anonymous the ‘opportunity’ to settle for $3,400 by October 18th. Mr. Steele informed Doe Defendant X that Doe Defendant X would be named as a defendant in the case should this settlement offer be rejected."

In the case I represent, I am being contacted by a man, who is not an attorney, offering my client the opportunity to settle before being named in the complaint. The man is either affiliated with the studio or with the lawfirm).

11 Cv 00345 HCM TEM Document 19 Order

Rule 11, asking for sanctions

11 Cv 00469 JAG Document 9 Order


I stumbled upon this opinion in the great great http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/ blog. This is a MUST read for eveyone that is facing a copyright case.

The quote worthy part, by Judge Gibney:

This course of conduct indicates that the plaintiffs have used the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain the Doe defendants’ personal information and coerce payment from them. The plaintiffs seemingly have no interest in actually litigating the cases, but rather simply have used the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the John Does. Whenever the suggestion of a ruling on the merits of the claims appears on the horizon, the plaintiffs drop the John Doe threatening to litigate the matter in order to avoid the actual cost of litigation and an actual decision on the merits.

The plaintiffs’ conduct in these cases indicates an improper purpose for the suits. In addition, the joinder of unrelated defendants does not seem to be warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous extension of existing law.

Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3), the Court, therefore, will direct the plaintiff and its counsel to show cause why the conduct specifically described in this Memorandum Order has not violated Rule 11(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

MUST Read decision in California

090611 Tru Filth, LLC dba On The Cheap, LLC -- Dismissal of Out-Of-State Defendants

tl;dr

Basically, Judge Bernard Zimmerman dismissed the lawsuit for misjoinder and improper venue. This decision just screams "cite me cite me!"

Of note, the court states that " Most recent decisions on this issue have concluded that the use of the BitTorrent protocol does not distinguish these cases from earlier rulings in P2P cases in which courts found that joining multiple Doe defendants was improper since downloading the same file did not mean that each defendant were engaged in the same transaction or occurrence."

The court argues that joinder of the several thousand defendants would create manageability issues as each defendant will likely raise different legal and factual issues, as is evidenced by all the motions to quash that have been filed. Basically, a logistical nightmare for the court to schedule hearings, deal with the docket, handle motions. It would not further judicial efficiency.

I kinda love this judge. His opinion goes on to say that plaintiff's attorney was not able to explain how a case management conference or pre-trial would be handled with 5,000 defendants.

And my favorite part, which is sadly in a footnote.

"The court's concerns are heightened by plaintiff's refusal to file under seal a copy of its settlement letter and related informtion about its settlement practices. The silm sells for $19.95 on plaintiff's website. According to public reports, plaintiffs in other BitTorrent cases, rather than prosecuting their lawsuits after learning the identities of Does, are demanding thousands of dollars from each Doe defendant in settlement. If all this is correct, it raises questions of whether this film was produced for commercial purposes or for purposes of generating litigation. [...] If all the concerns about these mass Doe lawsuits are true, it appears that the copyright laws are being used as part of a massive collection scheme and not to promote useful arts."

Welcome to the lawsuit...i mean show!

Dear blog readers,

Recently, some of my friends and clients have been "sued" in those mass copyright lawsuits. The lawsuits are in Florida and D.C. Of course, no where near where my clients or friends live. I have spent a bit of time researching this issue online. As I explore more, I hope to share this information with you guys, so that youa re in the same position, you, more or less, know what you should do.

As I mentioned, ther eis a case pending in D.C. and another in Florida. From what I read, the cases in California are getting easily dismissed and the judges seem to be fed up with the mass lawsuits. But, Florida seems to be different. More friendly to the lawsuits. The judge in my Florida case denied the Motions to Quash and stated that defendants had to reveal their names, address and phone number if they wanted to file a motion. So while the Motions to Quash might make it more expensive to litigate the case, they don't seem to work in Florida.

I can tell you that in one case, the studios hired a call center, or something, to call and offer a settlement. The settlement amount is $2,500.00

-_-

Thoughts, comments, ideas?