BitTorrent Subpoena & Lawsuit Defense

Call or Text Now

610-466-5644

Subpoena

by

Glacier Films lawsuits begin with 7 in Illinois

Reddit user /u/beardfearer may fear beards, but not copyright notices

A new copyright Plaintiff, Glacier Films, has begun filing lawsuits in Illinois’ Northern District Court. Seven lawsuits were filed, each against multiple John Does, and each for the alleged unauthorized download of Plaintiff’s film, “American Heist”.

The Plaintiffs are represented by Michael A. Hierl and Todd Sheldon Parkhurst  of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.

Each case joins defendants en masse, with the Does ranging from 13 to 34.

Defendants in these new cases are likely to receive their notice of subpoenas to their internet service providers within the next few weeks. These subpoenas seek the subscribers’ names and addresses. Plaintiffs typically use the identities to pursue settlements or further litigation.

If you have received a notice in one of these cases, please don’t hesitate to call me. I have a ton of experience in file-sharing lawsuits and can help you achieve the best outcome possible. I’ve written a subpoena defense guide for your information, as well.

I look forward to speaking with you and helping you put this matter behind you.

Yours,
Leonard French

The May 2015 Illinois Glacier Film lawsuits are:
  • 1:15-cv-04009 GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. v. DOES 1-13 filed 05/06/15
  • 1:15-cv-04010 GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. v. DOES 1-13 filed 05/06/15
  • 1:15-cv-04011 GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. v. DOES 1-34 filed 05/06/15
  • 1:15-cv-04012 GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. v. DOES 1-30 filed 05/06/15
  • 1:15-cv-04014 GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. v. DOES 1-28 filed 05/06/15
  • 1:15-cv-04015 GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. v. DOES 1-27 filed 05/06/15
  • 1:15-cv-04016 GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC. v. DOES 1-29 filed 05/06/15

by

21 Plastic Movie lawsuits filed in New Jersey

Reddit user /u/beardfearer may fear beards, but not copyright notices

A new copyright plaintiff filed 21 new cases in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey this week. The owners of the movie “Plastic”, a teen action flick, are looking to capitalize on for compensation for their film’s popularity on bittorrent-based peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

The Plaintiff is represented by none other than Jordan Rushie, the Liberty Media Holdings lawyer who attempted to exploit Pennsylvania’s discovery laws and obtain the identities of John Does in file-sharing cases while staying out of Federal Court.

The suits seek compensation under copyright law for a single download of the movie “Plastic”.

Defendants in these new cases are likely to receive their notice of subpoenas to their internet service providers within the next few weeks.

If you have received a notice in one of these cases, please don’t hesitate to call me. I have a ton of experience in file-sharing lawsuits and can help you achieve the best outcome possible. I’ve written a subpoena defense guide for your information, as well.

I look forward to speaking with you and helping you put this matter behind you.

Yours,
Leonard French

The April 2015 New Jersey Plastic Movie lawsuits are:
  • 1:15-cv-02441-JBS-AMD PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.24.107.24 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02443-NLH-AMD PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.71.86.91 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02445-JEI-JS PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 174.57.211.118 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02446-JHR-JS PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.105.163 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02447-JEI-KMW PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 50.153.126.148 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02448-RBK-KMW PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.83.121.251 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02449-JEI-KMW PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.188.73.173 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02451-JHR-AMD PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.226.222.182 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02452-NLH-AMD PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.178.84.195 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02453-JEI-AMD PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.178.94.255 filed 04/07/15
  • 1:15-cv-02454-RBK-JS PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.196.230.224 filed 04/07/15
  • 2:15-cv-02474-KM-MAH PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.117.231.167 filed 04/07/15
  • 2:15-cv-02475-CCC-MF PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.250.221.30 filed 04/07/15
  • 2:15-cv-02476-SDW-SCM PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.186.44 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02424-MLC-DEA PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.224.134 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02425-FLW-DEA PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.71.106.226 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02442-AET-TJB PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 50.182.135.226 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02450-FLW-DEA PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 50.182.91.78 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02455-PGS-DEA PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 68.38.2.103 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02456-AET-DEA PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.244.125.80 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02457-FLW-LHG PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.188.122.252 filed 04/07/15
  • 3:15-cv-02459-FLW-LHG PLASTIC THE MOVIE LIMITED v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.33.188.118 filed 04/07/15

by

Malibu Media “Bellwether”: Lessons learned from the first bittorrent trial in the U.S.

Reddit user /u/beardfearer may fear beards, but not copyright notices

The first-ever ‘trial’ in the U.S. over unauthorized file-sharing using the bittorrent protocol blazed a trail for future Plaintiffs. What many had hoped would be an opportunity for defendants to show some sort of illegal maneuvering on Plaintiff’s part instead became a court-sanctioned presentation of Plaintiff’s case. In the end, Malibu Media was able to show enough evidence to convince the John Doe defendants that settlement was a more appealing option. I was fortunate enough to defend one of the John Does who were chosen for trial. While I cannot discuss the settlements, I can discuss what the trial means for Internet users and future defendants.

We now have an idea of what kind of damages to expect

At the end of trial, Judge Baylson opined that there were varying damages for the defendants based on their individual circumstances. At a minimum, a defendant can expect to pay at least $2,250 per infringement. A defendant who drags the case out unnecessarily can expect to pay at least 5 to 10 times that plus the opposing side’s attorneys fees.

We now know how the evidence is collected

With the myriad speculation on the Internet, many defendants do not know what information is true regarding a copyright Plaintiff’s ability to collect evidence on a potential defendant. We now know that potential Plaintiffs can hire investigators whose systems are robust enough to survive scrutiny in court. Perhaps a future case will be able to test the veracity of those procedures and evidence.

We now know that Malibu is a genuine copyright owner

I’m sure that we can argue all day over whether Malibu Media is a “copyright troll”. Judge Baylson made a point of noting that he did not feel that Plaintiff met the legal definition of copyright troll – an entity which does not properly own the copyrights it is suing on or an entity which is acquiring copyrights solely for the purpose of filing lawsuits.

We now know what it costs to defend these cases

It’s important to be able to counsel defendants on what to expect during their case and that includes finances. With even the limited trial involved in this case, we now know what to expect when a defendant wishes to have their day in court. This includes estimating the costs involved so a defendant can make an informed decision about the path of their case.

What this means going forward

The best way to avoid becoming a defendant is to make sure that no one downloads any copyrighted material without permission using an Internet connection for which you are responsible. This means securing your network and your computers, keeping them free of viruses, and limiting access to them to those you trust not to break the law.

If you or someone you know has received a notice in one of these cases, I urge you to contact me at 888-801-8681.

Leonard J. French