The aim of the copyright holders is never to take any of the cases to trial, but to get alleged infringers to pay a substantial cash settlement to make legal action go away. Some equal this scheme to extortion, but the copyright holders say they are merely protecting their work.

One of the first film studios to recognize the potential of these schemes was Nu Image. Last year they had the questionable honor of filing the largest P2P lawsuit in history by targeting 23,322 alleged downloaders of ‘The Expendables’.

While that case was dismissed a few months later, Nu Image isn’t leaving BitTorrent users alone.

Late last week the studio filed a brand new mass-BitTorrent lawsuit at the US District Court of Maryland for another well-known movie. The suit targets 2,165 alleged sharers of ‘Conan The Barbarian,’ a film that was downloaded on BitTorrent by millions of people in recent months.

The accused individuals had their IP-addresses exposed while downloading the film, and were ‘busted’ somewhere between December 1st 2011 and February 1st of this year as can be seen from the full list of “Doe defendants” below.

Other than the new film title, the paperwork is pretty much identical to previous lawsuits that were filed by the US Copyright Group (USCG). However, a closer look reveals that the lawyers did learn from ‘mistakes’ made in previous cases.

One of the most significant changes is that all defendants appear to reside in the right district, Maryland in this particular case. Previously judges have dismissed tens of thousands of defendants because they lived in other districts. This was also the main reason why Nu Image’s ‘The Expendables’ case died prematurely.

The judge in that case advised Nu Image to use one of the many IP-location databases to find out who they can go after in court, and the movie studio has done so for their most recent filing.

Another smart move from the movie studio is to include only IP-addresses allocated to Internet providers that were previously cooperative, such as Comcast and Sprint. Noticeably absent is Time Warner, who successfully fought the mass-production of IP-addresses in a related case.

While the above give Nu Image a better chance of reaching their desired goal, BitTorrent users aren’t sitting still either.

The mass-lawsuits and the upcoming copyright alert system motivated many BitTorrent users to routinely hide their IP-addresses through proxy and VPN services. But nevertheless, the scheme is profitable enough for studios like Nu Image to continue. Even if only half of the defendants pay up the total settlement earnings will be in the millions.

And so the cat and mouse game continues.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

According to papers just filed, USCG will again partner with The Expendables creator Nu Image to chase down yet more BitTorrent users, this time those who allegedly obtained and distributed the Jason Statham movie The Mechanic.

The filing lists 4,165 IP addresses that were allegedly making the movie available between July 1st and August 8th this year. The number of ISPs targeted is small – Charter, Comcast, Cox, RCN and Windstream. Absent are Verizon and Time Warner, ISPs that have previously put limits on their levels of cooperation in these cases.

In recent months USCG have suffered major setbacks when submitted IP addresses were found to be located in the wrong jurisdictions, but you wouldn’t guess it from confident statements in their most recent filing.

“Although the true identity of each Defendant is unknown to the Plaintiff at this time, on information and belief, each Defendant may be found in this District and/or a substantial part of the acts of infringement complained of herein occurred in this District,” it reads.

Yet, in tests carried out by TorrentFreak, we discovered that of 4,165 IP addresses filed, just 2% can be traced back to the correct jurisdiction, in this case Maryland. The biggest group, 13.1%, are IP addresses in California. Columbia represent just 0.4% of the total.

This problem over jurisdiction is nothing new. In August, USCG and Nu Image voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit targeting 23,322 U.S. Internet users who allegedly shared The Expendables.

The suit, at one time the biggest ever of its type, was crippled when District Court Judge Robert Wilkins decided that Nu Image could only go after those individuals who were reasonably likely to be living in the District of Columbia, the district where the suit was filed. In that case, 99% of the IP addresses filed were out of jurisdiction.

With Judge Wilkins ruling unfavorably, shortly after USCG also dumped their lawsuit filed on behalf of Cinetel Films, the makers of the horror flick “I Spit on Your Grave”, which listed 1,951 BitTorrent users as defendants. That too had been filed in Columbia.

USCG have now chosen the District of Maryland to file the papers for The Mechanic’s settlement shakedown. Time will tell what the presiding judge there will have to say on the issue of jurisdiction, but if he or she has had an eye on the cases in Columbia, our findings above – that 98% of IP addresses relate to the wrong district – should prove of great interest.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Today we can add another one, as the law firm behind USCG just dismissed their case against 5,829 alleged downloaders of Teen Anal Nightmare 2 (West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-5,829).

Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represented several Does in this case is happy with the outcome.

“This case had everything wrong with it. Improper joinder, improper jurisdiction, even the content it accused internet users of downloading was distasteful. “I don’t like ugly biker chicks, I’d never download their films,” a Doe Defendant once told me,” he writes.

Cashman continues:

“What does this mean? Could it mean that the plaintiff attorneys do not have the resources, the time, the patience, or the energy to take clients to trial? Or, did West Coast Productions, Inc. say “enough is enough; we’ve made enough money in settlements — let’s close up shop.” It cannot be that easy.”

“Here is my take. Before they sue each and every one of the defendants in smaller groups in the correct courts — a tactic that Steele Hansmeier, PLLC and other plaintiff attorneys have caught onto — they had to kill the big bad monster of a case. After all, it would be bad to sue the same defendant in two cases at the same time for the same alleged act of infringement.”

“So for now, those of you who were defendants in this case, you are no longer defendants, and I congratulate you on your victory. I would whip out the champagne bottles and celebrate, but be very aware that there is one more West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does case lurking in this same DC court.”

For now it’s certainly good news.

POP!

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Thus far the results in court have varied greatly. In some cases the judges were quick to throw the cases out, and in other instances the copyright holders were allowed to identify the alleged copyright infringers. They could then continue their scheme and send settlement offers to the defendants to make the threat of legal action disappear.

Last week we reported that USCG had dropped one of their most prominent cases representing the makers of The Expendables, Nu Image. In a brief court filing they voluntarily dismissed their case against 23,322 alleged BitTorrent users who were accused of illegally sharing the film.

One of the reasons for this dismissal is that in July, District Court Judge Robert Wilkins ruled that the lawyers could only go after those individuals who are reasonably likely to be living in the District of Columbia.

This meant that they were not allowed to send any subpoenas to ISPs when the IP-addresses are located in other districts, and it effectively reduced the group of defendants to about 1 percent of what it initially was. Apparently, this group of leftover defendants was not worth the effort and the case was dropped.

But this case doesn’t stand alone.

This week USCG voluntarily dismissed another lawsuit (pdf), one that was filed just a few weeks ago. The case in question was filed on behalf of Cinetel Films, the makers of the horror flick “I Spit on Your Grave” and listed 1,951 BitTorrent users as defendants.

As with the Expendables case, USCG doesn’t give a reason why they chose to voluntarily dismiss the case. However, since this case was also appointed to Judge Robert Wilkins it doesn’t seem far-fetched that they anticipated running into similar jurisdiction issues as they did in the Expendables case.

The above suggests that USCG is ‘retreating’ and they are unlikely to file similar mass-lawsuits at the District Court for the District of Columbia in the near future. However, that doesn’t mean that the trouble for the defendants is completely over.

As both cases were dismissed “without prejudice,” it means that they ran be refiled at a later stage. This allows the lawyers to cut up the huge list of defendants into smaller batches and file new lawsuits in the districts where these alleged BitTorrent users live.

As we’ve pointed out in the past, anti-piracy lawyers are constantly changing their tactics to maximize the profitability of their settlement schemes. The future will show whether USCG and its clients are planning to do the same. In other words, they may have lost a battle but the war is certainly not over yet.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Their example was soon followed by other law firms, representing dozens of copyright holders, who saw an opportunity to convert instances of piracy into a healthy revenue stream.

One of the movie studios that teamed up with USCG is Nu Image, the makers of The Expendables, an independent production that grossed more than $100 million in the United States alone.

A massive list of 23,322 U.S. Internet users were targeted by the film studio, and for a short while Nu Image had the questionable honor of having started the biggest file-sharing lawsuit the world has ever witnessed.

But, instead of raking in millions of dollars from the accused file-sharers as was the plan, Nu Image has now thrown in the towel by voluntarily dismissing the case.

Late last month the film studio received bad news as District Court Judge Robert Wilkins ruled that Nu Image can only go after those individuals who are reasonably likely to be living in the District of Columbia. This means that the movie studio could not send any subpoenas to ISPs when the IP-addresses are located in other districts.

This effectively meant that 99% of the initial defendants walked free. A devastating blow to the plans of USCG and Nu Image, and as a result they’ve now decided to drop the case in its entirety, including the defendants who were sued in the right district.

“Plaintiff hereby gives notice that it voluntarily dismisses the case in its entirety, without prejudice,” the attorneys write in a brief notice to the court.

Although it is not the first time that a judge has ruled that defendants have to be sued in the right court, the current case adds extra weight because of the sheer number of defendants and the fact that it received widespread coverage in the media previously.

If other judges side with Wilkins, future mass-lawsuits against BitTorrent users will become more costly. Although it is unlikely that these cases will disappear entirely, it seems plausible to assume that lawyers will now think twice before they sue thousands of defendants in the wrong district.

USCG in particular has to change their tactics if they want to continue suing alleged copyright infringers, not least because their actions are being watched more closely after doubt was cast over the reliability of their evidence.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The class-action lawsuit targets the movie studio Achte/Neunte, their lawyers and the tracking company who went after thousands of people who allegedly downloaded and shared the movie ‘Far Cry’ on BitTorrent.

Through the lawsuit BitTorrent users, spearheaded by Dmitriy Shirokov, are seeking relief based on 25 counts including extortion, fraudulent omissions, mail fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud and abuse, racketeering, fraud upon the court, abuse of process, fraud on the Copyright Office, copyright misuse, unjust enrichment and consumer protection violations.

The case is ongoing in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts and thus far not much progress has been booked by either of the parties involved. However, previously unreported filings reveal that the evidence the copyright holders claim to have against the alleged file-sharers may be even weaker than expected.

The court filing in question shows how USCG is basically a front for the partnership between the German based pirate tracking outfit GuardaLey and the law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver.

Unlike the image often portrayed in the media, the plaintiffs claim that GuardaLey is the main motivating power behind the lawsuits. One email brought in as evidence clearly shows the company actively approaching law firms to work with them and plugging their scheme to various copyright holders.

It is clear that the evidence gatherers are by no means an objective party. On the contrary, it can be argued that this German based company is the prime reason why more than 200,000 people have been sued in the United States. And if it couldn’t get any worse, the evidence GuardaLey actually collects against the BitTorrent users may be totally useless.

The documents filed by the attorneys of the plaintiffs, law firm Booth Sweet, reveal that GuardaLey’s evidence gathering techniques are far from optimal.

The attorneys refer to a German court case where GuardaLey was sued by one of the law firms (Baumgarten Brandt) they partnered with. The law firm filed suit after it discovered that GuardaLey was aware of several technological flaws concerning their evidence, but chose not to disclose them. The law firm won the case.

Based on an independent review the German judge concluded that GuardaLey’s evidence gathering technology does not check whether the accused actually downloaded (or uploaded) content. A major flaw that was previously exposed by the University of Washington, where copyright holders accused a printer of pirating.

The findings are especially troubling because some major BitTorrent trackers insert random IP-addresses into BitTorrent swarms. These IP-addresses are not actually trying to download any files, but they may be accused of doing so based on GuardaLey’s evidence.

TorrentFreak contacted attorney Jason Sweet of Booth Sweet who believes that GuardaLey has continued to use the same technology in all of its U.S. based cases.

“That’s what the lawsuit in Germany was about. That Guardaley knew of the flaw, but continued using it to identify infringers. We haven’t seen anything that would indicate they’ve corrected the problem or are using different methods. I believe they’ve even made statements to the contrary – that they use the same tech for all of their cases,” attorney Jason Sweet told TorrentFreak.

This means that among the more than 100,000 BitTorrent users who were sued by USCG in the U.S., many are likely to be wrongfully accused.

“The real issue is that innocent people are getting swept up along with the infringers, and no effort is being made to sort them out. That’s because despite Achte’s protestations, this case was designed to do one thing only – generate revenue. And for them an innocent person’s money is just as good as a guilty person’s,” Sweet told us.

And there is more. Documents filed at the German court further suggest that GuardaLey might also operate pirate honeypots.

“GuardaLey operates a ‘honeypot’—that is they represent “by means of a falsified bit field, that it was always in possession of 50% of the file being sought.” If the actual file is being offered than an implied license is operative. If it is a garbage file, than no infringement occurs. In either instance, IP addresses are being identified that did not infringe,” the plaintiffs assert.

The above is a very worrying discovery that may become a pivotal issue in the ongoing lawsuits in the U.S. Could it be that the evidence used by GuardaLey in the cases against the thousands of BitTorrent users in America is just as weak?

Unfortunately, in these pay-up-or-else schemes the evidence never gets as far as a proper review because the copyright holders are only after settlements. However, the class-action lawsuit against USCG and partners could get to the bottom of this.

If the evidence turns out to be as weak as described above, it would probably mean the end of the “extortion-like” practices.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Their aim is never to take any of the cases to court, but to get alleged infringers to pay a substantial cash settlement to make legal action go away.

Recognizing the potential profitability of the scheme, which some equal to extortion, other law firms across the country were quick to replicate the strategy. While these newcomers mostly focused on adult content, USCG stuck to more mainstream film producers such as the makers of The Hurt Locker.

In February of this year the lawyers filed a new mass lawsuit on behalf of another major client, Nu Image, the studio behind the action flick The Expendables. Initially this case included 6,500 John Doe defendants, but this group has now expanded to a massive 23,322 sharers, making it the biggest BitTorrent lawsuit ever.

After filing the initial suit USCG and their tracking partner kept scouring the Internet for more BitTorrent users who were sharing the film. With hundreds and thousands of copies still being shared in recent months, the pool of potential defendants was almost endless. Thousands of these individuals have now been added to the original lawsuit, adding the total number up to 23,322.

Those who wonder what the motive of the movie is to start this massive case only has to look at the revenue potential. A simple calculation shows that the profit can be enormous. If only 75 percent of all defendants pay a $2,000 settlement, the plaintiffs would earn more than $35 million, which equals more than a third of the total box office grosses ($103 million) in the US.

The chances of this happening are not slim either.

Contrary to several other cases we reported on lately, the District Court of Columbia gave the green light to subpoena the ISPs for the personal details of the account holders associated with the ‘infringing’ IP-addresses. This means that in due time these defendants will receive a settlement proposal in their mailboxes.

The question USCG lawyers will ask these alleged defendants is simple, and something along those lines:

“Pay us $2,000 to make the trouble go away, or we will get you involved in an expensive legal battle where we may demand $150,000.”

The full 371 page list of the ‘suspected’ IP-addresses can be found below.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Among other things, they had argued that many of the defendants fall outside the Washington DC Court’s jurisdiction as they live in other states. In addition, they argued that joining thousands of defendants in one lawsuit is improper procedure, and that the lawsuits violate the defendants’ right to anonymity as protected by the First Amendment.

However, the District Court judge disagreed and allowed Call of the Wild Movie LLC, Maverick Entertainment Group, and Donkeyball Movie LLC to continue their cases.

Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represents several defendants, is blown away by the decision of Judge Beryl Howell, who has basically turned the U.S. legal system into a tool which allows the copyright holders to acquire all the info they need to send out “extortionist” settlement claims.

“In layman terms, the decision means that the plaintiff attorneys can continue harassing defendants and trying to elicit multi-thousand dollar settlements from defendants. This, while the plaintiff attorneys continue to tell the judge they are conducting ‘discovery,’ that is, trying to figure out which of the thousands they have sued live in DC,” Cashman told TorrentFreak.

“It is my opinion that the judge is completely siding with the plaintiff attorneys on all accounts, for whatever his personal or political motivations. On almost every argument, he states that he is siding with the plaintiff attorneys because it is ‘too early’ to decide any of the issues brought to the court until defendants are named,” he added.

This is a big concern because the copyright holders are not planning to bring a full-trial against the defendants, they simply want their names so they can send out their demands for cash. And since Judge Beryl Howell has now ruled that potential issues of jurisdiction and joinder are not relevant until the defendants are named, the copyright holders now have carte blanche.

“In short, he is giving the plaintiff attorneys a very loose leash to run around and do whatever they want to do to whomever they please, and he is completely ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs are not running a lawsuit, but instead are running a settlement scheme disguised as ‘discovery’,” Cashman said.

“I believe the judge is giving the plaintiff attorneys the benefit of the doubt on all accounts, which is unfortunate because he is turning a blind eye to the abuses defendants are suffering with threats and harassment while plaintiff attorneys attempt to scare them into a settlement,” Cashman added.

Interestingly, just last week thousands of defendants were dropped from these same cases by the copyright holders, at least for the time being. For these people nothing will change. However, the most recent decision is certainly a step in the wrong direction, which may lead to even more U.S.-based cases than the 100,000+ that have been filed against BitTorrent users since last year.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The studio behind the movie wants to recoup some of their claimed losses and was one of the first to sue thousands of US-based BitTorrent users in the now common mass-lawsuits. Represented by law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver, aka the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG), The Hurt Locker makers and other copyright holders have sued more than 100,000 BitTorrent users since last year.

While the case against the Iraq war veteran is in full swing, The Hurt Locker makers have now announced a cease-fire in the BitTorrent cases. Together with the alleged sharers of Call Of The Wild, Familiar Strangers, The Casino Job and several other films, nearly all The Hurt locker defendants have been dropped from their respective cases (pdf).

The studios behind these films are all represented by USCG, who decided to tell the court that they have dropped all of the John Doe defendants whose details were given out by their ISPs. Although the true reason for this decision is unknown, it appears that recent developments in similar cases may have led to the retreat.

In recent months courts have ruled unfavorably against copyright holders in other mass-lawsuits for improperly joining defendants and filing cases outside of defendants’ jurisdictions. Earlier this year USCG dropped thousands of cases against alleged sharers of the Far Cry movie over the jurisdiction issue.

“This is a huge victory to our clients and the thousands of defendants, and no doubt we will be sending letters of congratulations to our clients in these cases in the coming days,” Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represents several defendants, said in a response to the good news.

Although having near 10,000 cases dropped can indeed be called a victory, it has to be noted that the cases have been dropped without prejudice, which effectively means that USCG can file suit against defendants again at a later stage if they so choose. They can, for example, decide to sue the defendants individually in their home states.

Cashman nevertheless characterizes the retreat as a ‘big win’ for the defendants, to whom he reaches out in an assuring tone. “You should feel comfortable considering yourselves dismissed. The numbers are certainly on your side and while the risk of being sued individually is always present, the likelihood of hearing from the plaintiff attorneys ever again is very low.”

One thing is for certain. What at first sight appeared to be a relatively effective and profitable way to turn piracy into a healthy revenue stream has – perhaps fittingly – turned out to be a legal minefield.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

This scheme was pioneered in the US by the law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver, aka the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG), but recently it has been replicated by several other lawyers across the country. A few days ago, USCG filed a round of new lawsuits on behalf of another major client, Nu Image, the studio behind the action flick The Expendables.

After The Hurt Locker, The Expendables is the first major film release associated with this type of legal action. It is also one of the largest mass P2P lawsuits that was ever started, with a total of 6,500 unidentified defendants (Does). All defendants are suspected of having shared The Expendables on BitTorrent in recent months.

The complaint, filed by Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver at the District Court of Columbia, further appears to be copied from previous cases. It starts off with describing how BitTorrent works, and goes on to explain how the defendants have used this technology to distribute The Expendables without permission of the copyright holder.

As with previous cases, the true purpose of the lawsuits is not to start a full trial, but to obtain the personal details of the customers who are linked to the “infringing” IP-addresses. A classic pay-up-or-else scheme, or exploiting the legal system for commercial gain as others have described the process.

There is no doubt that involvement in this type of lawsuit will lead to the creation of a negative image for the studio among the general public, but on the flip side the revenue potential is enormous. If 80 percent of all defendants pay a $2,000 settlement, the plaintiffs would earn more than $10 million, which equals 10% of the total box office grosses in the US.

And there is potential for even more revenue.

Even today, five months after a high quality copy of The Expendables became available on BitTorrent, the movie is still being downloaded by a few thousand people every day. This means that there’s enough potential to sue tens of thousands additional BitTorrent users in the future, if the courts permit it of course.

The latter is a question that is likely to be answered in the months to come. Already, law firms involved in these mass lawsuits are meeting resistance from consumer rights organisations and judges. With more cases being entered month after month, the pressure on the legal system is increasing at a rapid rate too.

In the UK, where these pay-up-or-else practices began back in 2007, legal setbacks, incompetence and pressure from the public eventually led to the fall of the most prominent anti-piracy law firms ACS:Law. With the spotlight now on the US, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver and the other law firms that are involved better brace themselves.

BitTorrent users who receive a subpoena are advised to contact a legal representative, the EFF has some good advice to start with.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.