The lawyers in question track alleged BitTorrent pirates and threaten to take them to court. But, as is common with these schemes, all people have to do is pay up a settlement fee and the whole thing simply goes away.

Critics of these practices have described the people involved as ‘copyright trolls,’ and some of the defendants are fighting back. DGW, for example, is currently involved in a class action lawsuit where the law firm is accused of fraud, abuse and extortion.

Considering the above, it came as a surprise when we learned this morning that the DGW law firm is presenting an educational webinar under the umbrella of the American Bar Association. Titled “Finding Anonymous Copyright Infringers,” the course promises to teach fellow lawyers all the tricks they need to catch those pesky pirates.

According to the announcement, part of the webinar will “focus on the hot topic in copyright litigation involving federal litigation against the backdrop of torrent and live web-streaming.” During the webinar participating lawyers will learn more about “utilizing pre-discovery subpoenas [...] and a variety of other legal tools to pursue infringement claims against anonymous infringers.”

Basically it reads like a crash course on how to become a copyright troll by the very people who pioneered the scheme in the US. Lawyers who participate in the webinar are eligible for mandatory CLE credit, and we expect that the ‘teachers’ will be compensated for their insights as well.

DGW lawyers Thomas Dunlap and Nick Kurtz will be accompanied by the EFF friendly defense lawyer Paul Ticen. He is expected to address how BitTorrent users have put up a successful defense in court, which is a dangerous exercise considering the negative framing of the course.

This vision is shared by Robert Cashman, a Texas lawyer defending dozens of individuals in mass BitTorrent lawsuits.

“It seems awfully dangerous and stupid to get on a panel with the plaintiff attorney copyright trolls and tell them all of the defense’s strategies,” he told TorrentFreak.

“The way this whole thing is set up, I am afraid it will be the plaintiff attorneys versus the lone defense attorney. I expect to see bloodshed,” he added.

Whatever the outcome, we encourage participants in the course to fill us in on the details. Heck, we might even buy the CD-Rom, which will obviously be pirated by an anonymous Doe in the near future.

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

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.

By targeting at least 24,583 alleged BitTorrent users, Voltage Pictures hoped to recoup millions of dollars in settlements to compensate the studio for piracy-related losses. And so it happened.

After former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell signed off on the subpoenas, the suspected infringers were asked to pay thousands of dollars to settle their case, or else.

As the case dragged on, the major roadblock for Voltage Pictures turned out to be the Internet providers, who were often only releasing the personal details of a few dozen defendants each month. As a result, the Hurt Locker makers had to file extension after extension to keep the case alive. Judge Howell eventually ran out of patience and decided not to grant a new extension this month, thereby closing the case.

Although this appears to be good news for the tens of thousands of defendants, a range of questionable actions from Voltage Picture’s law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver suggests that they might be in for a surprise.

Over the past months TorrentFreak talked to several defendants who were notified by their Internet providers that Voltage Pictures had sent a subpoena to reveal their personal details. By itself this is nothing new, were it not for the fact that these people’s IP-addresses were among the thousands that were dismissed from the case weeks earlier.

It turns out that after removing IP-addresses from the complaint, the lawyers were asking the ISPs for identifying information of the account holders anyway. Initially we thought that this must have been an isolated incident, but after contacting some lawyers we heard that it was most certainly not.

Speaking to TorrentFreak, BitTorrent defense lawyer Robert Cashman described the actions as unethical and sanctionable, and told us that the Judge would probably not allow this to happen if she knew what was going on.

“I am having this same issue with a potential client,” Cashman said. “As far as I know they cannot have the names from the ISP as the IP-addresses no longer belong to putative defendants,” he said. “A number of in-house attorneys at one of the ISPs are looking into the issue now to determine whether or not to comply with the request.”

From the people we talked to thus far we heard that at least some ISPs have complied, probably because the ISPs nor the defendants knew that the IP-addresses were no longer listed as defendants. Questionable behavior to say the least, but it gets worse, much worse.

BitTorrent defense lawyer Blair Chintella informed us that aside from going after dismissed defendants, the lawyers are also targeting people who’ve never been listed as a defendant in the first place. In a separate article Chintella provides additional background on the issue, where he believes Voltage Picture’s lawyers are out-of-order.

“Recently I’ve been contacted by one or more people whose alleged IP addresses aren’t listed in the court records,” Chintella says. “This appears to be not only an ethical violation but a legal issue giving rise to one or more claim under state or federal law.”

So it appears that the lawyers were using the court subpoenas to get the personal details of people whose IP-addresses were never listed in any complaint. Although it’s not clear how many times this has occurred, it’s possible that the lawyers went after thousands more people than they told the court.

To get their take on the situation, TorrentFreak contacted law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver, but received no response.

While it’s clear that the practices outlined here warrant further investigation, it is doubtful that they will be looked into as the case is now officially closed. People who have recently received a settlement letter should remain vigilant though, as the Hurt locker makers may start to file individual lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the number of people sued in the US for alleged BitTorrent downloads has surpassed 250,000, and new mass-lawsuits are added every week.

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

Their most successful movie, the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker, attracted much of the attention when earlier this year it became the subject of a record-breaking lawsuit.

According to court documents filed this week, Voltage Pictures have voluntarily dismissed around 90% of the original 24,583 Doe Defendants from The Hurt Locker lawsuit. They were dismissed without prejudice, so in theory they could be filed again at a later date. A full list of the IP addresses dismissed from the case can be found embedded below.

In excess of 2,300 potential Does remain in the suit from a range of ISPs including Atlantic Broadband, Bresnan Communications, Charter, Comcast, Mediacom, Midcontinent Media, Qwest, RCN, Sprint, Verizon and Windstream.

Furthermore, according to the documents Voltage have homed in on a number of now-named defendants; Claudio Vazquez, Modern Classics Inc, Sergio Sapaj, Roy McLeese, Kelechi Lane, Shyam Madhavan, Susan Glass, Daniel Bremer-Wirtig, Michael Sein, Elena Ditraglia, .. and J Barry Harrelson.

Defendants Vazquez, McLeese, and … were dismissed, Glass was served and has filed an answer, Harrelson was served and is yet to file a response. Defendants Lane and Modern Classics have been served but have not responded – Voltage are going for a default judgments against these.

Voltage say they have been unable to serve some of the other named defendants above, and have not yet received identifying information for 2,278 IP addresses, mainly due to ISPs stalling due to “motions purportedly filed by the Doe Defendants.” For this reason they request extra time from the court.

“Plaintiff requests at least an additional 60 days in which to effectuate service on Defendants Bremer-Wirtig, Ditraglia, Madhavan, Sapaj, and Sein and to name and serve, or voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, the remaining Doe Defendants,” the court papers read.

How many of the original 24,583 defendants settled with Voltage Pictures for thousands of dollars remains unknown.

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.

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.

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.

Then last month, with the ooos and aaahs barely silenced, along came another beefed-up lawsuit, this time on behalf of Voltage Pictures, the studio behind The Hurt Locker. A record-breaking amount of people are set to be targeted as a result of this single action, an incredible 24,583 in total.

But while these US lawsuits generate huge amounts of anger among opponents, and perversely impress with their sheer scale, over in Europe they’re really showing how it’s done. Germany is the birth place of these pay-up-or-else schemes and with their huge experience they’re making the United States look like rank amateurs.

According to mind-boggling new data released by Internet industry association ECO and linked by Janko Roettgers, German ISPs are handing over the personal details of their subscribers to rightsholders at the frightening rate of 300,000 every month. That’s more than the United States has managed in total – ever.

ECO says that the letters, which demand anything up to $1700 to make legal action go away, coupled with rising availability of legal content, have caused a drop in unlawful file-sharing of some 20% since 2008.

These figures, ECO say, make the case for not adopting measures to force ISPs to block file-sharing sites, measures which they say require “deep intervention” into the basic rights of the population.

“Blocking methods, such as those planned and advertised by the European Commission last week at the e> G8 Forum in Paris are unnecessary,” ECO said in a statement.

“First, there are many more legal and user-friendly products available now than several years ago. On the other hand, this shows a consistent approach on illegal downloads without resorting to blocking,” they continue.

However, ECO’s Oliver Süme notes that the cash demands levied by rightsholders are sometimes excessive, and a simple telling-off could achieve a useful effect.

“In most cases, a warning letter would be enough,” said Süme. “It does not always have to be a demand for several hundred euros.”

While rightsholders are making huge amounts from these settlement schemes from increasing numbers of threatening letters sent, and organizations like ECO are reporting drops in illicit sharing as a result, that’s not necessarily the full picture.

The letters are only sent out to Internet subscribers using P2P services to obtain unauthorized content, and it is unclear how many users have switched to untraceable services, such as cyberlockers, or are now taking measures to conceal their identities.

What is clear though is that if site blocking measures are introduced, file-sharing volumes will be hit, at least in the short-term. The effect of that is that fewer people will sitting ducks for these settlement letters, which have become a useful source of revenue for rightsholders. For some, reduced piracy could mean reduced revenue.

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

The initial customers of the lawyers – who are also known as the U.S. Copyright Group – were relatively unknown indie film producers. But this changed when the makers of the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker (Voltage Pictures) joined up and sued 5,000 alleged file-sharers.

Voltage Pictures always threatened that this figure was just the start, and it now turns out that they were speaking the truth. In their quest to recoup their claimed losses, the studio has now added nearly 20,000 new defendants to the lawsuit, bringing the total up to 24,583.

This turns the Hurt Locker case into the largest BitTorrent lawsuit in history, breaking the two week old record set by The Expendables case earlier this month.

In a status report obtained by TorrentFreak, Voltage Pictures lawyers give the U.S. District Court of Columbia an overview of the massive list of alleged BitTorrent downloaders they filed complaints against. This report reveals that most defendants are subscribers of Comcast (10,532), followed by Verizon (5,239), Charter (2,699) and Time Warner (1,750).

The report also provides details on the agreements the lawyers have struck with various ISPs regarding the release of subscribers’ personal information. There is currently no agreement with Comcast, while Charter has promised to look up 150 IP-addresses a month and Verizon 100 a month for all ongoing BitTorrent lawsuits.

The above indicates that it may take several years before some ISPs hand over the requested information. It would take Verizon more than a decade to look up all the personal details in the various BitTorrent lawsuits, which begs the question of how long an ISP is allowed to store such private details.

The Hurt Locker case is currently being handled by former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell. She now has to decide if Voltage Pictures is allowed to proceed their legal endeavor and under what restrictions.

During the course of the year many of the defendants in the Hurt Locker case who were already subpoenaed have claimed innocence. However, last week Judge Howell decided to dismiss all 119 motions to dismiss, quash, and for protective orders en masse, adding them to the pool of targets.

Defendants whose ISPs give up their personal details are expected to receive a settlement offer from Voltage Pictures. The ultimate goal is not to take any of the individual cases to court, but to get alleged infringers to pay a substantial cash settlement to make legal action go away.

The math shows that this scheme could turn out to be extremely profitable for the parties involved. If ‘only’ 10,000 of the alleged infringers eventually pay a $2,000 settlement this would bring in $20 million. In comparison, that’s more than the $17 million The Hurt Locker grossed at the U.S. box office.

Update: Here’s a full list of the 24,584 IP-addresses included in the complaint.

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.