The company has filed well over a dozen lawsuits in U.S. courts, together targeting hundreds of so-called John Doe defendants. Wiley is famous for its “For Dummies” series of books and the defendants in these actions are all accused of downloading or sharing the titles without permission.

Wiley attorney William Dunnegan previously told TorrentFreak that the company’s approach has three aims – to educate, obtain settlements, and prevent further infringement of the company’s products.

While it’s not possible to say how many of Wiley’s targets have chosen to settle, there are some that dig in their heels and refuse to pay up. As reported here in 2012, at least three Doe defendants were named by Wiley, with the company threatening to take their cases to jury trial.

One of those was the innocuous-sounding Ralph Mohr, but throw in a previously-unlisted middle initial, and one discovers that far from being just another defendant primed to be squeezed for a few thousand dollars, this one has public standing.

Ralph M. Mohr is a Republican commissioner on the Erie County Board of Elections. According to Wiley, the politician is also guilty of pirating one of their books, Essential Calculus For Dummies.

The dispute dates back to October 2011 when Wiley filed a case against 27 John Doe defendants. In November 2011 Judge William H. Pauley ordered the Does’ ISPs to hand over their personal details to Wiley.

The case progressed into 2012, with Wiley eventually naming four defendants, Mohr included. But by May 2012 cases against the other three defendants were all marked as ‘terminated’, leaving the politician as the only remaining defendant.

Mohr says he tried to explain to Wiley that his computer wasn’t working on the date of the alleged offense and that his children were either too young to be interested in calculus or away at school at the time.

“I thought it was a scam at first,” Mohr told Buffalo News. “I didn’t even have an operable computer when this happened.”

And this is where it gets really interesting. Mohr says he is determined to put up a fight to clear his name and protect his reputation, something that no other “copyright troll” defendant (RIAA targets aside) has yet done in a courtroom. A first time ever testing of BitTorrent-related evidence looks like it could be on the cards.

Adding to the excitement is that Mohr is a former county legislator and no stranger to the legal system. In 2012 he was described as “the most experienced election law attorney in New York State.”

Brushing up on copyright law may very well be his next goal.

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

In recent months Wiley has filed more than a dozen mass BitTorrent lawsuits involving a few hundred John Doe defendants in total.

The Does are all accused of sharing digital copies of titles including “Hacking for Dummies,” “Day Trading for Dummies” and “Cooking Basics for Dummies.”

Talking to TorrentFreak, Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan said previously that one of the main goals of the legal campaign is to obtain the personal details of the alleged infringers and offer them the opportunity to solve the matter through a settlement.

However, when a defendant is unresponsive to the settlement offer, Wiley is prepared to go a step further.

Earlier this year the book publisher named several defendants in an updated complaint, and one has now been ordered to compensate Wiley for sharing a copy of “WordPress All-in-One For Dummies” on BitTorrent.

Judge William Pauley entered a default judgement of $7,000 in damages against Robert Carpenter, who failed to respond to the allegations. The man from Poughkeepsie, New York, has been found guilty of a unique combination of both copyright and trademark infringement.

To our knowledge, this is the first time that sharing files on BitTorrent has been viewed as counterfeiting, a description that’s usually reserved for fake goods sold as the real deal.

For the copyright violations Carpenter has to pay $5,000 in damages plus another $2,000 for the counterfeiting. This is relatively mild compared to the allowed maximum statutory damages of $150,000 Wiley asked for.

“Judgement shall be entered in favor of Wiley and against Carpenter for damages in the amount of $7,000, representing $5,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C 504 (c) for Carpenter’s infringement of Wiley’s copyright, and $2,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C 504 (c) for Carpenter’s counterfeiting of Wiley’s Trademarks,” Judge Pauley writes.

Thus far Wiley has enjoyed a relatively easy ride in court. In several cases the New York federal court has allowed the book publisher to subpoena Internet providers for the personal details of account holders.

This means that aside from the $7,000 in damages from Carpenter, the book publisher may have raked in more than a million dollars though private settlements. Private settlements are usually around $3,000 per person, which quickly adds up with hundreds of defendants.

TorrentFreak asked Wiley for a comment on the outcome of the case but we have yet to hear back.

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

By filing a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit the company became one of the many copyright holders who together have sued a quarter million people in the country since early 2010. In recent months, Wiley has continued to file yet more suits against alleged BitTorrent pirates.

Up until recently Wiley has enjoyed an easy ride in court. In several cases the New York federal court was quick to allow the book publisher to subpoena Internet providers for the personal details of account holders. With these details, Wiley can then approach the defendants and negotiate an out-of-court settlement.

But not if it’s up to Verizon.

While most Internet providers generally don’t object to a court-ordered subpoena, Verizon has refused to hand over the personal details of accused subscribers. One of the reasons given by Verizon is that Wiley is demanding the information for improper purposes, namely “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”

In addition, the Internet provider doubts whether the subpoena will lead to the discovery of “relevant information.” In other words, Verizon seems to doubt that the person who pays for the account is also the infringer.

This issue was also raised by New York Judge Gary Brown in another case last week, in which he concluded that an IP-address is not a person. In his order Brown argued that in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits it is simply unknown whether the person linked to the IP-address has anything to do with the alleged copyright infringements.

Besides the two points above Verizon makes five more objections, including concerns over privacy. The company asserts that Wiley is seeking “information that is protected from disclosure by third parties’ rights of privacy and protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

For its part, Wiley is not convinced by Verizon’s protest and has asked the court to compel Verizon to respond to the subpoenas. To discuss the issue, Judge Katherine Forrest has scheduled a telephone conference for early next week.

Verizon’s objection is noteworthy because the action is not borne merely out of self-interest. Previously Time Warner also objected to mass-BitTorrent subpoenas where they had to produce the details of thousands of subscribers, arguing that this process was too time consuming.

However, in this case the burden on the ISP is relatively low, as Wiley says it only asked for the details of 10 account holders for which Verizon would receive compensation of $45 each.

Should Judge Katherine Forrest agree with Verizon’s objections it would be a serious blow to Wiley’s ongoing litigation campaign against BitTorrent users in the Southern District of New York.

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

By filing a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit the company followed mostly in the footsteps of several movie studios, who together have sued more than 250,000 people in the US since early 2010. And the publisher didn’t stop at just one.

In recent months Wiley has filed more than a dozen mass BitTorrent lawsuits involving a few hundred John Doe defendants in total. The Does are all accused of sharing digital copies of titles including “WordPress for Dummies,” Hacking for Dummies” and “Day Trading for Dummies.”

Talking to TorrentFreak, Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan said previously that one of the main goals of the legal campaign is to obtain the personal details of the alleged infringers and offer them the opportunity to solve the matter through a settlement.

“Our intention is to stop the infringement and let individuals know that they are violating the law and depriving the creators of the works of rightful compensation. Our preference is to educate, settle, and prevent further infringement,” Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan told us.

However, this strategy doesn’t always work. While the courts and Internet providers have been cooperative in assisting Wiley to obtain the personal details of the alleged book pirates, a new filing suggest that some defendants are not taking the publisher’s settlement offer.

In a one of Wiley’s cases four defendants have now been named in an amended complaint.

New York residents Jeff Ng, Ralph Mohr, Robert Carpenter and Xiaoshu Chen are no longer anonymous Does. Wiley is proceeding to call for a full jury trial against the quartet in which they will face accusations of copyright infringement and up to $150,000 in penalties for each offense.

Contacted by TorrentFreak, Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan declined to comment on the recent developments in these specific cases. “We are proceeding with these cases as a part of Wiley’s overall copyright enforcement and education program,” was the comment we got instead.

If one or more of the three cases indeed proceeds to a full trial it will be the first time that actual evidence against BitTorrent infringers is tested in court. This is relevant because the main piece of evidence the copyright holders have is an IP-address, which by itself doesn’t identify a person but merely a connection.

In a past RIAA court case experts described the evidence gathering techniques “as factually erroneous”, “unprofessional” and “borderline incompetent.” In addition, academics have shown that due to shoddy technique even a network printer can be accused of sharing copyrighted files on BitTorrent.

If the evidence is indeed tested in court, it should be a case to watch for sure.

That said, there’s also the chance that the lawyers are using the threat of a full trial by jury as a pressure tool to convince the defendants to settle. After all, the RIAA’s litigation campaign against individual file-sharers has shown that even when a jury awards hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, lengthy trials cost more than they bring in.

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

Last week the major publisher picked up the pace by filing another mass-lawsuit, yet again targeting those sharing the “For Dummies” series online. The complaint lists 36 IP-addresses through which the defendants downloaded and shared titles including “Hacking for Dummies,” “Vegetable Gardening for Dummies” and “Cooking Basics for Dummies.”

In nearly all BitTorrent lawsuits that have been filed in the US, the copyright holders do not intend to file individual cases. Instead, they want to obtain the identities of account holders behind IP addresses so they can send a settlement claim ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.

TorrentFreak got in touch with the book publisher to find out if their end game is any different. It appears not.

“Our intention is to stop the infringement and let individuals know that they are violating the law and depriving the creators of the works of rightful compensation. Our preference is to educate, settle, and prevent further infringement,” Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan told us.

Aside from a settlement, Wiley also hopes the legal action will deter others from engaging in the same behavior. This is the same approach the RIAA took when it got involved in mass-lawsuits years ago.

Although the strategy works in theory, the problem is that the evidence the company holds against file-sharers will never be tested in court. This is an issue, because due to faulty evidence many people have been wrongfully accused of sharing copyrighted works on BitTorrent. When tested, the evidence can turn out to be untrustworthy.

In a past RIAA court case experts described the evidence gathering techniques “as factually erroneous”, “unprofessional” and “borderline incompetent.” In addition, academics have shown that due to shoddy technique even a network printer can be accused of sharing copyrighted files on BitTorrent.

Wiley’s attorney is aware of the critique, but says they do everything they can to prevent screw-ups.

“We understand that the ISP account holder may not be the actual downloader. That’s why we will do due diligence after we receive the information from the ISP,” Dunnegan told us. The lawyer didn’t want to elaborate on what steps are taken but said that they “have a flexible approach depending on the situation.”

Thus far things are going smoothly for the book publisher in court. In their first case District Court Judge William Pauley recently ordered that Wiley can send subpoenas to the ISPs of the defendants, which means that the first settlement letters should go out soon.

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

John Wiley and Sons have sued 27 Does at a federal court in New York for downloading and sharing copies of its “For Dummies” books using BitTorrent. The complaint (pdf), obtained by TorrentFreak, shows that all defendants allegedly shared the books on October 18 and 19 of this year.

Wiley argues that through the massive piracy that occurs on BitTorrent, their company is suffering severe losses that might cost several authors their jobs.

“Defendants are contributing to a problem that threatens the profitability of Wiley. Although Wiley cannot determine at this time the precise amount of revenue that it has lost as a result of peer-to-peer file sharing of its copyrighted works though BitTorrent software, the amount of revenue that is lost is enormous,” Wiley’s attorney writes.

“For example, BitTorrent users on a single site, demonoid.me, have downloaded one of the works that is the subject of this suit, ‘Photoshop CS 5 All-In-One FOR DUMMIES,’ more than 74,000 times since June 6, 2010,” the complaint adds.

Other pirated books listed in the complaint include familiar titles such as “AutoCAD 2011 for Dummies,” “Day Trading for Dummies”, “Calculus Essential for Dummies” and “Word Press For Dummies”. Interestingly, the popular “BitTorrent for Dummies” is not included.

Aside form the direct financial damage through copyright infringement, Wiley also claims that “counterfeit” copies of their books may result in damage to the company’s image.

“The damage to Wiley includes hark to its goodwill and reputation in the marketplace for which money cannot compensate. Wiley is particularly concerned that its trademarks are used in connection with unauthorized electronic products, which could contain malicious viruses.”

“Wiley is also concerned that these unauthorized electronic editions of its works may be of inferior quality to the original versions,” the complaint reads.

The 27 defendants are all accused of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting, and the publisher demands to be compensated for the damage they have caused.

The court papers end with an overview of the 27 IP-addresses through which these titles were shared. These are all located in the State of New York according to the attorney.

Although Wiley’s suit can be classified as a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit, the complaint is quite different from the ones we’ve seen thus far. Also, Wiley has hired the law firm Dunnegan LLC which has no track record of filing similar cases.

At this point it is not clear whether Wiley is determined to take the 27 defendants to trial, or whether it will offer them settlements as we’ve seen in nearly all other cases thus far. However, there is little doubt that Wiley’s move to make a stand against book piracy will be watched closely by other book publishers.

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