2013 isn’t turning into such a good year for prolific copyright trolls Prenda Law.

They’ve been slapped down by a Federal judge in south California, hit for costs in northern California, a Georgia Federal Judge has turned the tables and allowed discovery against them, and there’s mounting evidence that they’re behind the very infringements they’re suing about.

So how can Prenda’s summer get better? A state court in Minnesota could award $63,000 in attorney’s fees, that’s how; the kicker being that it’s awarded against Prenda and for those the company accused.

Not that this is Prenda Law, prolific copyright trolls we’re dealing with here. Oh no. This case involved Alpha Law Firm LLC, which just happens to have the same address, principles, and operating practices as Prenda, and even did a nice bit of content-sharing between websites. However, the assertion is that they’re completely NOT Prenda, at all, especially since Prenda just shut-up shop.

In this particular case – Guava LLC v Merkel – the subject isn’t actually copyright trolling, but that most dastardly of crimes, hacking. According to the complaint (PDF):

Defendant used hacked usernanes and passwords to gain access to Plaintiff’s protected computer systems and intentionally intercepted numerous electronic communications between Plaintiff and its paying members.

The intercepted electronic communications included information regarding the identities of Plaintiff’s customers, account information, financial information, computer programming and security information, and other information that Plaintiff protects and does not even give access to third parties, even those who pay for and obtain legitimate passwords to access Plaintiff’s websites.

Put more simply, “..this guy used someone else’s username and password, and by doing so accessed info that wasn’t available to anyone.” If that sounds confused and contradictory to anyone else, you’d be right, which is why the exhibits accompanying the complaint are random ‘hacking’ stories, with no real relevance to the case.

From there, the case gets stranger.

The defendant, Spencer Merkel, already had dealings with Prenda Law in another case based in DC. In that one he was accused of infringement of the film “Amateur Alure – Maelynn”, and agreed to settle after admitting he downloaded it from Cheggit.

Not having the amount of cash they wanted he asked if there were other ways to settle, and the suggestion was to become a complicit defendant to be dismissed at the end of the case leaving a lot of other co-defendants, found during this case, hanging.

As a side note, the settlement demand spends a significant portion talking about the sophisticated detection systems used, and refers to a 2009 paper published by the University of Colorado. However, we strongly doubt that Prenda, or its expert witness (now usually called 6881 forensics or LiveWire, run by the brother of Prenda lawyer Paul Hansmeier) is actually using the Bitstalker program, whose effectiveness we doubted when the paper first came out.

That led to this case, Guava LLC v Merkel, and its computer hacking claims. These claims were, it seems, to get around the problems of having already sued and settled the copyright case. Using state laws they could file in state courts, and keep a distance between this case and the Doe case filed in DC that Merkel settled.

Eventually the case was dismissed with prejudice back on March 1st, in part thanks to a statement by Merkel and in part thanks to a motion by a number of ISPs. However, the truth is that any case like this isn’t over until people have been paid, and so on Wednesday, District Court Judge Tanya Bransford awarded attorney’s fees to defense lawyers totalling $63,367.52

This order is made jointly and severally liable to Alpha Law Firm, Guava LLC and Guava’s counsel of record, Michael Dugas, and due within 30 days. This means it doesn’t matter which of the parties pays it, they’re all liable for the amount as a group. Meanwhile, Steele, Hansmeier, Prenda Law, and the Anti-Piracy Law group were not held liable for these costs, but since Alpha is part of that ‘group’ (and even shares their address) they were still effectively hit by it.

That leaves a choice for ‘Alpha Law Firm’. They can pay the amount (either in part or in full) or leave the local counsel Dugas to pay for it all. However, if they throw Dugas under the bus they may find it extremely difficult to recruit any more lawyers to act as local counsel for them, and could even start losing the local counsel they already have in cases around the country.

No matter which way you slice it though, it’s another win for the public, and another loss for the copyright trolls.

Hat-tip –  SJD @ FightcopyrightTrolls.com

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

The general theme of these cases is that IP-addresses are accused of “stealing” copyrighted work. The trolls then request a subpoena from the court so they can ask the corresponding ISPs to reveal the identities of account holders. They then contact the defendants with a settlement offer for a few thousand dollars, telling them that they will be named in the lawsuit if they refuse to pay up.

While some judges are now refusing these cases, there are still plenty who sign off on them. Possibly related, the copyright trolls aren’t getting more friendly. A letter sent by the “Anti-Piracy Law Group,” the latest incarnation of Prenda Law, contains a striking example of a new low.

The letter is part of the LW Systems v. Christopher Hubbard case and was sent after the defendant ignored the first settlement offer. In common with many of these cases it deals with pretty embarrassing pornographic content, but the defendant is also warned that family members and even the neighbors will be informed about the alleged perverse download habits (emphasis added).

“The purpose of this step is to gather evidence about who used your Internet account to steal from our client. The list of possible suspects includes you, members of your household, your neighbors (if you maintain an open wi-fi connection) and anyone who might have visited your house. In the coming days we will contact these individuals to investigate whether they have any knowledge of the acts described in my client’s prior letter,” the letter reads.

The Anti-Piracy Law Group makes it sound like they are doing the defendant a favor, and state that they want to inform the others to ensure that they’re suing the right person. However, SJD points out that fellow copyright troll Steve “Lightspeed” Jones may have given away the true motivation a few years ago.

“People aren’t embarrassed when their neighbors find out they downloaded a few songs, but illegally trading midget, tranny, facials, and teen porn content? There is some news worth keeping from the wife, kids, parents, and neighbors. Please feel free to continue to compare this to the RIAA..,” he wrote in 2010.

The words above turn out to be rather prophetic, as the letter also describes in detail how the RIAA won its case against Jammie Thomas, who was fined $222,000 for sharing several copyrighted songs. An interesting comparison, especially since the current suit is “hacking” related and not based on P2P infringements.

Aside from neighbors and family members the defendant is also warned that his or her boss could also find out about the accusations. The letter, signed by Prenda’s Paul Duffy, notes that it is very important that all relevant evidence is preserved so it can be used in an eventual trial.

“This includes, for example, files on your computer, your credit card purchase history and your Google search history. It also includes preserving these items on your mobile device and any computers you may have access to at work. When our lawsuit is filed we will be seeking evidence from all these sources. If we find out that you destroyed evidence, we will ask the court to impose serious sanctions against you.”

Of course, the copyright trolls are not interested in taking the case to trial, so the letter quickly adds that “litigation is time-consuming, expensive and disruptive.” The easy way out is to settle the case for a few thousand dollars.

Needless to say, the threat of having neighbors and employers informed about the alleged offense may even convince innocents to pay up and get it over with.

It appears that even after receiving a $81,319.72 punishment in court last week the Prenda gang is continuing down the same path, or even worse. Perhaps not completely surprising, as they probably make more than that from their trolling ventures in a good week.

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

They ordered WordPress to hand over the IP addresses of everyone who has used both sites for the last two years. But, after a little panic, WordPress stepped in to calm the nerves.

“No cause for concern. As a matter of policy, we closely review all subpoenas, don’t respond to overly broad requests, and push back on fishing expeditions,” WordPress’s Paul Sieminski told DTD.

“Here – dietrolldie has already let us know that the subpoena will be challenged. In cases like this, we don’t turn over any information until the user’s legal challenge has played out.”

What is becoming apparent is that for every heavy-handed and/or suspect action taken by Prenda, even more adversaries come on board. Lawyer John Whitaker from the Whitaker Law Group deliberately ‘outed‘ himself as a DTD and FCT user yesterday, and BitTorrent defense lawyer Robert Cashman is more critical than ever before.

As yesterday’s article outlined, Monday will see Prenda hauled before a Los Angeles court on the orders of Judge Wright after he appeared to become somewhat tired of the firm’s apparent shenanigans.

Well, that was the plan. Unsurprisingly, Prenda have other ideas.

In an ex parte application for relief filed by John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy and Angela Van Den Hemel, Prenda argue that they shouldn’t have to come to court on Monday. In their application, Prenda roll out a variety of excuses for not attending.

First, in a move that’s likely to further inflame an already irritated Judge Wright, Prenda claim that the Judge has no jurisdiction.

“Even where the court seeks to adjudicate issues between parties, it must have personal jurisdiction over them. Here, Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and Van Den Hemel are not parties and have not otherwise participated in this litigation. As such, the public policy behind the need to determine personal jurisdiction is arguably at an elevated level because, as individuals, they effectively have ‘no dog in this fight’,” the application reads.

Prenda go on to argue that since they’re not parties in the action they can only be witnesses. And since witnesses can only be required to appear if they are “resident within the state at the time of service” (and Prenda aren’t, apparently), then “the court lacks jurisdiction to order them to appear.”

Second, Prenda say that attending would be particularly inconvenient. They write that the court is being “fundamentally unreasonable” in giving short notice and that attending court could upset their clients.

Prenda go on to argue that they haven’t been told why they have to attend so cannot adequately prepare, a situation which deprives them of due process. They also complain that they are entitled to get paid for attending but the court order makes no mention of who will foot the bill.

“For these reasons, even if the court had jurisdiction over the parties, the notice would be unreasonable to them and the court would, at a minimum, have to withdraw the order and issue a new one for a future date that would afford Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, and Van Den Hemel reasonable notice of the hearing, their rights, and the purpose for their appearance,” Prenda conclude.

Ken, a writer over at the respected legal blog Popehat, is not impressed.

“Considering they have had several days to put a brief together, I find this motion rather half-hearted and meager, particularly given the gravity of the situation and what they are trying to accomplish. If this is all they could pull together, I am surprised they didn’t file it sooner, like Wednesday,” he writes.

Ken adds that the record shows that jurisdiction is not an issue and Prenda are only making matters worse.

“The evidence clearly shows that Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy have directed Prenda Law litigation activities in California. A federal judge has ordered them to appear here and explain those activities.

“By responding with a jurisdictional argument now, they have utterly eviscerated their credibility and the credibility of their enterprise permanently in every court in the United States of America,” he concludes.

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

Their work is appreciated by few outside of their inner circle and often frowned upon by fellow law firms, copyright owners and the public, who see their work as one step away from outright extortion.

While they have enemies everywhere, some of the trolls’ greatest adversaries are their victims. Once you’ve threatened to turn someone’s life upside down with a claim for thousands of dollars, pounds or euros, relationships aren’t really the same ever again. And an enemy empowered by the Internet, one of the greatest game levelers today, soon gets momentum.

In the United States some of the most motivated troll fighters are to be found on two sites, FightCopyrightTrolls and DieTrollDie. Their aims are simple. To keep the public and fellow victims informed and to ensure that through activism, trolls make as little money as possible.

Needless to say, trolls do not like this kind of opposition. It hurts their bottom line. And now, in the middle of what is probably the most bizarre case there has ever been in troll history, one outfit is coming out fighting – possibly for its life.

Prenda Law is in the middle of a mess so massive that to adequately describe the case in enough detail one needs to write many thousands of words. Fortunately, for those who want to catch up, the sites mentioned above have been keeping up to date, complimented brilliantly by Techdirt’s Mike Masnick and Ken’s excellent summary over at Popehat.

The TL;DR is that there is going to be an unprecedented showdown in a Los Angeles court on Monday that could lead to someone associated with Prenda going to prison.

“Based on the evidence presented at the March 11, 2013 hearing, the Court will consider whether sanctions [for Prenda Law] are appropriate, and if so, determine the proper punishment. This may include a monetary fine, incarceration, or other sanctions sufficient to deter future misconduct,” Judge Wright explained.

But while the blood of trolls may indeed flow on Monday, in the last few days Prenda have been going on the offensive.

Earlier this week FightCopyrightTrolls and DieTrollDie had a nasty surprise. Prenda decided to file three defamation lawsuits which according to FCT’s SophisticatedJaneDoe are “designed to chill free speech by burying [Prenda's] critics in massive legal fees.”

Two of the targets in the lawsuit are people involved in the proceedings due to go ahead on Monday, but also listed were a total of 10 John Does. So who are these mysterious characters?

Well, none other than the operators of DieTrollDie (DTD), FightCopyrightTrolls (FCT) and commenters on their sites. The beef? Seems Prenda don’t like criticism, or ‘defamation’ as they prefer to frame it.

On Wednesday, one of the cases – John Steele v. Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and Does 1-10, FLSD 13-cv-20744 – was dismissed without prejudice by John Steele. The other two remain. Then yesterday, more surprising news.

It transpires that Prenda Law have sought information about DTD’s and FCT’s readers and commenters from WordPress, and not just the odd detail either.

“Dear Custodian of Records,” the Prenda subpoena to WordPress begins.

“Enclosed, please find a subpoena issued in the above-referenced matter, which is currently pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial St. Clair Couty, Illinois.

Our client is requesting all Internet Protocol addresses (including the date and time of that access in Universal Coordinated Time) that accessed the blogs located at diretrolldie.com and fightcopyrighttrolls.com between January 1, 2011 through the present.

Please provide this information in an Excel spreadsheet.”

That’s right, somehow Prenda want *everyone’s details*, whether they are involved in the lawsuit or not. DTD hope that WordPress won’t comply but are preparing their readers for the worst.

“As there is a possibility that a release could occur, the public IP address (date/time stamp) could fall into the hands of Prenda. I would expect that they would then try to cross-reference the IP address with their list of alleged BitTorrent infringement IP addresses,” DTD warn.

“If you have ever gone to this site or Fightcopyrighttrolls.com since 1 January 2011, you may want to contact WordPress and tell them you want them to refuse this overly broad request and at least wait until the issue of the case being removed to the Federal court is answered, before releasing ANY information,” DTD concludes.

So, faced with organized opposition from DTD and FightCopyrightTrolls, Prenda now appear to want to shut them down and quieten the critics. History tells us it won’t work.

This attack against all readers of those sites will only add fuel to the fire and serve to make the possibility of a terrible outcome for Prenda on Monday an even more delicious prospect.

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