Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

News:

SMF - Just Installed!


Author Topic: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)  (Read 63500 times)

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2015, 11:56:25 AM »
For all 'DBC-SG Round 3 affected subscribers'
 
 Pls read this important update 1 of 3 in the private DBC-SG Forum: http://goo.gl/9gn5jj
 
 Rdgs, Dr. Green
 Chairwoman, DBC-SG Support Group Exco Team

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #47 on: October 28, 2015, 06:55:39 PM »

Offline Devilsire

  • New
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #48 on: October 28, 2015, 08:24:55 PM »
Hello,

Personally am not involved, but i can feel the "bullies & threatens" against possible uninformed innocents and am curious on how its going.

Just wanted take this opportunity to Dr Green, professionals & everyone involved in providing this support group & useful infos/insights on this issue.

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2015, 10:09:31 PM »
Dallas Buyers Club Can’t Interrogate ‘Pirates,’ Judge Rules
BY Ernesto on November 3, 2015

The makers of the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club are continuing their crackdown on BitTorrent pirates. As part of this effort they have recently asked the court for permission to depose several suspects. However, the court has now denied this request, highlighting the "possibility of abuse."

The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have sued thousands of BitTorrent users over the past two years.

Many of these cases end up being settled for an undisclosed amount. This usually happens after the filmmakers obtain the identity of the Internet account holder believed to have pirated the movie.

Not all alleged downloaders are eager to pay up though. In fact, many don’t respond to the settlement letters they receive or claim that someone else must have downloaded the film using their connection.

This presents a problem for the filmmakers, who need to gather additional evidence to prove guilt. In several recent cases they even went through social media profiles of defendants and Google map images of their neighborhoods, for example.

In addition to this info Dallas Buyers Club want to speak to the accused directly so have asked the court to grant dozens of depositions. This would help to determine who the true pirates are, they argue.

The request covers five active cases with 61 IP-addresses which have yet to respond or settle.

The court carefully reviewed the request and in an order late last week U.S. District Court Judge Richard Jones denied the depositions.

In his order (pdf, cache) the Judge writes that depositions are meant to “discover relevant information” but he doubts that Dallas Buyers Club intends to take any of these cases to trial.

When the filmmakers were allowed to depose people in a previous case it didn’t result in the naming of any defendants.

“All this implies that Plaintiff is not actually interested in bringing these cases to conclusion on their merits and is instead trying to use these proceedings to leverage settlements out of unidentified Doe defendants through the threat of Court order.”


Instead, the depositions may be used as a pressure tool, which would be a clear sign of abuse.

“Numerous other courts have considered the possibility of abusive litigation tactics in addressing similar motions. And this Court is increasingly tired of the slow progress of these cases and increasingly apprehensive of the possibility of abuse,” Judge Jones adds.

The Judge admits that depositions may often be helpful, but notes that Dallas Buyers Club wouldn’t be in any better position if the defendant denies being the primary infringer during the deposition.

The filmmakers already have the name and address of the account holders, and should make their case based on this information, the order concludes.

While there’s no direct accusation the mention of possible abuse and the growing impatience with the many Doe lawsuits is a clear blow for the movie studio.

For their part the accused pirates can chalk up a win as they have been saved from having to go through an ‘interrogation’, a potentially threatening and intimidating process.


Source: https://torrentfreak.com/dallas-buyers-club-cant-interrogate-pirates-judge-rules-151103

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2015, 11:24:10 AM »
Judge in Dallas Buyers Club case rules that rights holders can NOT sue Australians who illegally download movies for punitive damages
By Rachel Eddie For Daily Mail Australia
Published: 10:30 GMT, 16 December 2015 | Updated: 11:32 GMT, 16 December 2015

Pirates can stream easy tonight after a Federal Court judge blocked Dallas Buyers Club rights holders from suing Australians who allegedly watched Dallas Buyers Club illegally.

The court battle between Dallas Buyers Club LLC and iiNet is set to be dismissed after Justice Nye Parram on Wednesday made an order to terminate the proceedings by February 11.

An appeal could be brought by U.S. studio Voltage Pictures in that time.

If that is unsuccessful, however, their bid to seek punitive damages from the internet provider’s customers who have torrented the film will be over, CNET reports.

Justice Parram’s ruling on Wednesday rejected their latest bid to seek the identification, contact information and damages from more than 4,700 individuals who they say pirated the 2013 film starring Matthew McConaughey.

The court proceedings against iiNet, as well as Internode, Dodo, Amnet and Adam Internet, were launched in November last year.

The rights holders were in April granted the right to seek damages for copyright infringement from individuals.

But in August Justice Perram rejected their proposed method, and ordered them to only seek damages for the cost of purchasing Dallas Buyers Club.

On Wednesday Justice Perram threw out their ‘wholly unrealistic’ amended proposal and added that ‘some finality must now be brought to these proceedings’.

The court proceedings against iiNet, as well as Internode, Dodo, Amnet and Adam Internet, were launched in November last year in order to learn the identities of more than 4,700 customers who they say illegally downloaded the film (stock image)

If their proposal went ahead, each individual behind a copyright infringement would be fined, slapped with a rental fee, and would need to pay for the costs of obtaining their information through the courts.

It also aimed to charge anyone who uploaded the film to a file-sharing website with a license fee and argued they should pay for a distribution agreement.

In April, David Buckingham, iiNet's Chief Executive Officer, said in a statement that they had been working to ensure their customers 'will be treated fairly and won't be subjected to the bullying that we have seen elsewhere'.

Elsewhere, copyright holders have threatened alleged offenders with legal action, seeking large sums of money.

It is a tactic used with the hopes of clamping down on file-sharing via websites such as BitTorrent.

Mr Buckingham in April said he was very happy with Justice Parram's 'balanced approach to both the studio's and consumers' rights'.

Many Australians are rejoicing, with one person on Twitter writing that the day 'just got better', thanks to the ruling on Wednesday.

Around three years ago, iiNet won a landmark High Court case against a group of Hollywood movie studios which argued the telecommunication company was responsible for the downloading habits of users.

In a unanimous decision, the court held that iiNet could not be found liable because it did not control the sites used by customers.

Daily Mail Australia has contacted Marque Lawyers, representing the U.S. studio, for comment.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3362248/Judge-Dallas-Buyers-Club-case-rules-rights-holders-NOT-sue-Australians-illegally-download-movies-punitive-damages.html



Copy of Letter & 'Undertaking Document' sent to Australians and ghosts accused of illegal downloads: http://www.scribd.com/doc/269083018/Draft-Letter-to-Account-Holder
PDF copies:
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 09:55:01 AM by greentara »

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2016, 11:01:04 AM »
Movie downloads: a shakedown or a theft?
Movie producers have filed dozens of copyright cases in Houston

By L.M. Sixel, Business Writer, Houston Chronicle
December 30, 2015 Updated: December 31, 2015 8:00pm

When Matthew McConaughey won the Academy Award in 2014 for best actor for "Dallas Buyers Club," interest in the small-budget film skyrocketed. But many moviegoers didn't buy a ticket. Instead, they downloaded a copy for free.

"The Cobbler" starring Adam Sandler and "Good Kill" starring Ethan Hawke also racked up downloads. Now the filmmakers have filed lawsuits against the unauthorized downloads, saying they amount to theft of intellectual property.

They and producers of other movies have filed dozens of copyright infringement lawsuits in Houston federal court, seeking damages from plaintiffs identified only as "John Doe" based on Internet Protocol addresses that recorded movie downloads from pirating websites.

Some of the John Does are fighting back, alleging the lawsuits are intended to uncover evidence the plaintiffs don't have and force defendants into settlements. Judges in Houston and elsewhere have disagreed on whether to let the suits go forward.

Keith A. Vogt, an Illinois-based lawyer who filed the lawsuits on behalf of "Dallas Buyers Club," said the lure of getting something for free coupled with the perceived anonymity of the Internet is an irresistible combination for some people.

"It's a serious, serious problem for Hollywood," he said. On Oscar night alone, "Dallas Buyers Club," the story of an HIV-infected electrician in the mid-1980s who found a way to get medicine for himself and others infected with the virus, saw a surge of 200,000 illegal downloads.

But some defendants see the lawsuits as a giant fishing expedition based on shaky evidence. "It's all about intimidation," said Houston lawyer Thomas Ross of the Corso Law Group who is representing "John Doe No. 20" in the case filed by the maker of "The Cobbler," a movie about a magical shoemaker.

The plaintiffs are trying to find someone associated with each IP address and then negotiate a settlement, said Ross. A lawsuit against his client was dropped after Ross challenged a subpoena for Internet records.

Most of the time it's impossible to prove who might have obtained access to the unauthorized movie sites, he said. It could be a neighbor who found a connection through an unsecured WiFi account or from a cafe that offers free Internet access.

Music industry

Movie makers are following in the footsteps of music producers that invoked copyright laws in suits against sites offering free music and the consumers who downloaded the tunes.

Since then, legislation has shifted more responsibility to consumers by shielding liability of the Internet portals that host the pirated movies, music and other media. Most of the web pirating sites are outside the United States anyway, beyond the reach of U.S. law.

"People think if it's on the Internet, it's in the public domain," said Amanda Greenspon, a lawyer who specializes in trademarks and copyrights with Munck Wilson Mandala. But that's not true because movies, like music, are covered by copyright laws.

It's considered theft

Some movie downloaders assume that their saving $10 on a movie ticket doesn't affect big production companies, Greenspon said, but it's theft.

And Vogt said makers of "Dallas Buyers Club" took a substantial investment risk by telling an important story that might not do well at the box office. The cast and crew agreed to take a cut in their usual pay rates, he added.

It affects not only the cast and producers, he said, but the hair and makeup staff, the costume designers and sound engineers. They all get a share of the residuals - money that moviemakers earn on subsequent releases of their films.

For 2015 through Tuesday, 70 copyright lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of Texas, according to an analysis by Androvett Legal Media. For all of 2014, there were 38 such suits. In 2015, 40 of the suits alone were filed by Vogt for illegal downloads.

According to Androvett, the Houston district is the only one in Texas with such a spike, though there a handful of districts nationwide with similar patterns.

Vogt said he's been focusing his efforts on Houston because he has good local counsel.

Beginning in early 2014, the "Dallas Buyers Club" filed 20 lawsuits. Some of the individual lawsuits included dozens of "John Does" whom plaintiffs alleged downloaded the movie without paying for it.

There are ways to download the film legitimately. For example, it is available on iTunes for $7.99.

In its quest to obtain the identity of those downloading its movie for free, "Dallas Buyers Club" requested court orders to force Internet Service Providers to disclose the information.

The cases were farmed out to several federal judges in Houston, and some are permitting a search for Internet addresses. Several "John Does" have settled, according to dismissal notices filed by "Dallas Buyers Club."

Vogt wouldn't say how much he is seeking in settlements, but said he offers to work with the defendants in assessing and collecting payment.

Sometimes children download movies without their parents' permission, he said. Other times, Internet addresses are traced to companies because employees are watching the movies while at work.

One of the "John Does" named in a Vogt lawsuit is Jim Denison of Magnolia, who represented himself.

The Houston Chronicle could not reach him for comment, but Denison argued in court filings that "Dallas Buyers Club" failed to take reasonable steps to stop the downloading of unauthorized copies because it did not demand that Internet Service Providers or John Does remove the movie from their servers or computers. Nor did the movie identify actual infringers but relied instead on "the most likely infringer" based on whose name is on the Internet account, he argued.

"Dallas Buyers Club" has "simply collected public IP addresses, identified who paid for the Internet service (ISP subscriber), and then sued them in an effort to obtain a settlement for thousands of dollars," Denison said in his response to the lawsuit.

In April, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon dismissed Denison's case along with several others.

Some of the other cases, however, ran into more immediate obstacles. U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes quickly shut down the inquiry from "Dallas Buyers Club" in 2014, 10 days after receiving the initial complaint.

Hughes criticized the effort for relying "on the trite fictions of John Does" when asked to identify the people it has sued. Instead of providing some context as to who they might be, the movie "listed the Internet addresses for each person in block text - impenetrable by anyone save for a fourteen-year-old with designs to use them," according to Hughes' final opinion issued in 2014.

And if "Dallas Buyers Club" wants to file more lawsuits, Hughes directed they be assigned to him.

'Good Kill' order

Hughes also signed an order in November dismissing all 10 John Doe cases filed by the maker of "Good Kill," the 2014 drama of an Air Force drone pilot who ponders the ethics of dropping bombs on war zones overseas from his comfortable post in the United States.

Some courts view the efforts to find Internet users through John Doe lawsuits as extortion, especially when viewers have downloaded pornographic movies that would be embarrassing if word got out, said Louis Bonham, an intellectual property lawyer for Osha Liang.

But other courts allow searches of Internet Protocol addresses, said Bonham, who is a frequent guest lecturer on copyright issues at the University of Texas at Austin for the architecture, business and fine arts schools.

'Luck of the draw'

"It's the luck of the draw," he said, referring to the chance of a suit's success resting with the judge who happens to get it.

Other cases are going forward with federal judges giving the makers of the "The Cobbler" and "Good Kill" the right to obtain Internet addresses.

In August, U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett consolidated 26 separate lawsuits -involving 532 separate John Does - into one. The case was brought by Cobbler Nevada, owner of "The Cobbler" movie, which tells the tale of a shoemaker, played by Sandler, who finds a magical sewing machine that allows him to step into the lives of his customers.

Ross, who represents one of the John Does in that case, said he never got a financial offer from Vogt to settle the dispute. But that didn't really surprise him.

People get nervous when they're threatened with copyright infringement and many agree to settle even though the plaintiff may have no more evidence than an account number linked to a person or company that is paying for the Internet service, said Ross.

"What they're counting on is that it's cheaper to make it go away than hire a lawyer and fight it."


Source: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Movie-downloads-A-shakedown-or-a-theft-6727941.php

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2016, 01:04:08 PM »
2016 Updates

1. Back in 2nd quarter of 2015, we asserted that the DBC LLC forensic evidence against the affected parties was invalid.

Subsequently, various Bittorrent experiments were conducted and documented by Foxtrot's team to further back the assertion. The findings revealed that not only DBC LLC forensic evidence is invalid, in fact, many other Bittorrent trolling cases are also invalid as well. All these findings and documentation may be used as expert witness evidence if that day comes be it in Singapore or elsewhere in the world.

Those who need these findings and documentation may contact us at with the subject header "Invalidation of Bittorrent forensic evidence".


2. The 2016 balance sheet for the crowdfunding campaign vs expenses to date can be found in this public link: http://tr.im/dbcsgbs


Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2016, 08:14:43 PM »
I am required to respond very soon... how should i respond?

Info. within the Private DBC-SG Support Group: http://dishonest.biz/forum/index.php/topic,45.0.html

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #54 on: February 10, 2016, 10:10:24 PM »
DBC gave up chasing ghosts in Australia!

DBC gives up on iiNet piracy case
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/dbc-gives-up-on-iinet-piracy-case-414920

Dallas Buyers Club Gives Up Chasing Pirates in Australia
https://torrentfreak.com/dallas-buyers-club-gives-up-chasing-pirates-in-australia-160210

Pirates rest easy (for now): 'Dallas Buyers Club' court case is over
http://mashable.com/2016/02/10/dallas-buyers-club-over

Dallas Buyers Club abandons piracy court case
http://www.zdnet.com/article/dallas-buyers-club-abandons-piracy-court-case

Dallas Buyers Club has dropped its piracy case against iiNet
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/dallas-buyers-club-has-dropped-its-piracy-case-against-iinet-2016-2

Dallas Buyers Club abandons fight against Aussie pirates
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/dallas-buyers-club-abandons-fight-against-aussie-pirates-20160210-gmr37y.html

Dallas Buyers Club hangs up its boots in iiNet court case
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/dallas-buyers-club-hangs-up-its-boots-in-iinet-court-case

The Dallas Buyers Club case has been abandoned but illegal downloaders may still face trouble
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-12/dallas-buyers-club-case-abandoned-illegal-dowloads-pirate/7162180

Owners of Oscar-winning film drop landmark case against Australian internet pirates
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=319799

Dallas Buyers Club: Australian judge refuses to unmask 4,726 alleged movie pirates
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dallas-buyers-club-australian-judge-refuses-unmask-4726-alleged-movie-pirates-1543586

Dallas Buyers Club piracy case finally dropped after two-year legal battle
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/dallas-buyers-club-piracy-case-finally-dropped-two-year-legal-battle

Game Over……Pirates and ISP's One, Dallas Buyers Club Nil…….But will there be a rematch? The final word on the Dallas Buyers Club piracy Case
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1f25aedf-b9f8-4649-b27a-4da17c7e2b76

« Last Edit: February 16, 2016, 09:50:00 AM by greentara »

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2016, 12:08:10 PM »
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
By Koh Swee Fang Valerie, valeriekohsf(at)mediacorp.com.sg
Published: 4:15 AM, May 17, 2016

SINGAPORE — The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) will be going after two former lawyers of the legal firm representing United States film studio Dallas Buyers Club LLC, following a complaint lodged last year on their conduct in civil claims against illegal downloaders of the movie.

In a reply to the complainant Internet Society (Singapore), which TODAY has seen, the LawSoc said an inquiry committee has decided that a formal investigation by a disciplinary tribunal was not necessary, but that the lawyers in question “should be given a warning, reprimand or order to pay a penalty of not more than S$10,000”.

The exact punishment will be decided by the LawSoc council after the lawyers respond to whether or not they wish to be heard on their side of the story in the matter — a procedural requirement under the Legal Profession Act (LPA).

“If a penalty or reprimand is imposed by Council, it will be published in the Government Gazette as required under the LPA,” said the society in a May 11 letter to Mr Harish Pillay, who is immediate past president of Internet Society (Singapore), a non-governmental organisation promoting Internet usage. The LawSoc letter was signed off by its director of conduct and chairman of the inquiry committee K Gopalan.

When contacted yesterday, the society declined to comment. “Under the LPA, the Law Society is required to maintain confidentiality for disciplinary proceedings save for information which the Society is required by law to publish,” said a spokesperson.

In June last year, Internet Society (Singapore) complained to LawSoc that Mr Robert Raj Joseph and Mr Lee Heng Eam, who were both still with Samuel Seow Law Corporation then, had issued letters threatening criminal proceedings to advance civil claims against the film’s pirates. These demand letters to 77 M1 subscribers asking for a written offer of damages and costs had spelt out a maximum fine of S$50,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years for a conviction under Section 136(3) of the Copyright Act, and a maximum S$20,000 fine and six months’ jail term under Section 136(3A) of the Act.

At that time, Mr Samuel Seow, the firm’s managing director, had said a new batch of letters that were worded differently were sent to StarHub and Singtel subscribers who allegedly downloaded the movie illegally. He had also said Mr Raj, who was the director of the litigation and dispute resolution practice group in the firm, was leaving the firm, but the departure was not linked to his handling of the case.

The Law Society’s Practice Directions and Rulings Guide 2013 states that it is improper for a solicitor to “communicate in writing or otherwise a threat of criminal proceedings in order to achieve a stated objective in any circumstance, for example, to compel a witness to attend at the solicitor’s office to give a statement or to sign a written statement despatched to him”.

Both Mr Raj and Mr Lee could not be reached for comments yesterday. After leaving the firm, Mr Raj set up his own practice in July last year. Mr Lee left after him, and has since become an in-house legal counsel, according to Mr Seow.

Mr Seow added that he had not heard of the latest development from the LawSoc. “It would not be right for me to comment on this,” he said. “We want to take the position that we protect copyright owners. It’s unfortunate, but they are my former employees.”

Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawyers-dallas-buyers-club-action-face-punishment

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2016, 01:10:43 PM »
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
:
:
At that time, Mr Samuel Seow, the firm’s managing director, had said a new batch of letters that were worded differently were sent to StarHub and Singtel subscribers who allegedly downloaded the movie illegally. He had also said Mr Raj, who was the director of the litigation and dispute resolution practice group in the firm, was leaving the firm, but the departure was not linked to his handling of the case.
:
:

Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawyers-dallas-buyers-club-action-face-punishment

Truth be told... similar threats* persisted in the letters that were sent to the affected Starhub & Singtel subscribers.

* Source (password protected 7z file): http://goo.gl/pO4HxJ

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2016, 11:21:16 PM »
Latest DBC-SG Updates
 
 For many of you who have received the latest threat of a possible 'Writ of Summons', you may check your email* for information on you might want to handle this situation.
 
 * Sent to only those within the DBC-SG Private Support Group
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 01:10:29 PM by greentara »

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2016, 04:56:59 PM »
Dallas Buyers Club Face Court Sanctions Over Piracy “Extortion” Tactics
By Ernesto on June 22, 2016

The makers of the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club are facing monetary sanctions for the dubious tactics used in their ongoing crackdown on BitTorrent pirates. In California, a local resident is arguing that the filmmakers lack any evidence other than an IP-address, while requesting a monetary penalty of $36,000 for their "extortion" tactics.

The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have sued thousands of BitTorrent users over the past few years.

Many of these cases end up being settled for an undisclosed amount. This usually happens after the filmmakers obtain the identity of the Internet account holder believed to have pirated the movie.

Not all alleged downloaders are eager to pay up though. In fact, many don’t respond to the settlement letters they receive or claim that someone else must have downloaded the film using their connection.

This is also true for the case Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) filed against California resident Michael Amhari.

Earlier this year the filmmakers claimed that Amhari downloaded a pirated copy of the movie after he was linked to a “pirating” IP-address. Dallas Buyers Club’s attorney demanded a settlement of $10,000 and warned that “the price would go up” if he didn’t pay up soon enough.

Amhari, however, denied the allegations and explained that he lived in an apartment residence at San Diego State University with an open Wi-Fi connection. Nevertheless, the movie studio pursued its claim and increased the settlement demand to $14,000.

He continued to deny any involvement and even agreed to take a polygraph test to prove it, as DBC suggested. However, the filmmakers later retracted this offer and moved for a default judgment instead.

This judgment was set aside earlier this month and now the alleged “pirate” is pushing back in court.

Through his lawyer, Amhari is now asking for the case to be dismissed due to lack of evidence, as well as an award of attorney fees and monetary sanctions for DBC’s abuse tactics in these and other cases.

“Plaintiff has utilized extortion tactics by progressively demanding more money from defendant on each successive conversation with defense counsel and through emails, based on plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees,” attorney Clay Renick writes.

In his argument (pdf, cache), Renick cites DBC’s own words, as they previously admitted that “Ahmari may not be the actual infringer as he shared a student apartment with other individuals.”

Despite this knowledge, they continued their case against Amhari.

“Despite the warning from the Court, Plaintiff moved forward to aggressively and maliciously name defendant in a manner that constitutes libel against defendant,” Amhari’s attorney writes.

As a result of the allegations, the accused pirate had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees. According to the defense lawyer, however, it is clear that DBC doesn’t have any evidence linking his client to the actual download.

“It is uncontroverted that the sole basis of plaintiff’s lawsuit was that defendant was a subscriber to the IP address of which a movie was supposedly downloaded,” Renick writes.

“Plaintiff seems to believe that conflating a subscriber’s IP address to being the actual infringer should shield him from liability for those libelous statements and unethical actions to extort money from defendant,” the attorney adds.

Based on the lack of evidence, Amhari is asking the court to dismiss the case. In addition, he is requesting $12,000 in attorney fees and a monetary penalty of $36,000 for the coercive tactics used in this and other cases.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/dallas-buyers-clubs-piracy-extortion-tactics-face-court-sanctions-160622

Offline greentara

  • Administrator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • My detailed profile
Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2016, 10:37:36 PM »
Two Judges Punch Holes In Copyright Trolls' Claims That An IP Address Is The Same Thing As A Person
by Tim Cushing
Tue, Jun 28th 2016 3:44pm

Fight Copyright Trolls has tracked down two more court decisions that reach an obvious conclusion: an IP address is not a person. In both cases, the normal trolling tactics were used: legal threats against alleged infringers, based on nothing more than IP addresses. In the first case, New Jersey Judge Kevin McNulty disagreed with Malibu Media's request for default judgment, pointing out that the limited info it was working with could not rule out a successful defense being raised by the accused infringer.

As Raul of FCT puts it, it is simply not enough for Malibu Media to obtain an IP address and then bring a claim against any household member with a penis. The judge writes [PDF, cache]:

   […] the Defendant’s connection to the alleged infringement is based solely on an IP address. The IP address here, as the Plaintiff concedes, is actually held by the Defendant’s spouse. (Compl. ¶ 25) In the Amended Complaint, Malibu Media is not certain that the infringer is Defendant, but rather pleads “discovery will likely show that Defendant is the infringer.” (Id. ¶ 27) In fact, the infringer could be another person altogether, such as a family member or, as Malibu Media itself concedes, “sometimes, the infringer is another person who the subscriber has authorized to use the subscriber’s Internet.” (Id. ¶ 28) Or, it could be that the infringer is someone using the subscriber’s Internet via a wireless router that is not password protected. While it is possible that the infringer is Defendant, Malibu Media has not proved that Fodge actually caused or is responsible for the alleged infringement.


Beyond that, the court has issues with the copyright claims in general. While Malibu Media claimed 23 titles were infringed by Fodge, the court points out that only 16 of them were registered before the alleged infringement. An unregistered copyright is not fatal to infringement claims, but it does limit the plaintiff's claims to actual damages. It also undercuts Malibu's infringement assertions, as it is much more difficult to prove ownership without a registration.

The second order [PDF, cache], issued by Oregon Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman contains something a bit more unexpected.

   What is surprising (and I believe unprecedented) is that the judge sua sponte dismissed Count 1 of direct copyright infringement. Many defense attorneys have tried in the past to knock out direct infringement claims and they have never, to my knowledge, been successful. This is because the claim has to merely be plausible which a very, very low threshold. I think this is the first time that a federal judge took it upon herself to examine such a claim, find it not plausible and dismiss it without prejudice.


The dismissal is prompted by the usual troll reliance on IP addresses being treated as people. Judge Beckerman doesn't see it that way:

   The only facts Plaintiff pleads in support of its allegation that Gonzales is the infringer, is that he is the subscriber of the IP address used to download or distribute the movie, and that he was sent notices of infringing activity to which he did not respond. That is not enough. Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts tying Gonzales to the infringing conduct. While it is possible that the subscriber is also the person who downloaded the movie, it is also possible that a family member, a resident of the household, or an unknown person engaged in the infringing conduct.


What Cobbler Nevada, LLC was trying to do was raise weak allegations first, then work its way backward to establishing Gonzales as being the actual infringing party. The judge notes that this tactic runs afoul of legal precedent.

   Twombly and Iqbal do not allow Plaintiff to guess at who is liable, and attempt to confirm liability through discovery. “Plausible” does not mean certain, but it does mean “likely,” and Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support its allegation that Gonzales is the likely infringer here.


In fact, as Raul notes in the FCT post, the odds of Gonzales being the infringer are much lower than in other infringement cases -- something Cobbler Nevada knew when pursuing this lawsuit. Footnote 4 of the order makes it clear that the copyright troll knew it had a long list of potential infringers on its hand, but simply chose to go after the name linked to the IP address.

   Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged at oral argument that the IP address linked to the infringing conduct serves an adult foster care home operated by Gonzales. Any resident or guest of that home could be the infringer.

It's one thing if a troll simply shrugs and hopes the court will let it connect the dots between the IP address it obtained and the person it's registered to. It's quite another when a single IP address is host to multiple possible infringers, but the plaintiff chooses instead to focus on the person paying for the connection -- or, if they lack a penis -- the closest household member in possession of one.

The court also dismisses with prejudice Cobbler Nevada's indirect infringement claim, logically pointing out that it takes far more to prove this than simply pointing out that the alleged infringer failed to kick everyone else off the network.

Both of these decisions are useful additions to the casework against copyright trolls' awful business model. Hopefully these will result in more swift dismissals of "an IP address is a person" lawsuits while discouraging further adventures in speculative invoicing.

Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160628/13094834851/two-judges-punch-holes-copyright-trolls-claims-that-ip-address-is-same-thing-as-person.shtml
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 10:41:07 PM by greentara »