Company Behind Adam & Eve Discovers Quickly That Courts Are Now Hip To Copyright Trolling

from the sex-toys-and-copyright-trolling dept

Adam & Eve is a well known purveyor of sex toys, and the company is generally considered somewhat mainstream -- as I hear them advertise on all sorts of mainstream-ish podcasts. I had no idea that the company was actually founded back in 1970 as a way to help family planning by selling mail order contraceptives. Amazingly, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the company was actually helped along with a Ford Foundation fellowship. Somewhere along the way, it clearly expanded beyond just selling contraceptives, and eventually got into producing porn itself as well (complementary business lines, apparently). That's under its corporate parent name, PHE Inc. And, now, it appears that PHE has decided to try expanding its business in the same manner as some other porn providers: by going copyright troll. Except, the company (or its lawyers) apparently didn't do their homework.

The Torrent Lawyer blog alerts us to the news that PHE Inc. jumped into the copyright trolling game right after Christmas, filing a lawsuit against 105 John Does in Colorado, using lawyer Sanjin Mutic of the "Mile High Law Office." And... even with New Years, it took just over a week for the court to dump 104 of those John Does from the lawsuit, and to suggest to PHE that the court is no fan of abusing the judicial system as a part of a business model. After noting some cases where judges had found joinder appropriate and many others where it was not, the judge made it clear he agreed with those that said it was not. He then provided a number of other reasons to dismiss all but one John Doe, including the fact that there was little to no benefit to anyone to having them all joined in a single case, especially since each defendant may have very different and very fact specific defenses that would require separate processes. And, then, towards the end, the court made it clear that it knew what these cases are really about:
Finally, the Court is troubled by many aspects of this “swarm joinder” model for copyright litigation. Courts across the country have observed that the companies involved in this type of litigation do not seem interested in actually litigating their copyright claims. Rather, they appear to be using the federal courts only to obtain identifying information for the ISP owners and then attempting to negotiate a quick settlement.... In finding joinder improper in a similar action, one court observed:
The federal courts are not cogs in plaintiff’s copyright enforcement business model. The Court will not idly watch what is essentially an extortion scheme, for a case that plaintiff has no intention of bringing to trial. By requiring Malibu to file separate lawsuits for each of the Doe Defendants, Malibu will have to expend additional resources to obtain a nuisance-value settlement—making this type of litigation less profitable. If Malibu desires to vindicate its copyright rights, it must do it the old-fashioned way and earn it....
.... The Court fully agrees with the concerns expressed by these other judges and finds that this is yet another basis for requiring that Plaintiff litigate its copyright claim against each John Doe Defendant individually.
Oh, and the ultimate bit of irony? The movie in question was "Buffy the Vampire Slayer XXX: A Parody." Now, we're all for parodies being protected from being considered infringement, but it really seems to be pushing the irony meter when the movie itself was created by relying on fair use rules to get around being copyright infringement, to then use it go on a copyright trolling binge.




Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 1:00pm

    Mike, the name of the movie is a doubly ironic: I don't know if you know, but John Steele's moniker among porn producers is "Buffy." It was a response to John appearing on adult industry conventions with a pin "Pirate Slayer."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 1:03pm

    Abut the wannabe troll: Meet Sanjin Mutic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      FTA=Classy title! I wonder how he feels having his name in print next to it? This is a superb example of why I don't want to give up a free internet.

      Luv Much, UCH

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 3:29pm

      Re:

      Oh and I was just about to post about your epic title for him.

      UCH - you should see the names other trolls have earned.
      I think Chutzpah is the least offensive of them so far.

      Usually I just default to calling them pookie.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        G Thompson (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 9:53pm

        Re: Re:

        This guy (Sanjic) intrigues me since he allegedly also holds a very niche degree of Bachelors of Science (Medical Physics) that he completed before he did his JD.

        This would mean that he understands forensic techniques and therefore has no fallback on not knowing that any IP address he uses for his Does does not in any way shape nor form equate to his opinion that there might of been infringing usage using that specific Ip at that specific time.

        There's a professional ethics problem if I have ever seen one.

        And pookie??? "fucknuckle" is my term of choice ;)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Not That Chris (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 1:53pm

    "Mile High" Law Office

    While I'm sure this is a reference to doing business in Colorado, for the rest of the country it seems like this probably wasn't the best choice of business names...especially if one is going to litigate for a porn company.

    Or perhaps it's the perfect name and that was the plan all along...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mr. Applegate, Jan 7th, 2013 @ 1:58pm

    Got a new title for them

    "Judges Whore no more" with a subtitle of "Bitch get outta my court!"

    Let's see how that one sells.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2013 @ 2:10pm

    Sanjin Mutic
    Home:
    2339 Curtis St
    Denver, CO 80205-2627
    GPS: 39.754413,-104.98579 (house hidden behind a tree)
    TEL: (303) 297-8092

    Work:
    Mile High Law Office, LLC
    621 Seventeenth St., Suite 1101
    Denver CO 80293
    Direct 303-204-6141
    Office 303-296-6456
    Fax 888-572-6456
    Sanjin@MileHighLawOffice.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Hambone, Jan 7th, 2013 @ 2:20pm

      Re:

      I'm all for stopping these trolls in their tracks, but the guy's home address? Isn't that a little over the top?

      I mean... we're supposed to be the ones standing up for the spirit of the law here. I don't think going to a guy's house is really within that same spirit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        New Mexico Mark, Jan 7th, 2013 @ 3:26pm

        Re: Re:

        I have mixed feelings about this. When people game the system with no regard to the real consequences to real people, it might "bring it home" to have the spotlight turned on them for a while. Roaches really hate that.

        Naming and shaming can be a powerful force. The problem is that the Internet can turn this into an amplification attack far out of proportion to the original offense.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Atkray (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 3:31pm

        Re: Re:

        May have been posted by someone looking to create grief for the site knowing Mike doesn't believe in deleting posts.

        Most of the regulars here would pass on this.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 7th, 2013 @ 3:44pm

        Re: Re:

        I share the mixed feelings, but then I've seen first hand how these scum operate.

        http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/08/03/a-disabled-victim-of-a-copyright-troll-threat ens-to-kill-himself

        I know of at least 2 porn outfits who got into trolling and were pretty angry when suddenly their shoot house was outed to the neighborhood.

        I think sending a letter to someone saying your guilty and I'm going to get $150,000 unless you pay me now $3-6000 and if you don't then your name is going to be attached to pron is foul.
        They enjoy using the power to embarrass people, to get paid.
        If they have a problem with someone associating them with porn and extortion, they might be in the wrong business.
        The evidence is slim at best, and these cases are not meant to go to trial, they are about extracting cash from the person who pays a bill, guilty or not. They can NEVER know who actually did it, and don't care. They just want money and will do what it takes to get paid.

        Once upon a time after a national tragedy 1 man stood outside Westboro with a simple sign... Not Today Fred. It did much more than all of the screaming before or after it. Sometimes the best action to take is simple.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Tex Arcana (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 9:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          OOOOOHHH! OOH! OOH!! Send FleshLight to the judge... WITH THE SCUMBAG LAWYER'S RETURN ADDRESS ON IT!!! There ya go!! Talk about pissin' in a pond!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2013 @ 6:45pm

        Re: Re:

        Does this mean I can't order 20 pizzas to his house?

        /sad

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2013 @ 6:47pm

        Re: Re:

        Does this mean I can't order 20 pizzas to his house?

        /sad

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2013 @ 10:37pm

    I was sued in part of one of these mass doe suit, I refused to pay, and they let me go after, there background check revealed I was a disabled person. they had no chance of winning the case, I was to broke to fight it or pay it. what a scam.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    doe, Jan 8th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    How is releasing th scumbags name not fare game?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    hates trolls, Jan 8th, 2013 @ 12:44pm

    Any info on lipscum?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tex Arcana (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 9:14pm

    So A&E and the scumbag lawyer screwed up: the didn't properly bribe the judge!!

    Maybe they need to send him a FleshLight...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    One of the John Does, Jan 23rd, 2013 @ 10:52am

    So how to best proceed if we get a letter from our ISP?

    So I received a letter from my ISP regarding this (Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-44) with Lesko as the law firm. The cover letter from my ISP says I can object to the court and .cc the ISP. I'm going to call the ISP to get more information since the letter to me and subpoena to teh ISP was quite generic and didn't have much specific information in it. But how best to proceed? Object to the court and ISP? Just go to the hearing? Wait and see if it is dismissed before the court date? I don't think the third alternative is the best one though. The second probbaly isn't too much better unless I can raise any doubt or confusion into their argument.

    Thoughts?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This