New Filing Presents Evidence That John Steele Uploaded Videos To BitTorrent Himself

from the johnny-boy's-in-trouble dept

If you thought Graham Syfert was done with taking on John Steele and Prenda law with the closing of the Sunlust case in Florida, you'd be wrong. Today he's filed an incredible filing not just hitting back at Prenda in another case, First Time Videos vs. Paul Oppold, and asking for attorney's fees, but also including an affidavit from an actual expert (i.e., not a Prenda-style "forensic" expert) named Delvan Neville, who lays out in astounding detail how it's almost certain that John Steele himself uploaded the various videos to BitTorrent that were then used to sue various defendants for either "hacking" or copyright infringement. Oh, and in doing so, Steele appears to have made some choices that are pretty damning, including suggesting that he set up the file to effectively broadcast that it was free for the taking. In other words, there's an incredibly strong argument that the release of the file on BitTorrent was very authorized.

The work builds on some earlier research that Syfert has put out exploring how many of the Prenda-related films seemed to have been initially offered on The Pirate Bay via the same user: sharkmp4. For all the mocking that people have made concerning Prenda's "forensic" investigations into those they accuse of infringement (i.e., finding an IP address and not much else), Neville shows you how an actual investigation is done. You should read the whole thing for the layers upon layers of evidence that all seem to point the finger at John Steele.

Among other things, sharkmp4 seemed to be able to post these works on The Pirate Bay before the works were even mentioned anywhere else, and in at least one case, "sharkmp4" put a video up on The Pirate Bay three days before Prenda shell company Ingenuity 13 had even filed for the copyright. On top of that, the "forensics" company that Prenda uses -- which is supposedly run by Paul Hansmeier's brother Peter, but which had its domain registered and controlled by (you guessed it) John Steele -- apparently identified "infringements" almost immediately after the videos were placed on The Pirate Bay -- meaning they were likely looking for such infringement in conjunction with the upload.

At the end, however, Neville pulls together really damning evidence, tying together a website set up to distribute Ingenuity 13 porn films with the same exact IP address that was confirmed as being used by John Steele to log into his own GoDaddy account, highlighting how Steele -- or someone with access to his logins -- clearly has full access and control over Ingenuity 13 works. As you read through all of the evidence it appears highly likely that Steele is in control of Ingenuity 13, despite all his protests to the contrary.

As the filing notes:
Prenda Law's business structure is such that it is pirate, forensic pirate hunter, and attorney. It also appears that Prenda Law also wants to/has formed/is forming a corporate structure where it is: pornography producer, copyright holder, pornography pirate, forensic investigator, attorney firm, and debt collector. Other than the omission of appearing in the pornography themselves, this would represent an entire in-house copyright trolling monopoly- not designed to promote their own works for distribution and sale, but to induce infringement of their works and reap profits seen from mass anti-piracy litigation.
It remains to be seen if the court bothers to explore this, but I would imagine that it may be of interest in other Prenda and related cases.




Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:47am

    Oh to be a fly on the wall at Prenda HQ...

    "What do you mean he's still coming after us, we paid him to drop that other case didn't we, what possible reason could he have for continuing to harass us by making public our past actions like this?! You'd think he had some objection against extor- I mean Pro-IP people like us with the way he's continually bringing to light our business practices!"

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:02pm

    Literal LOL

    Other than the omission of appearing in the pornography themselves, this would represent an entire in-house copyright trolling monopoly

    I can always count on this fiasco for some much needed laughs.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:04pm

    Funny how life works out.

    In prison, they've got something called Shankmp4.

    Only one letter off.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:08pm

    SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

    Heck, that should RAISE him in your view. He was just "sharing". -- AND IF there's nothing wrong with downloading files from Bittorrent, what the HELL is your point?

    Guess you already gave up for today on anything of importance.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:16pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      Good job conveniently ignoring the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FRAUD this involves.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Pragmatic, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 5:30am

        Re: Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

        Heck, that should RAISE him in your view. He was just "sharing". -- AND IF there's nothing wrong with downloading files from Bittorrent, what the HELL is your point?

        Blue, take your meds, then read this sllllooooowwwwwwllllllyyyy...

        Steele uploaded movies to The Pirate Bay.

        Then he waited for chumps to download and share them.

        Then he used the IP addresses of these people as "evidence" so he could sue them.

        You know, that thing where you have to either go to court and defend yourself or pay to settle out of court. Since Steele hasn't got much of a case and even less evidence, he prefers to settle out of court.

        That's not sharing, that's "baiting the trap."

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 7:53am

          Re: Re: Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

          out_of_the_blue refuses to believe fraud exists if copyright holders and enforcers commit it. He's just that much of a hater of due process.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:17pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      Flail little sycophant, flail as your idols continue to be brought down and the light is shined ever brighter on their actions.

      What you seem to be intentionally missing, is that the evidence presented strongly suggests that Steele, who owned the copyrights on the movies in question, put them up on Pirate Bay, making them legal to download. To then sue over those same files is committing fraud, as he'd be suing over works that by his own actions were legal to be downloaded.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:50pm

        Re: Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

        The story claim that Steel put the copybait up before he possesed the actual copyright, if true it may be possible to dodge a fraud charge, though that meens at the time of posting he was possibly infringing someone elses copyright

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Tom Anderson, Jun 5th, 2013 @ 5:07pm

        Re: Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

        I don't know that just putting your files on Pirate Bay makes them legal to download. Just because there is a photocopier in the library doesn't mean that it's legal to copy all the books.

        The thing that could change that is statements by the person who put the file on Pirate Bay who is also a copyright holder.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:24pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      "-- AND IF there's nothing wrong with downloading files from Bittorrent, what the HELL is your point?"

      I'm trying to figure out YOUR point for even posting this.

      Did you have a BIG glass of retard for breakfast today?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:26pm

        Re: Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

        I think he drinks that with every meal.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 6:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

          Drinks that? I think he produces that naturally. You know, like how glands produce spit and mucus. I think there's a huge retard-producing gland in the empty space inside his cranium where a brain would normally be.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:28pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      How long did you have to train to be this willfully stupid, Blue?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      apauld (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:42pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      Perhaps the dumbest thing ever posted by a moron using the OOTB nic, congrats!

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:45pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      No...no-one can be this stupid. I mean, it is physically impossible to be this stupid. I've seen OOTB level stupid and while bad, it's never been as bad as this.
      I think I know what his plan is. He's trying to kill us. That's right. He's trying to kill us by inducing aneurysms through sheer stupidity.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:56pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      "He was just "sharing". -- AND IF there's nothing wrong with downloading files from Bittorrent, what the HELL is your point?"
      Correct. Nothing wrong with him sharing.

      I think (and I'm just spit-balling here) the problem people have with his actions begin after he starts suing people for downloading the very thing he was uploading. Surely, you're not dense enough to miss the distinction, are you?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:06pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      Wow this is an impressive level of stupidity blue. Maybe you could patent it?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:19pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      So, bringing to light how the IP system has been set up in such a way that it is so very easy to game is not important? You're starting to reek of the same desperation that your fellow trolls are.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 2:01pm

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      > Guess you already gave up for today on anything of importance.

      Prenda is of importance.

      In the future, when a defendant decides to fight a copyright accusation in court, the courts may take the defense a whole lot more seriously. Real due process. Real investigation.

      Something your pay masters won't like.

      How can your business model of litigation work if the courts actually require proof of infringement?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 1:40am

      Re: SO? You pirates claim nothing wrong with that!

      "He was just "sharing". -- AND IF there's nothing wrong with downloading files from Bittorrent, what the HELL is your point?"

      There wouldn't be a point - *if* that's all he was doing. Indeed, a company sharing their property instead of the usual "piracy!" lies is laudable.

      The problem is, not only did he share the files, he then attempts to extort the people he's sharing with, falsely claiming the file is unauthorised.

      I know terrorism apologists like you claim nothing wrong with that, but you're wrong. Completely, utterly and undisputably.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:15pm

    Color me so surprised.
    So very surprised.
    /deadpan

    Ohai Delvan! Funny running into you here... :D

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Delvan (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:12pm

      Re:

      Hiya TAC! Its been killing me not being able to fill you in on this whole shindig...that whole client confidentiality thing :).

       

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

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:36pm

        Re: Re:

        I totally understand...
        I'm just glad I was around to see it happen.

        It confirmed what I thought they had evolved into, it has happened with trolls before... mysterious seedings of content and IPs quickly gathered...never any questions of who the source might have been.
        I often wonder if that is the reason one of the trolls lost so many clients and then swore off porn cases... then a few months later was back on porn again. Because someone figured out what he was doing would bite them in the ass if someone was digging hard enough. And well I had a shovel, a big mouth, and wasn't scared of him at all.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Julian Perez, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 9:20pm

        Re: Re:

        Hey, you're THE Delvan Nelville that was the forensic expert in this case?

        Awesome. I think you brought out the proof that for all time showed Prenda's business model was based on producing content it directly owned for no other reason than to just sue users.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They were slowly moving towards production of their own content, IIRC, most everything owned by the shells was older dated porn acquired by signing fake names to copyright assignments.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        G Thompson (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 2:39am

        Re: Re:

        From the glance so far I have had at your declaration - well put together and a great step into bringing more information into the light of day about what most of these racketeering practices (ie: prenda ) are actually all about and how they work from the start.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:19pm

    Wow....

    And just when I thought the Prenda saga couldn't get any more interesting, this happens!

    Really, REALLY wish that case was still in Wright's courtroom. He'd have a field day with this info.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:19pm

    i thought that would be classed as 'entrapment'? i also thought that it was an illegal practice in the USA? if so, i wonder if Steele is now going through his law books trying to find some new way of getting out of the still deeper hole he has dug? and i doubt if this fiasco has reached the end yet!

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      Something I've questioned in my time fighting trolls was if someone was empowered to upload the file, wouldn't that make every download authorized by extension?

      I mean its not like one of the old ip capture companies had a contract authorizing them to create a honeypot... er wait.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        G Thompson (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 2:46am

        Re: Re:

        It's extortion because they have allegedly with intent allowed a file to be downloaded with the sole intention of threatening the downloader with harm.

        This can all come under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 19611968) commonly called RICO for brevity

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Jun 5th, 2013 @ 7:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          One of the things I love about this site is that even foreigners know more about US law than all the shills put together. Thanks for keeping us educated.

          And thanks to all the ethical US lawyers (TAC, SJD, Ken Popehat, etc.) for showing us that not all of you should be up against the wall first ;)

           

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

          •  
            icon
            G Thompson (profile), Jun 6th, 2013 @ 2:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Thanks... ;)

            Though admittedly I deal a lot with Laws (criminal, civil, and administrative) from different jurisdictions with what I do on a day to day basis. Also the differences between UK, Canada, USA, New Zealand and my own Australian laws on basic & historical principals are very similar (we all come under common law systems).

             

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

    •  
      icon
      Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      IANAL but I don't believe this would be considered entrapment. As the owner of the copyright, his offering of the films online would be considered an authorized use. To then turn around and demand money from these authorized downloaders to keep Prenda from publicly releasing their porn habits would be a classic example of extortion. Actual legally defined, no argument to the contrary, extortion. Time to buy some stock in PopSecret... this is going to get good!

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:55pm

      Re:

      Entrapment is when Person A induces Person B to commit a crime out of their own free will. So, an undercover cop offering to sell drugs to someone isn't entrapment: the potential buyer can always say no. But, the undercover cop saying to someone "You'd better take these drugs or I'm gonna shoot you!" would be entrapment if the person was then charged with possession of illegal narcotics.
      In this case, since Steele allowed and aided in the movie's P2P distribution, it was not entrapment. He created the username, created the torrent and wanted as many people as possible to download it. Meaning the action was legal.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 3:40pm

        Re: Re:

        Doesn't hold water.

        If a company distributes their works on a platform such as bittorrent, they cannot reasonably assume nobody will download (and thus also begin seeding) the files - as that is a feature of the distribution platform that was chosen in this case.

        And this also brings up the problem of knowing what is legally distributable or not - one cannot look at a torrent and know whether it is legal or not to re-distribute the content - at least not until it has been fully downloaded (and thus also uploaded, since that is how bittorrent works), and the user can determine if the work in question is redistributable or not.

        There is plenty of amatuer porn out there - there's a lot of amatuer porn out there, and unless there's a clear copyright on it, one can't simply know what rights are reserved by the copyright holder and what rights they've given up without at least obtaining it in the first place.

        Now, if someone was selling this copyrighted material, knowing that they do not have permission by the copyright holder, or declaring that they are in fact the copyright holder, then we have a whole different ball of wax that copyright law was actually designed to deal with.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 5:50pm

      Re:

      I agree with Franklin G Ryzzo that it isn't entrapment. It'd be like if you put a table on the sidewalk in front of your house, put a bunch of jewelry/books/whatever on it, put up a sign saying "Free stuff"... and then accused anyone who took anything of theft. It's not entrapment because what those people did wasn't a crime.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      PsychoDan, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 10:08pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:19pm

      It wouldn't be entrapment. Entrapment only applies to law enforcement conduct, and it's far more narrow than most cries of entrapment on the internet. It's only entrapment if law enforcement coerces you into committing a crime. They are absolutely allowed to facilitate you in committing a crime as long as you do it freely.

      As others have said, though, this is probably fraud.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Just a Guy, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 8:20am

      Re:

      No, entrapment is where the government induces you to break the law. That's not the issue in this case - no laws were broken by the downloader since the copyright holder made the movies available.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:22pm

    It remains to be seen if the court bothers to explore this, but I would imagine that it may be of interest in other Prenda and related cases.


    It is sure of interest in the ongoing criminal investigation (the fact that we don't have information about it is naturally irrelevant).

    Bravo, Delvan!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:23pm

    Fwd: An interesting Filing

    To: Judge Otis Wright


    Please see attached. You may find this filing to the court interesting. I'm looking forward to hearing your gavel fall against Steele et al. And if I may, can you throw in a few more Trekkie references for those of us enjoying your work.

    Regards,

    FanOfYourWorkWithPrenda


    Now to go get the popcorn and wait for the happy ending!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:30pm

    While Delvan Neville has been monitoring Prenda-related torrents from March, the question is: did he monitor any other troll "forensic" companies such as CEG, IPP International (a.k.a. Guardaley)et al?

    This question will only be answered when/if a similar devastating declaration appears in other crooks' cases. Until then, if I were a scumbag such as M. Keith Lipscomb, I would be very nervous and order an extra dozen of briefs.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:48pm

    I wonder how many people that are all for copyright with insisting that an IP address is proof of the person committing infringement now still stands by that now that the very same IP address evidence points to John Steele.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Danny, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      Two things, Mr. Coward,

      1. In this case the IP addresses are being triangulated with significant additional information; and
      2. The security expert (Neville) was careful to note that one can't say for sure the user was John Steele; rather that it was someone who had access to his accounts (several of which were accessed from the same IP address.)

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:50pm

    Is anyone really surprised at the fact that Steele would upload the movies and then have Hansmeiers company use a bit torrent client to grab the IP addresses used to download the files?

    This is why when you search the titles of the movies you find that:
    1) They were never distributed anywhere by any distributor.
    2) The titles were never available for purchase or through any VOD service.
    3) Were never available at any website for viewing or download other than on a torrent file site.

    This is why Prenda and especially Steele will be ripe
    candidates for a RICO indictment. They fit the bill for an ongoing criminal conspiracy definition to a "T" in my opinion.

    The whole premise of their supposed copyright enforcement litigation after a lot of the Hard Drive Production cases started to turn from having to give a cut of lawsuit revenues to the client, to lets cut the client out entirely and become the client through offshore entities and LLC's and keep all the profits!

    Gibbs will be the first to turn states evidence, his legal careers is in tatters, he is facing bar investigations. He has Prenda Law on his resume, and still is facing his share of Judge Wright's sanction award. Gibbs will be the first to turn if a Grand Jury starts looking at RICO.

    Duffy will be the next to fall due to his State Bar investigations, his name is the head of Prenda allegedly, and his precarious financial position with Judgements against him, I will bet he turns witness for a deal in a RICO case.

    Hansmeier will stay true for a while but not when RICO comes after Gibbs's and Duffy fall, he will want to save himself.

    Steele's ego will keep him feigning innocence and stall all the way to the end, and it will be Steele rattling the bars in the pen when RICO comes down.

    Steele's own ego in creating LLC and entities and offshore trusts and then using family members address to register them at and his Gmail address will be his downfall.

    Steele will be a law schools section on "Ethics and when to know you have crossed the line" and Prenda will be the footnote of how not to run a law firm.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:58pm

      Re:

      I wouldn't be surprised if Steele is disowned by his family - I mean, IIRC, he used his SISTER's home address as part of his overall scheme. So far, she hasn't been mentioned as being a member of this scheme.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Balaknair, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:02pm

      Response to: Anon E. Mous on Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:50pm

      About Gibbs' testimony, anyone else feel Steele's next move will be to stall the investigation for as long as possible till Gibbs is no longer healthy enough to testify?

       

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

  •  
    icon
    apauld (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    do I smell a large class action lawsuit coming on?

    "there's an incredibly strong argument that the release of the file on BitTorrent was very authorized."

    So I have to wonder if anyone/everyone who has ever paid a cent to these jackasses could now have grounds to start up a class action. Think about how funny it would be for Paul Hansmeier to try to object on behalf of his wife.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:19pm

      Re: do I smell a large class action lawsuit coming on?

      I mentioned this before, that maybe his entire class action objecting setup was to make sure they could screw with anything targeting them.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    I was always wondering about those uploads when all from the same user does smell like a honey pot trap. Beyond the IP though there was no other proof until now where if you do accuse someone of a crime then you do need solid proof.

    Good job Delvan Neville for finding that solid proof when Ingenuity 13 were sure involved in these movie uploads. Then to have John Steele admit to this is the final nail in his coffin.

    Authorized uploads means non-infringing downloads. To then accuse people of infringement then seals the honey pot where a clear case of fraud it is.

    The only remaining mystery is why the Police have not yet arrested John Steele and friends and carted them off in handcuff when that is what should happen.

    At least the RICO investigation will be over the Moon today when here is proof of organized crime.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    An Interested Observer, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    Funny

    If I read it right, the evidence suggests a certain IP address uploaded the files. Will Steele come back with - anyone with that IP address could have done it - you can't prove it was me. Logic would say no. The way these cases are going would suggest yes.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:00pm

      Re: Funny

      "That IP address isn't enough evidence to say it's me!" - John Steele

      At which, a dead silence fills the courtroom, where everyone stops and stares at Steele. Nothing else needs to be said.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:09pm

        Re: Re: Funny

        Which is why there is much more than just an IP address.
        Of course Steele doesn't understand this because actual investigation takes time and effort beyond sending a letter and programming a robodialer.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 5:43pm

      Re: Funny

      Maybe he'll try to claim that an IP address can only be used to identify downloaders, and can't be used to identify uploaders? It seems like the sort of thing the Prendateers might say.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:06pm

    Here RICO, here boy. Dinner Time!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    jjmcubed (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 1:47pm

    Thanks

    Registered to say this. Thank you for keeping up with the case. Was directed to your site some time ago for this article and I have been enjoying your site daily since. Keep up the good works.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 2:54pm

    Fraud?

    This isn't fraud. This is ... erm ... it's ...

    It's vertical integration! That's what it is. In the name of efficiency. Yeah, efficiency.

    :)

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 3:23pm

    Impressive analysis

    I must comment that the analysis by Amaragh Associates (Devan Neville) was comprehensive and well done. I can only hope it provides convincing enough evidence to nail Prenda.

    I thought, however, the evidence indicated only one clear instance where sharkmp4 seeded a file before the file was available. The article implies there were multiple.

    As a side note, it occurred to me that if one were to write a bittorrent client one might specifically look out for peers which are both looking and offering seeds for the same file and then specifically stay away from them (the report comments that both offering and looking for seeds is a contradiction and seemingly obvious attempt to capture data on downloaders). That seems like an obvious improvement if not already out there.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Novus Ordo, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 4:46pm

    Either I'm missing it, or everyone else is

    Normally when I think that everyone is wrong, and I'm right, it's probably the other way around. I'm pretty sure in this case I'm actually right though.

    People keep saying "well, if Steele offered the file, then it's fine for other people to download it." And you're probably right - if it's an authorized distribution, then you ARE allowed to download it. But Prenda isn't suing people for downloading content, as far as I know. It's very difficult to prove that someone downloaded a particular thing without authorization, and the awards aren't worth the expense.

    What people are being sued for is distributing the content, not downloading it. Once they download it then their BitTorrent client turns around and immediately starts offering the file again (as shown by 6881's client's repeated attempts to say it is interested in downloading the file). The users might have authorization to download the file, but they DO NOT have authorization to distribute the copyrighted content to other people. Only the copyright holder can grant that authorization. That distribution is what the Does are being sued for.

    So this isn't a question of completely waiving all rights to claim copyright infringement. Instead, it is a very thorough investigation to try and point out that John Steele is in fact intimately involved with all the business of AF and I13, contrary to what he has stated. If he, and the rest of Prenda, is directly involved in those businesses then that's a major problem for their lawsuits. That is the power behind this investigation, not some sort of question about whether or not people are authorized to download the movies.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 11:34pm

      Re: Either I'm missing it, or everyone else is

      Even if everybody who was downloading the porn had modified their torrent client settings to not upload, that would be even more damning to Steele. That would mean that the only source for the porn videos would be Steele's honeypot, and not anyone else, as would be the case with any other torrent. Since Steele put up the torrent willingly, the torrent is authorized.

      Besides, your argument is I have to say completely silly. The very nature of P2P means that downloaders also act as uploaders. To try and make the argument that putting up a torrent file for download only and not give permission for uploading (the act of distribution) is just plain stupid.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 12:08am

        Re: Re: Either I'm missing it, or everyone else is

        Somewhere in my memory there is a court filing where someone claimed to have the exclusive rights to distribute the material on BT... this always stuck in my head because putting a file out on BT isn't really a business model as anyone could access it....

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Novus Ordo, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 10:10am

        Re: Re: Either I'm missing it, or everyone else is

        Authorization to distribute a copyrighted work is not transferred by someone receiving a free copy of the work, even if their copy if authorized. They do not have the right to turn around and re-distribute that copyrighted content. It doesn't matter what the "nature of BitTorrent" or the "nature of peer-to-peer" is, the Copyright Act of the US does not make an exception for the "nature of BitTorrent".

        There's no reason for you to take my word for it though, look at Prenda's initial filing in the case that would end up putting them before Judge Wright:

        http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/IngenuityComplaint.pdf

        Some excerpts:

        Unidentified Defendant John Doe ("Defendent"), ... knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed Plaintiff's copyrighted Video by acting in concert with others via the BitTorrent file sharing protocol and, upon information and belief, continues to do the same.


        No mention of downloading the file, the claim is that he reproduced and distributed the file. There's a mention of downloading here, but look where it leads:

        22. Defendant, using IP address 108.13.119.253, without Plaintiff's authorization or license, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiff's Video, purposefully loaded that torrent file into his BitTorrent client - in this case, libtorrent/0.15.10.0 - entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to Plaintiff's Video, and reproduced and distributed the Video to numerous third parties.


        Again, reproducing and distributing. An interesting note is the "...without Plaintiff's authorization or license" part, which may not have been the case, but again, receiving an authorized copy of a copyrighted work does not grant you a license to redistribute the copyrighted work.

        But let's move on, to the meat of the complaint. Count I - Copyright Infringement:

        26. Defendant's conduct infringes upon Plaintiff's exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution that are protected under the Copyright Act.


        There it is, that's the accusation. Not downloading, not "stealing" copyrighted content, but infringing on the copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the content. That is what copyright is all about, who is allowed to reproduce and distribute a given work. It's not about who can receive it, it's about who can reproduce it.

        So, back to my original assertion, no one is being charged with downloading copyrighted content, so the claim that the download was authorized has exactly zero bearing on this. It's not the real power of Delvin's investigation. The power of his investigation is showing that Steele is actively working with AF and I13, which is contradictory to his claims. If Steele is involved with Prenda, AF, and I13, then that is the specific fraud that Judge Wright is investigating. That is the power of the investigation, not some assertion that everyone automatically has a right to do whatever they want with some video just because the guy with the right to reproduce and distribute it made it available on BitTorrent. There are other misrepresentations (you can read that "fraud") in the claim, such as this one:

        38. The infringement by the other BitTorrent users could not have occurred without Defendant's participation in uploading Plaintiff's copyrighted works.


        If Steele was seeding the file, then that claim is patently false and is a misrepresentation to the court. In other words, fraud upon the court. That's what Judge Wright is investigating, and that is what Delvin's investigation lends ammo to.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Pragmatic, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 5:40am

      Re: Either I'm missing it, or everyone else is

      Who in the world uploads files to TPB with the express intention of restricting downloads to non-sharers?

      The whole POINT of Bittorrent is to share and seed.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    You're Missing It, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 5:26pm

    With Bittorrent software, downloading automatically implies uploading. So if you share something on Bittorrent, you are necessarily authorizing BOTH downloading AND uploading of that content. It's an inherent part of the Bittorrent system.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Internet Zen Master (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 5:40pm

      Re:

      Not completely true. It is possible on a some bittorrent clients to disable uploading while one is downloading.

      But then one is just being a selfish, if somewhat tech-smart, leech, and that's no fun at all.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Novus Ordo, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 11:55am

      Re:

      > So if you share something on Bittorrent, you are necessarily authorizing BOTH downloading AND uploading of that content. It's an inherent part of the Bittorrent system.

      I'm not able to find anything in the US Copyright Act which says that if someone distributes their copyrighted work via BitTorrent, then they also grant anyone who downloads it a license for unlimited reproduction and distribution.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Matthew Cline (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 4:10pm

        Re: Re:

        It's not unlimited reproduction and distribution, but only reproduction and distribution while a member of that specific swarm. And "an implicit and temporary grant of rights because of how the technology used for distribution works" doesn't explicitly need to be a part of the Constitution, as there's tons of case-law that interprets the Constitution.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 6:24pm

    John Steele, average_joe and out_of_the_blue just hate it when due process is enforced.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Jessie (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:08pm

    Hmm

    Guess we know now why they let the Fl Suit go, why swipe at the flys with your hand when you can bring out the fly swatter?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 3rd, 2013 @ 7:41pm

      Re: Hmm

      And they bought the flyswatter for him...
      No one will confirm or deny, stupid NDA's, but when the defendant is winning in a big way there often is a settlement from plaintiff to defendants to get them out of the chokehold and let them run away.

      Consider how much money it would take for you to let them off the hook when your winning after they trashed your name publicly... now add lawyer fees on top of that. I'm guessing it was a nice substantial amount... IMHO.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 3:07am

    I've been saying this all along.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 6:39am

    US Postal Inspector might be interested

    Isn't each and every one of those extortion letters a federal crime?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 8:57am

    sharkmp4 on the TPB forum

    Cross-comment from Ars:

    One interesting tidbit that no one has mentioned. Back in March 2011, in the beginning of Prenda's blitzkrieg on US courts, sharkmp4 commented on the TPB's forum:

    In that mass-wildebeest analogy, after many river crossings, last year I ended up being the poor sap caught in the jaws of the alligator (on a porn file, of course). Unlike everyone else who posts on suprbay(?!) I decided to settle quickly (much less than $5000; it was a different group). My former ISP gave up my information after a subpoena, so the trolls had my IP address paired up with the file I downloaded, etc. Big talk about ignoring letters and harassing phone calls from the trolls is all well and good, but speaking from experience, it is VERY stressful to have an expensive lawsuit hanging over your head. I am not rich enough to fight an extended legal battle and would be wiped out by any significant judgment, and I am not about to martyr myself so some guy can steal tranny porn. US law is not as friendly for us as European law seems to be. I just feel like an idiot, though, for getting caught in the first place.


    So the "guy" has registered only to say THAT? (Total of 3 comments, the other two are followups.) Seems to me like Steele & Co. spreading FUD. Too suspicious, especially now, after the news.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 10:15am

    Yeah, well, I don't think you needed to be Sherlock Holmes to see THAT from the very start.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 4th, 2013 @ 7:16pm

    Pirate Bay logs link sharkmp4 to Steele, Prenda

    TorrentFreak has released Pirate Bay logs linking both Steele and Prenda to sharkmp4...

    http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-helps-to-expose-copyright-troll-honeypot-13060 4/

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 11:23pm

      Re: Pirate Bay logs link sharkmp4 to Steele, Prenda

      I know I said it before, and now I will say it again...
      I'm sure glad I don't have the net pissed at me.
      How's that working out for ya Steele?

       

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

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 4th, 2013 @ 11:28pm

    Ars posted an update to their coverage as Steele decided to answer...

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/prenda-seeded-its-own-porn-files-via-bittorr ent-new-affidavit-shows/

    UPDATE Tuesday 9:10am CT: We heard back from Steele, who wrote: "I have never uploaded a torrent in my life, I have never instructed anyone to do so, and I am not aware of anyone I have worked with in any capacity whatsoever (other than pirates of course). I am not sure how much more unequivocal about it I can be. I have no involvement with any case in Florida, including Mr. Oppold's case. I have not read a single document in that case. I don't intend to. As far as Mr. Syfert, you will have to ask him why he is hiring experts to try to connect me to a case I have no involvement with."

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Trolololololo, Jun 5th, 2013 @ 6:57am

    schadenfreude++

    I'll just leave this here:

    http://i.imgur.com/5nTbnf9.png

    Keep denying, Johnny-boy... your delicious baby tears are delicious.

    Govern yourselves stupidly.

     

    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