Copyright Trolls So Sloppy They Sue The Same Guy Multiple Times

from the i'm-sure-tat's-effective dept

In yet another copyright trolling case, it appears that the trolls are so sloppy that they’re suing over the same IP address for sharing the same file (the animated movie, Zambezia) in multiple cases. The story focuses on one guy, who has filed a motion to quash in response, noting that the sloppiness of filing three times raises significant questions about the trolling operation. Either they’re incredibly sloppy and not very careful, or they’re hoping that by repeating the same IP address in multiple lawsuits, at least one judge will let the subpoena go through, leading to the inevitable demand letter. Either way, it should raise some eyebrows from the court about why anyone would file against the same IP address for the same movie in three different cases.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Copyright Trolls So Sloppy They Sue The Same Guy Multiple Times”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The MPAA doesn’t want to put popcorn industry out of business. They just want all of the profits from when people eat popcorn while watching movies. And since you really can’t tell which popcorn is being while watching movies the only logical solution is to give the MPAA all of the profits from the popcorn industry. Besides, some of those people eating popcorn while not watching movies are probably drug users with the munchies; taking the money associated with illegal drugs is a service that the MPAA is willing to provide. But if the popcorn industry isn’t profitable, don’t blame the MPAA. It’s the pirates’ fault.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!

Blue is a loon, it ain’t gonna happen. Just out of interest, I’d like to know what got this started. I’ve read some of her rantings and she seems obsessed with Reds under the bed, etc., which is why she hassles us.

Basically, we’re seen as some kind of Commie/Socialist sympathisers so we’re a threat that must be crushed.

By trolling on a tech website, though? Good luck with that. Mind you, the fact that she keeps getting owned helps to fuel that sense of victimization she seems to have.

Maybe there’s something on the DSM that can explain what’s going on with her. Damned if I know.

what_are_you_afraid_of says:

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!

I have a question blue….

If all of these “copyright holders” have such a cut and dry case against the “infringers” then why do they go to such great lengths to side step the law and bulk all these cases together?

Shouldn’t the possibility of actually extracting Jammie-Thomas-level-settlements make it profitable EVEN IF they go to court on each and every one?

It’s either one of two possibilities:

– they really DON’T have such an airtight case, and as a result, they have to pull this kind of horse shit at each and every turn

– it’s just an extortion racket

Please clue us in as to why these “clerical errors” seem to be the modus operandi of what seems to be the lion’s share of those entrusted with enforcing your precious copyright.

Dave says:

Re: OMG! Clerical error! -- Let's overturn ALL of copyright!

Poor old OOTB – getting rather paranoid in his old age, methinks. Probably got a version of writers’ cramp as well – if you know what I mean…….Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Have I spelt that correctly? Oh – should it really be an “a” instead of an “i”?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

OOTB wanted to talk about how this was just a clerical error, except this is court.

The clerical errors started before using the same IP’s in each filing, they were unable to name their ‘client’s’ work correctly.

Some were ‘named’ more than once in the SAME filing.

I won’t even get into the methodology used to gather the IP’s and how it could be flawed. They have managed to destroy ANY credibility they had by screwing up this badly.

The odds of this not being another “Me Too!” trolling case, in my opinion, are low. This isn’t about protecting creators, this is about cashing in. Many films are made, not all do well at the box office. This legal gamesmanship is about turning a loser into a winner. The laws are still stuck in the time when the only people who would make copies would do so to profit and actually steal money, because it was costly to do so.
The finer points of the debate can be talked about for a very long time but the fastest fix would be to add a noncommercial infringement penalty to the law. If it was capped at 2x the retail cost there would be less lawsuits and more effort made to actually get things into the marketplace.
The RIAA hated (still does) digital sales, but after the failure of their legal campagin it has been embraced more. It is easier for consumers to get the music they want, and as time has gone on the dreams of DRM and locking the content to certain players at certain times is fading away. They still hope to regain some control or new laws to make it like the old days but they are moving forward into the future because they are forced to and the offerings improve almost reaching the desires of consumers.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“which three individuals are stealing”

I detect sarcasm in your comment, but of course the correct answer to that specifically phrased question is “nobody”.

As for the possibility of it being 3 individuals, the MPAA had better get its story straight. Are they attacking the individuals who are actually infringing, or are they going after the account holders who provide access?

We’ve seen many cases where an innocent account holder has been held responsible for all activity on their router despite not having committed any wrongdoing themselves. They can’t turn around and suddenly claim that doesn’t matter just because they have a chance to get more individuals this time around.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

1 – Not the MPAA doing it.
2 – Six Strikes holds account holders responsible for actions taken without their knowledge, why can’t everyone?
3 – This is sloppy filing at its finest, it is a cash grab by someone with no interest in actually trying a case, IMHO.

Sadly for these trolls all 3 cases were assigned to the same Judge, who is likely to take a dim view of IPs being included in all 3 filings, and lets not mention repeated numbers in the same filings.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hmmm… with point #1 you’re right. Wikipedia had listed the film as being distributed by Sony (obviously an MPAA member), but the suits are being filed by “Zambezia Film Ltd.”. No idea who they are on a rough search, but I suspect from the name it’s another production (shell) company for the film, so that could be an MPAA member or the original South African production company.

Chalk that down to the vagaries of “Hollywood accounting” and the confusing level of information I’m seeing surrounding this title.

PaulT (profile) says:

From IMDB:

Zambezia (2012)

Release dates:

South Africa 3 July 2012

USA 28 March 2013

It looks like the film bypassed UK cinemas completely and is currently on DVD there. Amazon doesn’t currently list a home release date for the US market, although there are some typically overpriced imports (around $30) that may be regionally restricted.

Translation: while the piracy isn’t necessarily justified by this, we have yet another instance where format and regional windowing is encouraging piracy, and rather than address those problems the studio are suing anyone who dares bypass their dated marketing and distribution strategies.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...