Copyright Troll Malibu Media Tells Court That Its Critics (And Opposing Lawyer) Are Part Of A Psychopathic Hate Group

from the good-luck-with-that dept

You may recall, back when things were getting particularly desperate for Prenda Law, that it suddenly filed a series of lawsuits against its largest critics, including the users of the two major copyright troll tracking websites: and That didn’t work out too well, but Prenda’s successor-in-spirit, Malibu Media, apparently did not learn the lesson. In a rather incredible filing in one of its cases in Illinois, one of Malibu Media’s main lawyers, Mary K. Schulz, absolutely flips out about FightCopyrightTrolls and its publisher SophisticatedJaneDoe, calling the site’s readers “an internet hate group” and accusing it of being engaged in “illegal extrajudicial tactics” in working with lawyers who are fighting Malibu Media cases across the country. The filing has to be read to be believed. The purpose of the filing is to try to bar opposing lawyers from talking to people associated with SJD’s site, because how dare opposing counsel actually be provided with relevant information to a case, concerning how Malibu Media operates (such as champerty or copyright misuse or other questionable tactics including a bogus “exhibit” that has nothing to do with the case in question.

It appears that Malibu Media’s lawyers have something of a persecution complex:

Plaintiff is the target of a fanatical Internet hate group. The hate group is comprised of BitTorrent users, anti-copyright extremists, former BitTorrent copyright defendants and a few attorneys. Opposing counsel is one of its few members. Indeed, as shown below, opposing counsel communicates regularly with the hate group’s leader. Members of the hate group physically threaten, defame and cyber-stalk Plaintiff as well everyone associated with Plaintiff. Their psychopathy is criminal and scary.

By administering and using the defamatory blog, “Sophisticated Jane Doe” (“SJD”) leads the hate group. SJD is a former defendant is a suit brought by another copyright owner… She is a self-admitted BitTorrent copyright infringer. SJD’s dedicates her life to stopping peer-to-peer infringement suits.

Most of the rest of the filing is taking some of SJD’s admittedly mocking tweets and trying to twist them into some sort of conspiracy against Malibu Media and all of its lawyers. Ridiculously, the filing asserts that “The Internet hate group has conspired to and is implementing an unethical and illegal campaign to intimidate Plaintiff by threatening it with criminal sanctions.” As lawyers, they must know that only the government can actually get criminal sanctions. No private individual can legitimately threaten anyone with criminal sanctions. Opining that certain actions may open you up to criminal sanctions is very, very different than actually threatening someone with criminal sanctions when you have no direct power to do so.

Schulz also attacks the lawyers fighting against Malibu Media for not asking SJD to stop, as if they have any control over the situation, and as if they have any obligation to ask someone to stop investigating and mocking Malibu Media and its lawyers. Much of the complaint focuses on how the lawyer opposing Malibu Media in this case is “a key member of the internet hate group.”

Opposing counsel regularly Tweets with the other members of the hate group. Further, his Tweets are often part of a series of Tweets intended to harass Plaintiff and its counsel. Opposing counsel also Tweets about on-going litigation including this case and disparages Plaintiff… He even called Plaintiff a liar.

Opposing counsel is SJD’s and the other hate group members’ darling. They give him Kudos as he works toward trying to criminalize peer-to-peer copyright infringement suits.

I’ve seen no indication that anyone is trying to “criminalize” copyright infringement suits. They’re pointing out other behavior that may violate various criminal statutes. There’s a pretty big difference there. Malibu Media is also upset that the lawyer in question, Jonathan Phillips, actually releases some of the evidence turned up during discovery on his website. Because, apparently, Malibu Media thinks the legal process should be held entirely in secret. While it points out, accurately, that there is not a “first amendment right to see discovery materials,” that doesn’t mean they must be kept under seal.

Basically, the entire filing is an effort to (1) slam Malibu Media’s critics, accusing them of defamation and illegal tactics, without ever actually filing a lawsuit against them and (2) more importantly, an effort to make sure that a bunch of potentially damning and embarrassing information about Malibu Media is kept secret. Either way, calling a bunch of your online critics psychopaths and a hate group isn’t generally a strategy that works long term.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: malibu media

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 Troll Malibu Media Tells Court That Its Critics (And Opposing Lawyer) Are Part Of A Psychopathic Hate Group”

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

Almost none of the accusations are based on facts (you know the proper term for it, do you?). I’ll only provide a single example. Judge yourselves. At this moment I don?t have any intention to go over all the twists and sleazes. As Mark Twain said,

?Don?t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.?

So, here is an example.

Quiet Lurcker says:


By administering and using the defamatory [emphasis mine] blog, ?Sophisticated Jane Doe? (?SJD?) leads the hate group.

Not a lawyer here. I always thought that publishing conclusions and concurrently providing the evidence to support those conclusions was or at least could be an absolute bar to a defamation lawsuit.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Well I definitely take umbrage with being classified as a psychopath in legal documents and as someone who could be doing criminal acts according to the same civil US court filing by Ms Schulz.

In fact maybe I should consider defamation action and dragging her through the international legal mud. The US immunity structures for attorneys do not hold up in civil filings that can be reasonably shown to be vexatious, malicious and knowingly false towards persons who are NOT parties in any way to the case before the courts.

Personally I think Ms Schulz needs to get off her egotistical high horse of blaming the world for her inadequacies and failures, and instead deal with the case in an ethical and civil way as she has to as an officer of the courts.

Though maybe something like what I just suggested would be a good start to make her have that sharp jolt to her psyche that’s most definitely needed. And hey maybe the declaratory judgement I’m thinking of wouldn’t have comity in the USA but it would at least mean she wont be flying anywhere outside of the USA for a long long long time.

Rich Kulawiec (profile) says:

Legal memorandum

To: Mary K. Shultz
From: Psychopathic Hate Groups
Subject: Your filing Gov Uscourts Ilnd 287310 94 1

We, joined with our brothers and sisters in the Amalgamated Union of Dictators and Tyrants, the Organization for Costumed Super Villains, the Fascist Communist Socialist Anarchists Front for the Liberation of Erewhon, and the really tall guy in 301B (don’t ask) must earnestly protest against your characterization of FightCopyrightTrolls. They are not a psychopathic hate group, as they have not yet passed certification for that title. We would of course be happy to entertain their request for membership, and if they passed the qualifying exam AND the applied field exercise, we would grant them membership status; but as yet they have not even applied.

We must therefore ask you not to accord them a title which they have not yet earned, as this devalues the lifelong achievements of others who have been vetted by our rigorous processes and who are thus entitled to display our emblem (a single lone figure wielding a long pointy stick, standing a pile of composed of equal parts slain opponents and freshly-crushed minions).

Generalissimo Francisco Franco
Ming the Merciless
Darth “Bubbles” Vader
The guy from 301B

Raul says:

Malibu Media’s motion papers states that:

“Plaintiff?s principal appeared on the Howard Stern Show to
promote Malibu Media. Id. at ? 14. Afterwards, a discussion broke out on the Howard Stern fan
message boards, comprised mostly of fans complementing the X-Art brand.”

Really? Read the comments and judge for yourself.

BSD32x (profile) says:

This story reminded me of why I read Tech Dirt.

So I’m reading this story here, and another news site that shall not be named. Let me just say the differences in the quality of discussion on the comments here, as opposed to there, reminded me of why I prefer Tech Dirt’s reporting and community. Not to mention it’s nice to actually have some background information that puts the story in context, rather than playing on the sensational elements. I was ready to fire off a criticism of the discussion and article on that other site, but instead I thought I would say this: Thanks, Mike, and kudos to the TD community for keeping it reasonably above board.

Anyway, to the point, you have to wonder if the alleged connections between Malibu and Guardaley that have gradually been exposed, to the best of my knowledge, by the Elf Man case are putting the heat on. Let’s not forget Prenda played it cool for a long time just offhandedly denouncing the “heresay” and “speculation”, until TPB helped provide evidence of the honeypot. Then their defamation suit directed at unmasking bloggers suddenly came forward, along with the Judge Wright smackdown. The tone of this Malibu v. Bloggers thing has ratcheted up drastically, almost to Prenda levels, you have to wonder if where there’s smoke…

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

IMHO I see this as more the work of Lipscomb than of Schultz. I think Collette and Brigham are concerned that they could have been reported to count officials for filming without a permit. The they county obviously wouldnt like it, and neither would Collette and Brigham if the county launched an investigation of said activity in their home in an area that is not zoned for it.

The fact that they made mention of this in the filing for a protective order may indicate that the county was/is investigating it and that may have rubbed Collette and Brigham the wrong way. You will have to excuse me if I am unsympathetic to them, play by the county?s film development permit rules and apply for your permit and they have no need to worry, it?s as simple as that.

As for using their home to shoot porn scene?s at, well that is true and can be seen in X-Art videos. So they have already done this, and if they did so without the proper permits and in violation of county zoning rules, well they only have themselves to blame. If your going to post pictures to your twitter account stating that your ?getting ready to shoot? and the view is from your house, then your a victim of your own making. Dont blame anyone else for rules you choose not to abide by.

I find asking for a protective order to be more a bid of desperation in my opinion. This would seem more of an attempt to keep any more information about X-Art / Malibu / Lipscomb / The Fields / Local Trolls / IPP/Guardaley/Excipio that has been discovered thru other court filings, thru other cases in other countries and in X-Art / Malibu filings and in other cases where Guardaley has been active and those associated with it?s entities.

I would suffice to say that Pietz own investigation when checking into IPP/Guaradaley/Excipio has put forth some interesting results that the plaintiff would like to keep out of the eye of those that are following these copyright troll litigation cases not only with Malibu, but Voltage Pictures and others as well.

I would hazard to guess that Pietz? and Ranallo?s work in the Prenda case and ability to follow a a trail where many have thought there was nothing to see has the Troll?s a tad worried. In my view of this and other Malibu cases I think they ought to be concerned. If Malibu cases and IPP software is so infallable why are they so worried about bring the german whiz?s to testify, why do they routinely fight when IPP methods are questioned..

In Schultz filing she stated that Malibu had a ?oral and written contract? with IPP Uh, say what? Weren?t they saying not long ago that the agreement with IPP was oral only? Did it suddenly become written one when it was leaked by one of their own troll lawyers in a filing that stated it was an oral only agreement? and now all of a sudden it is written. I am sure a Judge wont find that odd at all.

While I doubt that any Plaintiff in a copyright infringement case wants the public to know of it?s method and tactics, I believe Lipscomb / Malibu ought to get with realization that copyright litigation cases started to be followed long ago by both defendant attorney, the public , the internet community and countless others.

You can go all the way back to Napster and the Tennebaum case to see that the media and general pulic as well as other groups and society have been following these types of cases and reporting on them long before Malibu / Lipscomb have been around, so get over yourself Keith.

The fact that FCT & DTD put the information about what is going on in these cases to the public is informational. No one is advocating anyone harm physically and if someone has please dont paint us all with that brush, some people act out but not all.

While I dont know Collette and Brigham, I wouldnt really want to frankly, as their chosen profession is not something I would find suitable to myself. The Field?s have chosen their profession and are proud of it, so be it. I dont agree with their choice but they are with it and that?s all and well.

While I understand their concern for piracy of their material, I do not agree with the methods they have taken to? stop? piracy of their works, in my opinion this isn?t about eradication, education or education about stopping piracy and how it effects them, this more about revenue generation.e

I do find the irony in this filing about Lipscomb/ IPP and the Fields complaint about their violation of privacy, when they choose to violate the privacy of some poor soul who?s internet IP address might come up in IPP honeypot. in regards to copyright infringement and who is then sent a letter stating they should settle for some untold amount to to avoid the risk of being named in federal court lawsuit for downloading a porn movie without any clear evidence of actual infringement in my opinion.

So to whine about this in a filing when you purposely put yourself into the spotlight and how your privacy is at risk is laughable, sorry folks you put yourself into the limelight, dont be all shy when you find the glare of it gets to be too much

BSD32x (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You make a number of good points, and I have to admit I’m not as up on the story as you. I have been following the Elf Man story closely though, so I think it’s worth looking at it again in light of your statement that “…FCT & DTD put the information about what is going on in these cases out to the public…”. At the end of the day, a lot of news sites are already looking into the forensics related to those suits, independent of the FCT and DTD blogs. Let’s say Malibu silence them now; the cat’s already out of the bag. They can’t do anything about the Elf Man cases going forward, and the more we learn about Guardaley’s involvement in those, the less credence they have and the more information made available to defense attorneys anyway. Maybe I’m missing something here, I just don’t get what they hope to accomplish with this, it strikes me as sheer vindictiveness. But then, what do I know?

Anonymous Coward says:

Ah, Colette. You wish, you so desperately wish that you weren’t like Prenda. Well, too damn bad. It looks like you’ve gone and got yourself your very own Nazaire attack dog, with the same amount of frothing vitriol and trigger-happy intelligence. “Principle”? Really?

The funny part is that even Prenda tried to do a little homework. People call them assclowns, they submit exhibits of discussion screenshots. You guys don’t even do that and instead decide to flat out lie about other people calling you out on your questionable practices. What, calling a judge “asshole” wasn’t enough; you have to lie to the court and hope they don’t notice?

Mock your religion? Gee, considering that you work in a morally dubious field and do, in fact, engage in morally dubious practices like ignoring laws about where you can film your shit – I think people are entitled. No, really, what did you think being a “Christian” was supposed to do for you here? Do you think other Christians are going to rally around your cause, Lipscomb? People are assholes and want you dead, big bloody surprise there. Your documents are bare for all to see how you routinely intimidate people who clearly can’t pay up or weren’t responsible. At some point you were going to get a hit on someone unhinged and desperate enough to make idle threats. What, did you think that your defendants were all going to turn the other cheek and let you slap that, too?

“Plaintiff and its counsel?s ability to attract and retain qualified people will be negatively impacted.” Oh, wow, you’re saying this as if you’ve already retained qualified people. All you’ve done is find a big-ass saber and handed it to a jerk to rattle it at people, who then found a smaller jerk that can’t even muster the discipline or competence to keep herself in check.

“If disclosed, IPP may raise the amount it charges Plaintiff for its data collection services. Plaintiff believes it is getting a good deal from
IPP and wishes to maintain it.” No, anything but that! We might have to purchase the $15 million mansion next to film our porn! The travesty! No, your Honor, this is totally not suspicious!

“the evidence reported to Plaintiff by IPP is independently verifiable” Which means a grand total sum of jack and shit. Seriously, your fanboy Maurice Ross trots that magical “70%” number like it means anything. You haven’t even come close to bringing that many to trial. Why are you so chicken? Court verification not independent enough for you? Why are you so against what IPP has to offer? Could it be because they’ve already been found to be as questionable and morally dubious as you in their hometown?

“This case is not like the widely publicized Prenda case where John Steele made up a client and then bought and sued on copyrights. Plaintiff is a real multimillion dollar business.” Right, I’m sorry, being an actual business instead of a sham entitles you to be a complete asshole. No, wait, it doesn’t.

Flail all you want, Colette. Piracy isn’t killing your business, it’s game-winning moves like these made by your hired guns, screaming like the chucklefuck that trolls these threads about “copyright enforcement”.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

“and disparages Plaintiff… He even called Plaintiff a liar.”

And you called me a psychopath. Hello kettle…

I’d like to see your degree qualifying you to make this diagnosis, or I’d like an apology on the record.
Perhaps if the Judge is feeling generous, the courts inherent powers will be used to fine you for this breach of ethics.
A small amount to the EFF in my name would work.

– your clients illegally produce porn in violation of the law
– one of your clients admits to having infringed copyrights
– one of your clients has perjured herself
– you called a judge an asshole

I’ve called myself a highly functioning sociopath, perhaps you should do more research.

You are not smarter than Pretenda, you will not succeed where they failed, you can flail as much as you want.
Lying to the court is bad, suborning perjury is bad, making me very angry is bad… because it makes me work harder to shatter your illusion and drag the truth into the light.

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

The Poor Porn Production Companies and their owners like Colette and Brigham who own X-Art and Malibu Media LLC and are sharing with us their story of struggle against the criminals who upload their videos to torrent sites depriving a company that struggles to make a profit due to Piracy.

It must be tough on Lipsomb and Schultz to hear the tales of woe from Collette and Brigham and how they struggle to get by while facing the financial pressures of piracy. I can only imagine how thoroughly embarrassed Colette and Brigham must be to have to live in a $16 million dollar mansion while their neighbors cruelly mock them for being indigent.

I can only envision poor Collette sitting on her genuine chin chilla thow rug in the great room, tears streaming down her face while she clutches the new budget in her hand that their CPA gave them touting the cuts they will need to make due to the piracy of their videos. Long gone will be the days of when they have a personal chef and butler and will have to struggle with maid service only every other day.

No more $450 dollar bottles of wine, it will now have to be $400 bottles of wine, poor Collette trying to be brave while feeling nauseated from taste of that revolting $ 400 dollar swill Brigham clutching her closely and patting her on the back and quietly telling her that they need to be strong and this is what the Pirates and Internet Hate Groups want.

I usually never throw around the word Heroes loosely, but that what these purveyors of the only the finest smut that $9.99 a month can buy are. Heroes. I am sure right now that their fellow smut peddlers are still counting all the change they collect as they passed the hat at the AVN convention after a stirring speech about how the Field?s valiant struggle has left them desperately clinging to exist as they struggle financially.

sophisticatedjanedoe (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Kind of. The liars fought tooth and nail to keep their lies under seal. Judge was not happy (to put it mildly). She denied their motion to seal once, they submitted the same shitty arguments. So she denied the second one for good, and you can see her opinion on the Malibu gang seeping between the lines.

Malibu asserts that Section E of its motion for a protective order and the corresponding portion of the table of contents in the motion are protected by the attorney-client privilege because they mention ?future legal actions that [Malibu] intends to bring.? […] That argument borders on frivolous.

The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to protect confidential communications with one?s own attorney.

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...