Malibu Media LLC – California, Illinois, New York & Virginia Updates

Malibu Media LLC‘s lawsuit activity appears to be on the upswing.

In December, Malibu Media LLC filed 168 lawsuits against John Doe defendants in California, Illinois, New York, and Virginia. Virginia had been quiet since September.

California’s 59 cases were filed in the following districts and dates:  Northern- 16 (filed Dec. 27), Southern- 20 (filed Dec. 28), Eastern- 23 (filed Dec. 30).

Illinois’ 40 cases were filed in the Northern District of Illinois (filed Dec. 28, 29 and 30)

Virginia’s 22 cases were filed in the Eastern District (filed Dec. 3 and 31)

New York’s 47 cases were filed in the following districts and dates: Northern- 23 (filed Dec. 31) Southern- 24 (filed Dec. 30)

Antonelli Law represent clients sued by Malibu Media LLC nationwide and have local counsel to appear in court at a moment’s notice as far west as California and as far East as New York.  Few, if any, other law firms have both the deep experience representing BitTorrent copyright infringement defendants since 2011 and established, qualified local counsel in California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington DC, Virginia, and Florida. Antonelli Law has individually represented over 500 people targeted by Malibu Media LLC.

If you receive a letter from your ISP such as Comcast notifying you the ISP has received a subpoena from the court to disclose your identity to Malibu Media LLC for uploading and downloading their copyrighted works, call us for a free consultation about your options including a motion to quash the subpoena and settling anonymously.

A recent law article on the rise of “John Doe” lawsuits alleging BitTorrent copyright infringement can be found here for more information. Additionally, several blogs can be helpful for those dealing with this kind of lawsuit for the first time: fightcopyrighttrolls.com and dietrolldie.com. Both bloggers offer information and advice resulting from their being wrongfully accused of BitTorrent copyright infringement. Neither of those bloggers are lawyers and do not offer legal advice, but can be extremely good resources if you are feeling panicked.

Need to Speak with A Lawyer?

Call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310 and speak with one of our attorneys experienced with BitTorrent copyright litigation, or fill out the contact form below to request a convenient time to have a detailed free initial consultation about each of your options. We’re very experienced – we’ve represented more than 1200 people targeted by copyright trolls and satellite trolls nationwide. More details on our experience can be viewed on our website.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

Cases Filed:

Illinois – Northern District

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11651

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11654

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11658

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11664

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11665

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11667

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11669

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11670

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11677

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11678

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11679

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11728

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11729

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11738

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11748

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11750

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11762

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11764

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11765

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11766

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11770

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11771

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11772

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11776

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11778

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11779

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11797

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11800

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11801

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11802

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11803

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11804

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11805

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11806

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11807

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11808

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11809

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11812

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11813

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-11814

 

California

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06060

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06061

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06062

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06063

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06064

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06065

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06066

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06067

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06068

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06069

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06070

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06071

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06072

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06073

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06074

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-06075

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02914

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02915

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02916

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02917

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02918

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02919

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02921

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02920

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02923

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02922

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02925

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02927

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02926

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02928

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02929

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02930

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02931

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02932

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02933

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 3:15-cv-02934

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02701

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02703

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02704

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02705

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02706

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02707

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02708

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02709

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02711

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01943

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01944

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02713

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02710

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01945

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02714

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01946

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01947

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02716

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 2:15-cv-02715

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01950

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01952

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe 1:15-cv-01953

Malibu Media LLC v. Doe1:15-cv-01954

 Virginia

1:15-cv-01611-AJT-MSN

1:15-cv-01612-TSE-IDD

1:15-cv-01613-GBL-TCB

1:15-cv-01614-CMH-IDD

1:15-cv-01615-LMB-MSN

1:15-cv-01616-CMH-TCB

1:15-cv-01617-CMH-JFA

1:15-cv-01618-GBL-JFA

1:15-cv-01619-AJT-TCB

1:15-cv-01620-AJT-MSN

1:15-cv-01734-CMH-JFA

1:15-cv-01729-GBL-JFA

1:15-cv-01731-TSE-IDD

1:15-cv-01728-LMB-TCB

1:15-cv-01724-AJT-TCB

1:15-cv-01733-AJT-MSN

1:15-cv-01732-LO-TCB

1:15-cv-01726-LMB-JFA

1:15-cv-01725-GBL-MSN

1:15-cv-01730-TSE-MSN

1:15-cv-01727-LO-IDD

1:15-cv-01735-LMB-TCB

 

 

Feds Considering Changes to Copyright Act Statutory Damages

U.S. Department of Commerce Proposes Changes to Statutory Damages Under the Copyright Act

Recently, the U.S. Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force issued a report proposing changes to the current statutory damages under the Copyright Act, White Paper on Remixes, First Sale and Statutory Damages

In recent years, there has been a surge in the number of copyright infringement cases filed against individuals for internet file sharing using BitTorrent programs. According to Matthew Sag, author of “Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study”, over 48% of the total copyright infringement cases filed in 2014 were BitTorrent file sharing lawsuits which targeted John Doe account holders.

The most prolific plaintiffs which targeted John Doe defendants in 2014 were Malibu Media LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC, Countryman Nevada LLC, TCYK LLC and Voltage Pictures. Malibu Media LLC filed the largest share of John Doe copyright infringement cases, accounting for over 41% of the total copyright infringement cases filed in 2014.

Currently, individuals found liable for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act face statutory damages ranging from a minimum of $750 up to a maximum of $150,000 for willful infringement. There is no distinction between damages awarded against individuals or corporations under the Act. There is also no distinction between copyright infringement committed for personal use or for profit. This means a college student who illegally downloads a movie on his computer could potentially face the same statutory maximum which could be applied to a corporation that commits copyright infringement for profit.

Critics[1], including some federal judges, of these statutory damages point out that copyright holders stand to receive a windfall if successful in court since damages could be much higher than the market value of the copyrighted works. Further, the threat of statutory damages prevents many families and individuals from litigating these cases out of the fear that a judge could potentially award $150,000 in damages to the plaintiff.

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli argued for a change in statutory damages in his article, Torrent Wars,” where he argued that the statutory damages should be lowered to a maximum of $5000 for individual infringers. Unfortunately to date, Congress has not enacted any legislation lowering statutory damages under the Copyright Act.

Finally, the federal government has taken notice. Recently, the U.S. Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force recommended amendments to the Copyright Act which would potentially reduce statutory damages awarded against individual infringers. Specifically, the Task Force recommended courts consider nine factors when awarding statutory damages:

“(1) The plaintiff’s revenues lost and the difficulty of proving damages.

(2) The defendants’ expenses saved, profits reaped, and other benefits from the infringement.

(3) The need to deter future infringements.

(4) The defendant’s financial situation.

(5) The value or nature of the work infringed.

(6) The circumstances, duration, and scope of the infringement, including whether it was commercial in nature.

(7) In cases involving infringement of multiple works, whether the total sum of damages, taking into account the number of works infringed and number of awards made, is commensurate with the overall harm caused by the infringement.

(8) The defendant’s state of mind, including whether the defendant was a willful or innocent infringer.

(9) In the case of willful infringement, whether it is appropriate to punish the defendant and if so, the amount of damages that would result in an appropriate punishment. “

Further, the Task Force acknowledged that in cases involving multiple works, even the minimum statutory award of $750 per work could result in excessively large verdicts. To combat this issue, the Take Force recommended that the Copyright Act be amended to permit courts to deviate from the requirement to award the statutory minimum in cases involving a large number of works. This proposal would have the most dramatic effect on cases filed by Malibu Media LLC, a company which frequently files cases alleging that an individual downloaded more than 100 of their copyrighted works.

These proposed changes could provide needed relief for the thousands of families and individuals dealing with John Doe copyright infringement cases. We suggest contacting your U.S. Senators and Representatives about the U.S. Department of Commerce’s proposal to bring this important issue to their attention.

[1] Two outstanding resources for those targeted in BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuits are www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com and www.dietrolldie.com both authored by people wrongfully accused by copyright plaintiffs.

Need to Speak with A Lawyer?

Call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310 and speak with one of our attorneys experienced with BitTorrent copyright litigation, or fill out the contact form below to request a convenient time to have a detailed free initial consultation about each of your options. We’re very experienced – we’ve represented more than 1200 people targeted by copyright trolls and satellite trolls nationwide

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

PTG Nevada LLC Starts Trolling in Arizona

PTG Nevada LLC Starts Trolling in Arizona

 PTG Nevada LLC is a company that has been filing copyright infringement cases based on Bittorrent downloading for more than 5 months. They have been active in Illinois, Michigan and Oregon. As of this week, they are also filing in Arizona.

The fact this case has been filed in Arizona is interesting beyond my personal love of Tucson (click for the drone video by Jeffrey Antonelli). It seems to have been untouched since the infamous Prenda law firm filed copyright trolling cases there as this TechDirt article shows.

In 5 months time, this company filed 15 cases with a total of 286. Some of these were filed as single Doe lawsuits and some involved multiple John Doe defendants. The newest case filed in Arizona added 16 more Does, bringing the total to 302.

PTG Nevada is represented by Attorney Gregory Blain Collins in Arizona. Attorney Collins is with the firm Kercsmar & Feltus in Scottsdale.

For more information about lawsuits filed by PTG Nevada LLC, call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310 and speak with one of our attorneys experienced with BitTorrent copyright litigation, or fill out the contact form below to request a convenient time to have a detailed free initial consultation about each of your options. We’re very experienced – we’ve represented more than 1200 people targeted by copyright trolls and satellite trolls nationwide.

Case filed:

ARIZONA

PTG Nevada LLC v. Does 1-16 2:16-cv-00304

 

 

 

 

 

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

Michigan Targeted By A New Copyright Troll: Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC

Michigan Targeted By A New Copyright Troll: Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC

Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC has file a federal copyright infringement lawsuit involving the film titled “Fathers and Daughters.” The film was directed by Gabriele Muccino and features Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried and Aaron Paul. The film is about a father that suffered a mental breakdown and his grown daughter’s attempt to navigate her own life. The film is scheduled to be released in theaters in April 2016.

To date, Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC has only filed a lawsuit in Michigan. One multiple Doe case was filed on Feb. 2, 2016, targeting 15 total Does. The company is represented by Attorney Barry Kane. This attorney has previously represented another copyright holder, PTG Nevada.

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli is admitted to all federal courts in Michigan.  Antonelli Law can help you nationwide if you have received an ISP letter informing you a subpoena for your identity was received, or if you are served with a summons or waiver of service. Click here on information about motions to quash to ISP subpoena  and click here on information about settling anonymously.

For immediate advice and a free initial consultation call attorney Jeffrey Antonelli at 312-201-8310 or fill out our simple contact page or email us with a request to call you back at a time that is convenient for you. We understand the shock you may be feeling from receiving a notice of this action, and have the experience to help you deal with this in the best way possible for you. Attorney referrals accepted.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

More About Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC

Like other BitTorrent peer-to-peer file-sharing cases, Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC accuses defendants of copyright infringement by using software and the internet to obtain the film “Fathers and Daughters” without paying the appropriate license fee.

Eastern District of Michigan

Fathers and Daughters Nevada LLC v. Does 1-15 2:16-cv-10372

 

 

 

 

Who You Hire To Defend Against Malibu Media LLC Matters – Beware the Rookie

Malibu Media LLC is a porn company filing the most federal copyright lawsuits in history. Click here for a great background article by the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin including an interview with Jeffrey Antonelli. Here is an excerpt:

“There were 439 copyright lawsuits filed in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois last year, according to research firm LexMachina. At least 373 of those cases were filed by law firms who accuse unknown defendants—through their IP addresses—of stealing copyrighted movies over the Internet”

Lawyers including our firm Antonelli Law who for years have been defending against Malibu Media LLC and other copyright infringement claims are beginning to notice a new phenomenon: The rise of the inexperienced, and perhaps incompetent, lawyers putting out ads to “settle” copyright infringement claims without the traditional confidence building indicia such as showing their law office address, listing their attorney qualifications, or having a law firm  name that actually contains an attorney’s name.

What’s wrong with that?

A lawyer who has never tried a case, who has never been mentored by an experienced, seasoned attorney, and who may not be respected by the opposing lawyer who filed the lawsuit against you may not be able to properly represent you.  The bottom line is you may be forced to accept a settlement because the inexperienced or even incompetent lawyer does not know what to do next if you do not accept Malibu Media LLC’s settlement offer. If a lawyer does not have experience taking depositions, issuing and analyzing discovery, arguing motions and taking cases through trial and appeal, they are not only weak but may be a malpractice case waiting to happen.

Why Is This Happening?

There have always been other attorneys defending these kinds of cases competently. A little competition from equally good lawyers with deep litigation experience is not only fair but it helps everyone. Believe it or not, good defense attorneys do talk to each other,  sometimes sharing observations about those companies filing federal copyright infringement lawsuits.

But new lawyers have had it so bad  that many are taking cases they are not qualified for, or working for disreputable firms. And then there are some lawyers who, well, may be simply greedy and will try to get any case they can regardless of their ability to represent their client.

The problem is due in large part to what the New York Times, The Atlantic and law professor Paul Campos have called “The Law School Scam”. Younger lawyers especially, and many older lawyers too, are “facing difficult realities, ranging from the sheer number of [law school] graduates who do not obtain desirable jobs to the financial hardship many find themselves in post-graduation.

The basic reason is that many law schools that delivered fine professional careers for many decades became overbuilt and bloated, producing far too many lawyers that the economy could not properly employ. Once the Great Recession hit, even many Ivy League law school graduates could not find good, or sometimes a legal job. Many law schools’ graduates had about a 50% chance of getting any legal job at all. A number of years later, it is not much better.

This means that many lawyers, especially much younger ones, have never been able to land a real law firm job where lawyers traditionally learned their craft, and where they have mentors, legal training, and get real world experience like depositions, drafting legal motions and briefs, and trials and appeals. Many graduating  young lawyers had no choice but to hang out their own shingle or band together and become “partners” in their own law firm to share costs and cases. Usually it takes 7 or more years to be a real law firm partner. Lawyers should not become partners while they are still rookies.

This has led to a terrible public problem: inexperienced lawyers hustling for cases they have no business getting involved with because they simply do not have real lawyer experience to know what they are doing. Older lawyers complain (see especially the comments)  this is causing their malpractice insurance premiums to rise even though they are claim-free, due to many malpractice claims being made against these young lawyers. Its a bit like going to see a medical doctor who never went through an internship and residency program. Would you trust him or her under the knife?

Law schools are to blame, and so is the federal government for not putting any accountability in place for the law schools to keep tuition and student loan debt in reasonable check, and to not admit more students than there are proper lawyer jobs for. This New York Times opinion discusses both sources of the problem in The Law School Debt Crisis.

How to Protect Yourself – One Easy Way

One way to see if a lawyer is experienced enough to handle a Malibu Media LLC defense case in the Northern District of Illinois on their own, without supervision under local court rules, is to enter their name in the federal court’s trial bar search here. If the lawyer is admitted to the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois, they have real trial experience.

In addition, you could ask the prospective lawyer whether they have any experience taking and defending depositions, taking and defending discovery, writing and arguing motions and legal briefs, and taking cases through trial and appeal.  Other questions may include whether they (or any lawyer in their firm) have litigated motions to bar, motions to strike, or ever picked a jury?

Why Write About This Problem?

As we said we believe a little competition from other good lawyers is fair, but the problem of inexperienced and incompetent legal representation needs to be exposed. We’re not the first law firm to do this: Texas attorney Robert Cashman did that. But doing so helps the public as well as our own firm.

Have a Malibu Media LLC Subpoena?

If you would like to speak with attorneys who are qualified, experienced, and zealously advocate for your best interest, call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310 or use the form below for a free consultation. Jeffrey Antonelli is admitted to the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

About Antonelli Law

Antonelli Law has been defending clients accused of BitTorrent copyright infringement since 2011, and Jeffrey Antonelli has been litigating cases since the beginning of his career more than 15 years ago. When Malibu Media LLC began filing federal copyright lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois and in federal courts around the country, we were already very much prepared. This blog has covered the history of these cases and how to handle ISP letters notifying subscribers of their legal options, including motions to quash a subpoena, since 2012.

News and Opinions from Antonelli Law