When copyright trolls scour BitTorrent swarms looking for IP addresses, they have absolutely no idea who sits behind them.

ISPs can eventually be forced to hand over the subscribers’ personal details but even then there’s no solid proof of who carried out the infringement, if there was one. Cases tend to get decided on the balance of probabilities, meaning that an individual in a single-occupancy household finds themselves in a much more tenuous position and under pressure to settle.

But what happens when there are multiple occupants or even multiple households with many, many potential infringers? In Denmark, it appears, the response from copyright trolls remains the same: We don’t care who infringed: Pay us.

Law Firms’ Reputations Destroyed

Aggressive copyright-trolling has developed into a worldwide scandal over the past 15 years, with numerous lawyers finding themselves suspended and even imprisoned for their behavior. But even now, law firms wander into the fire nonetheless, with Denmark’s Njord Law just the latest example.

After accusing thousands of Danes of illegally sharing movies using BitTorrent, Scandinavian law firm Njord Law approached many for cash settlements despite their clients not holding the copyrights to the content in question. As a result, a partner in the firm and the firm itself have been charged with serious fraud offenses dating back to April 2017.

As that case develops in the background, those targeted with questionable settlement demands are stepping forward with stories that only reinforce what observers have known for some time: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Copyright Trolls Target Cooperative Housing Association

The whole idea of copyright enforcement is to find the actual infringer and force them to compensate the rightsholder for their actions. For copyright trolls, however, finding the actual infringer doesn’t seem as important as finding someone who will simply take responsibility and pay, even if they aren’t guilty of anything.

This notion is underlined by a case reported by Berlingske ( paywall ), involving 37-year-old Christie Bak, who in 2019 was chairman of the board of a cooperative housing association in Copenhagen.

The association received correspondence from Njord Law, who alleged that the association’s Internet connection had been used to download and share a porn film. To settle this matter the law firm wanted a payment of DKK 7,500 (around US$1,200) with the suggestion that things could get much more expensive if the matter went to court.

The association contacted the law firm, informing them that they had no idea about any porn downloads so were considering employing a lawyer to deal with the matter. This, of course, would cost the association money, something copyright trolls are only too aware of.

Balancing The Books

At this point in a copyright troll matter, both parties are led into their own set of calculations. Most law firms don’t want to take cases to court since early settlements are far more lucrative and less hassle. On the other hand, they are well aware that if their target lawyers up, they might not get anything. So, at this point, many copyright trolls attempt to make it more attractive to settle and less attractive to mount a defense. This case was no different.

After the housing association indicated it could fight back, Njord Law made a counteroffer of DKK 4,000 (around US$640) to make the matter go away, an amount getting dangerously close to the cost of hiring a lawyer to send a couple of “back off” letters.

Counteroffer Made The Association Suspicious

Christie Bak informs Berlingske that the rapid reduction of the amount being demanded raised her suspicions. If Njord Law were originally prepared to go to court with the evidence they had, why were they now offering to settle for much less?

“Was it because they had a thin case? Did they think it would be nice if they could just get some money out of us? It seemed strange,” she says.

Discussing the matter with members of the cooperative’s board, Bak says it was made clear that if someone had been responsible for the sharing of the movie, they could just come forward and the association would’ve simply paid the settlement “in good conscience”. In the event, no one in the entire association knew anything about the alleged infringement.

Housing Project Has Shared Internet, No Infringer Identified

Unable to identify who (if anyone) had carried out the alleged infringement, Njord Law was informed that it could’ve been anyone, including various holidaymakers who also had access to the association’s Internet connection. This prompted the initial reduction to DKK 4,000 but that amount was rejected by the association.

In this case, knowledge was power. The association wrote back to Njord and informed the law firm that they were aware that Njord’s file-sharing cases were floundering in the courts, with three cases in particular already having been rejected. They also informed Njord that the evidence of its copyright troll partners was also being questioned in the media.

“The only thing we saw was some paper with some [IP address] numbers on it. There was no letter or explanation. It also did not appear where they got the numbers from. How could we be sure that it was not something they had manipulated? There was no guarantee of authenticity on it. It was just a lot of print,” Bak informs Berlingske.

Njord Law Reduces Settlement Amount Yet Again

Following this response, Njord – having previously stated the strength of its case – quickly dropped its demands to DKK 2,500 (US$400) – an amount that would be gobbled up by a lawyer in a matter of minutes, should the association choose to defend itself in a lawsuit.

In the event, the board did the calculations and took the decision to pay Njord off, a decision that Bak says she now regrets.

Journalist Freja Marquardt contacted Njord Law with a request to comment on the matter, including previous correspondence with the law firm suggesting that lawsuits aren’t filed against entities offering Internet in “open access conditions”.

No Comment – Legal Ethics

Njord lawyer Lars Lokdam told Marquardt that due to the company fully complying with the rules of legal ethics, it was impossible for him to talk about the case since the settlement was private. On the related matters, including not filing lawsuits against those who enter into dialogue or have widely accessible Internet, he refused to answer any questions.

What appears clear, however, is that at least in some instances (and certainly in this case), companies like Njord Law and their copyright troll partners have little interest in targeting the actual infringer. What they want is someone – anyone – to pay up and when they do, it is mission accomplished.

The big question then is whether legal ethics stretch to having innocent parties pay for the alleged crimes of others, particularly when there may not have been a legal basis to demand a settlement or bring a case in the first place.

During the course of its live criminal investigation against Njord Law, these questions and more could be answered by the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime (SØIK), which currently believes the law firm defrauded Danes out of at least 7.5 million kroner (US$1.22 million).

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In 2019, Danish citizen Anni Pape posted a cry for help on Facebook.

Like thousands of other Danes, she had received a demand for cash settlement on the basis she had downloaded and shared pornographic content online using BitTorrent.

“HELP! Are there others who are being sued for having illegally downloaded and shared pornographic films and have to pay 7,500 (US$1,226) to the law firm Njord? And maybe 15,500 (US$2,535) in legal costs!” she wrote.

Pape explained that she had been summoned to appear at the court in Lyngby because the law firm claimed that her IP address had been observed sharing the movie “Big Tits Only”. Making matters worse, she said that her daughter, who lives somewhere else, had also received a similar demand, alongside claims that she had downloaded “Amazing Girls Orgasm” and must also pay the same amount.

“We do not download illegally – and not porn movies at all,” Pape wrote, horrified at the explicit nature of these movie titles.

NJORD Law and Cyprus-Based MIRCOM Strike Again

That these two companies are involved in yet another copyright troll lawsuit in Scandinavia is no surprise. Thousands of similar demands have been delivered through the mail to Internet bill payers right across the region but after a relatively trouble-free run, the authorities are now deeply involved.

As recently reported, NJORD Law and partner lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen are now facing charges of serious fraud related to their work with both MIRCOM and Copyright Management Services (CMS), two copyright-troll middle-man companies that have targeted Internet users around Europe in similar schemes.

The prosecution of Clausen and his company is being carried out by the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime (SØIK), which says that the entities fraudulently extracted 7.5 million kroner (US$1.22 million) from their targets. NJORD denies the claims but as the case against Pape shows, the campaign against Danish internet users is fundamentally flawed.

Case Thrown Out By The Court

As reported by Berlingske ( paywall ) , the court in Lyngby has now thrown out the case filed against Pape. In common with earlier rejected cases, the court found that yet again, NJORD’s client does not have the right to prosecute these cases on behalf of rightsholders.

In an EU opinion published last December, MIRCOM was described as a classic copyright-troll outfit, with a recommendation that entities like it should not gain access to Internet subscriber information.

The problem, according to the opinion, is that while MIRCOM claims to have obtained licenses to communicate certain copyright works on P2P networks, MIRCOM does not exploit those licenses in a way that a regular rightsholder usually does. Indeed, MIRCOM is not a copyright holder at all so this type of behavior falls under the definition of an abuse of rights, something prohibited under EU law.

Case Backfires, Pape’s Lawyer Contacts SØIK

The above points were also highlighted by Anni Pape’s lawyer, Henrik Hein, who has reported the decision to throw out the case against his client to SØIK. In comments to Berlingske, he also mentions another interesting finding. The piracy allegedly carried out by Pape took place on the very same day that “Big Tits Only” was published and in advance of being registered for copyright purposes in the United States.

Also of interest is that while other MIRCOM cases were withdrawn by NJORD, the case against Pape was not. According to Pape, this was done in an “act of revenge” for making the case public.

“I think it was a sheer punishment because I made the case play out in public. The punishment for that was they then got a sentence that was worse than anything they could have expected. Their entire business model is buried and declared illegal. I see it as a double victory,” she told the publication.

Finally, comments from lawyer Henrik Hein indicate that the authorities are on the right track by taking an interest in the business model underpinning these cases. He has dealt with around 90 of these cases and according to him, several of his clients were nursing home residents “who have never had computers and where the IP address was only used to connect the TV.”

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Over the past three years, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed thousands of cases in US federal courts.

These lawsuits target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

While many of these cases resulted in private settlements, Strike 3 has also experienced some setbacks in court. For example, not all judges are convinced that an IP-address is sufficient evidence for a viable case.

The Court as an ATM

Others are even more outspoken. A few years ago, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth accused Strike 3 of being a known “copyright troll” that was using his court “ as an ATM .” The company flooded the court with lawsuits “smacking of extortion”, he added.

Strike 3 Holdings sees things differently. And while a few judges are clearly upset with these targets, there are many who still play along. This allowed the company to collect millions of dollars in settlements over the years.

Even judges in the same District Court can handle these cases differently, which brings us to the topic at hand today.

The Southern District of Florida is one of the courts where Strike 3 is active. Over the last year, it filed roughly a dozen cases, and most judges signed off on a subpoena request. This is crucial, as it allows the company to ask ISPs for the personal information of subscribers.

Geolocation and IP-address Doubts

Not all judges are easy to convince though. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro is particularly critical. Simply put, she doesn’t believe that the geolocation tools, which link IP-addresses to her district, are 100% accurate.

“Plaintiff’s assertions as to Defendant’s residency therefore seem to be in large part based upon the assumption that the geographic data results of IP address geolocation are valid and accurate,” she writes in a recent order.

“This strikes the Court as possibly problematic after reviewing technical literature which suggests otherwise,” Judge Ungaro adds.

The Internet doesn’t have an inherent mechanism to link IP-addresses to specific locations, the order adds, linking to research and various articles on the topic.

An IP-address Isn’t Enough

If Strike 3 wants to continues its case, it will have to come up with more conclusive evidence to show that the IP-address is linked to the Florida district. Not just that, but Strike 3 also has to provide evidence that shows that this IP-address is linked to a specific person

“Additionally, this Court recognizes that IP addresses are assigned to nodes connected to the Internet, but are not necessarily representative of individual end-node/end-system devices, and especially are not representative of individual people,” Judge Ungaro notes.

“This Court therefore requires that Plaintiff show that due diligence, as well as due care, have been employed in ascertaining that the IP address associated with the alleged tortfeasor is or was assigned to a system or node that can be used to reasonably calculate the identity of the alleged infringing party.”

Rinse and Repeat

Regular readers may recall that the “IP-address is not a person” argument has been brought up in the past. In fact, Judge Ungaro highlighted this last year in a similar order, also directed at Strike 3 Holdings.

While this may seem like a major stumbling block for the adult content producer, the reality is a bit different. When Judge Ursula issued her motion last year, Strike 3 simply dropped the case and moved on to the next . It wouldn’t be a surprise if we see that happening here as well.

Pragmatically speaking, it’s easier for the company to drop the case and file a new one, hoping for a ‘friendlier’ judge. That paid off after Judge Ungaro’s order last year, and it will likely work again. Rinse and repeat.

Or other words, if the ATM is not working, just try the one next door.

—

The motion to show cause, issued by Judge Ursula Ungaro, is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In 2019, a U.S. District Court in Minnesota sentenced Paul Hansmeier to 14 years in prison , to be followed by two years of supervised release.

Hansmeier was a key player at the Prenda Law firm, which pursued cases against people who were suspected of downloading pirated porn videos via BitTorrent.

While suing alleged pirates is not illegal, Prenda Law went much further. Over the years the firm faced negative court rulings over identity theft, misrepresentation, and even deception.

The Original Prenda Honeypot

Most controversial were the shocking revelations that Prenda itself produced adult videos and uploaded its own torrents to The Pirate Bay . In doing so, the company created a honeypot for the people they later sued over pirate downloads.

The allegations were serious enough to appear on the radar of US law enforcement agencies which launched a criminal investigation, culminating in prison sentences for the two key players.

Today, Paul Hansmeier and his former colleague John Steele are both in prison. While the latter received a reduced sentence for his cooperative stance, Hansmeier continues to appeal his sentence to this day. To make a point, the lawyer even restarted his honeypot scheme from prison.

Hansmeier Doesn’t Want to Pay $1.5 Million

In addition to challenging his conviction, Hansmeier also appealed the $1,541,527.37 in restitution that he’s required to pay to victims. According to the former lawyer, this figure is too high because it also includes ‘legal’ settlements.

This case ended up at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Government opposed Hansmeier’s claim, arguing that the convicted lawyer waived his right to appeal by signing a plea agreement.

After a careful review, the Court of Appeal judges ruled that Hansmeier has the right to appeal the restitution amount. However, that doesn’t help the former lawyer much, as the judges also concluded that the district court correctly awarded $1,541,527.37 in restitution.

Evidence Shows that $1.5 Million is Correct

According to the Court of Appeal, the Government provided sufficient evidence to show that the restitution amount “was attributable solely to settlement payments from the fraud scheme.”

This evidence was collected by FBI agent Jared Kary who went over all settlement payments that came in from April 2011, which was when the Prenda lawyers started to upload their own movies to The Pirate Bay.

“Agent Kary further attempted to narrow his calculation to payments from fraud victims by excluding any payments that came in over this period that he could not tie to a specific person,” the Court adds, suggesting that the actual figure might be higher.

However, the most compelling statement may come from none other than Paul Hansmeier himself , who pretty much confirmed the amount in the plea agreement .

“Finally, Hansmeier himself acknowledged in his plea agreement that, between 2011 and 2014, he and Steele ‘received more than $3,000,000 in fraudulent proceeds’ from their lawsuits,” the Court writes.

More Setbacks for Hansmeier

The Court’s ruling also provides a detailed description of all the criminal wrongdoings. In a separate argument, Hansmeier also claimed that the district court incorrectly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. However, the Court of Appeal disagrees with this as well.

“Because the facts in the indictment, accepted as true, describe a fraudulent scheme prohibited by federal law, Hansmeier cannot succeed in his claim that it is facially insufficient,” the Court notes.

While the order will certainly come as a setback for Hansmeier, the former attorney will likely continue to challenge his prison sentence. Among other things, the dispute about whether or not he can operate a piracy honeypot from prison remains ongoing.

—

A copy of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

This week it was reported that Njord Law, a prominent Danish law engaged in cash settlement demands against alleged BitTorrent pirates, is in serious trouble.

Working with middle-man licensing companies CMS and MIRCOM, which have connections to German-based BitTorrent tracking company MaverickEye and notorious international trolling operation Guardaley, the company demanded that their targets pay sums of money, often in excess of US$1,200, to make potential lawsuits disappear.

After hundreds of cases were kicked out of court, mainly due to CMS and MIRCOM having no standing to file a lawsuit, Njord Law and partner lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen have now been charged with acting fraudulently . While both deny the allegations, the fallout in Denmark is so significant that leading anti-piracy group Rights Alliance is now voicing its own criticism of the companies’ business model.

“A Stain on the Fight Against Illegal Content”

It’s relatively rare for one anti-piracy group to criticize another but Rights Alliance chief Maria Fredenslund did just that Thursday, complaining that the CMS/MIRCOM/Njord business model is a “stain on the fight against illegal content”.

“We have never been behind the methods and approach that Njord Law Firm has taken in these cases. There has been no cooperation between us and them,” she told Berlingske .

Fredenslund has several concerns, including that the allegations of fraud will “cloud” the work of Rights Alliance and detract from the sustained effort the group has put in to reduce piracy levels in Denmark.

“We have not had any collaboration on the letters that Njord Law Firm has sent out. On the contrary, we have been out and publicly saying that we do not support it,” Fredenslund said.

Rights Alliance Prefers To Target Operators and Block Sites

Rights Alliance is engaged in a wide variety of anti-piracy measures, including the targeting of various torrent sites recently, something which has resulted in a number of arrests.

Back in 2016, Rights Alliance reported DanishBits, the country’s largest tracker, to the police and in October 2020 it shut down . Just this week further arrests were reported in connection with now-shuttered site Asgaard.

However, one of the anti-piracy group’s favorite strategies is site-blocking which Fredenslund believes is a more effective strategy than copyright-trolling.

“Our strategy is based on approaches that we know from many years of experience, and Denmark is known for having an effective blocking system. It is a long, tough move, but that hard work means that today we can see the fruits of the work we started ten years ago,” she added.

Unfortunately for Rights Alliance, however, copyright-trolling can influence pirates’ behavior in ways that have the potential to disrupt this disruption too.

Copyright Trolling is Undermining Anti-Piracy Group

With allegations of fraud in the air, Rights Alliance is keen to distance itself from the actions of Njord Law and its partners. Perhaps more importantly though, copyright-trolling operations don’t exist in a bubble and have the potential to drive pirates underground.

Speaking with local publication K-News , Fredenslund says that Rights Alliance doesn’t support the Njord model because after ten years of experience, they know that it has “no effect” on reducing piracy. However, while it may not drive down piracy rates, settlement schemes are causing pirates to hide their identities using anonymization tools.

Fredenslund doesn’t elaborate on why this is an issue for Rights Alliance (the group doesn’t target end-users anyway) but the implications are very clear. When consumers of pirated content sign up to a VPN or similar anonymization service, they are not only protected from copyright-trolling schemes but they can also evade Rights Alliance’s site-blocking measures too.

Copyright-Trolling and Site-Blocking Have Different Goals

At this point, it’s important to recognize the differences between the efforts of Rights Alliance and Njord Law and its partners. While Rights Alliance’s actions are designed to deter and prevent piracy in order to protect revenues, copyright-trolls view piracy as a money-making opportunity.

Indeed, the entire troll model requires piracy to exist, providing another source of revenue for often third-rate content that would otherwise have little commercial value. The issue of pirates hiding themselves using VPNs to avoid trolls then becomes a thorn in the side of efforts to block sites, effectively nullifying court injunctions obtained by Rights Alliance.

It seems then that copyright-troll schemes are not only ineffective but also undermine genuine efforts to bring piracy down to more manageable levels. Only time will tell whether the courts in Denmark and elsewhere are prepared to do something about them but it’s pretty clear that just for once, pirates and anti-pirates actually agree on something.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Every year, thousands of “Doe” defendants are sued for allegedly sharing pirated videos via BitTorrent.

Most of these lawsuits follow a common pattern. The copyright holders track down an infringing IP-address, uncover the associated account holder through a subpoena, to then offer this person a settlement.

Defendants who ignore or deny the settlement offers will often be named. And if they fail to respond after that, the copyright holder will ask the court to issue a default judgment.

More Than an IP-address

In recent months Hawaii-based attorney Kerry Culpepper has, on occasion, broken with this pattern by bringing in additional evidence. For example, he went after several users of the torrent site YTS, after the site’s operator shared database information to resolve his own legal troubles.

In a case filed at a federal court in Texas last week, Culpepper continues down this path. While this case doesn’t rely on YTS information, it is connected to a previous lawsuit where ‘additional’ information surfaced.

Phone Store Lawsuit

Earlier this year, we reported that the company behind the movie Hunter Killer filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon retailer VICTRA . According to that complaint, employees of the phone store promoted the use of pirate apps including Popcorn Time and Showbox.

The claim was backed up by testimony from a VICTRA customer who stated that an employee named Ms. Boylan recommended and helped him to install Popcorn Time to watch free movies. This case was eventually dismissed after a few months, likely following an out-of-court settlement. However, it wasn’t without consequence for the employee.

In the complaint filed in Texas last week, Hunter Killer writes that Boylan was fired by VICTRA for promoting and distributing movie piracy apps. While that must have come as a big hit, the movie company isn’t showing mercy.

Fired Employee Faces Piracy Lawsuit

On the contrary, Hunter Killer Productions accuses Boylan of both contributory and direct copyright infringement. The first allegation is related to the defendant’s promotion of Popcorn Time during her time with her former employer.

“Defendant Boylan promoted movie piracy apps at the VICTRA TX Store to her customers for the purposes of infringing copyright protected content,” the complaint reads, adding that she did so to increase sales and boost her compensation.

The allegation is backed up by the aforementioned testimony from a customer, who said that the defendant recommended and installed Popcorn Time on a newly purchased Samsung Galaxy tablet.

“Defendant Boylan promoted Popcorn Time by telling members of the general public, including Gerard Prado, that it could be used to watch ‘free movies’ at the TX Store on or around March 5, 2019.

“Defendant Boylan installed Popcorn Time on the tablet device of Gerard Prado while he was at the TX Store so that Gerard Prado could watch content in violation of copyright laws,” the complaint adds.

‘Defendant Also Downloaded the Film’

These allegations are just part of the picture. According to Hunter Killer, the defendant also downloaded and shared the movie herself. This claim is backed up by an IP-address that was observed sharing a pirated copy of Hunter Killer last December.

“Defendant Boylan downloaded, reproduced and shared copies of the Work under the file name ‘Hunter Killer (2018) [WEBRip] [720p] [YTS.AM]’ multiple times on December 27, 2019 from the IP address 174.237.5.2.”

The IP-address is linked to a Verizon cellular phone Internet service account in Boylan’s name. According to the complaint, this means that she likely downloaded the file herself.

In addition to Boylan, the movie company also accuses five John Doe defendants of direct copyright infringement by downloading the film. These people have yet to be identified through a subpoena.

Hunter Killer Productions hopes to recoup the damages these copyright infringements reportedly caused. In theory, this could reach $150,000 in statutory damages per person, but it’s likely that one or more defendants will settle out of court.

—

A copy of Hunter Killer’s complaint against Boylan and the five Doe defendants is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

So-called ‘copyright trolling’ campaigns against alleged file-sharers is huge business in both the United States and Europe.

The goal is to have courts order ISPs to hand over the personal details behind an IP address so that subscribers can be put under pressure to pay a settlement or face punishing legal action. In Denmark, especially considering its relatively small population, such schemes are now extremely prevalent. But all is not well for the main players.

Cases Undermined Due to Rookie Mistakes

It’s not always easy to tell the difference between a regular copyright lawsuit and one filed by a supposed ‘copyright troll’. However, when middle-man companies appear in the mix, those which appear to have no place in the proceedings other than to provide some kind of shield for the real rightsholders, red flags start to get raised. For those on the receiving end, however, that’s not always bad news.

As reported in April, a High Court in Denmark threw out three copyright infringement cases against alleged pirates. The problem was that Copyright Management Services, a UK middle-man company working with Danish law firm NJORD Law, attempted to squeeze around US$1,000 from the defendants to prevent further action from their movie company partners.

Unfortunately for them, however, the Eastern High Court found that CMS had absolutely no right to sue. As a result, the cases were dismissed and the opportunists were sent on their way. But that wasn’t the end of the road.

Dozens and Dozens of Cases Collapse

The findings of the Eastern High Court created momentum. Since then, it’s believed that around 100 other cases have been dismissed on the same grounds, including three reported by the Court of Frederiksberg this week.

The three cases emerged following judgments obtained against three defendants, one of whom reportedly torrented an adult movie and another London Has Fallen, a common title in similar lawsuits elsewhere. After failing to appear last year to defend themselves, each was ordered to pay 7,500 kroner (US$1,237) in default damages.

All three failed to pay, so each found themselves pursued through the bailiff’s court by the ‘plaintiffs’. However, the court in Frederiksberg has booted out all three cases ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), referencing earlier cases that found that CMS had no right to sue.

In fact, not only did the court reference the failed case in April, it also referred to another 39 rulings by the same court and another 60 handed down by the Copenhagen City Court, all of which found that CMS had no right to bring these copyright cases as it had no standing to be the plaintiff.

Hundreds of Thousands of Danes Potentially Affected

These types of lawsuits have been ongoing for several years in Denmark and despite warnings, very little has been done to prevent their spread. In 2018, ISPs Telenor and Telia put up a fight but the damage had already been done.

According to a report by Berlingske this week, at least 2,500 Danes could be affected and potentially up to 200,000.

“It’s a big money machine where you treat the courts as ATMs,” lawyer Allan Ohms told the publication. “Njord Law Firm is a reputable law firm, so I do not understand why they are involved.”

The Berlingske report catalogs many horrors, including the targeting of an 84-year-old woman with dementia and a 41-year-old man who had to sit in court while being accused of downloading porn, because his age and gender “matched the profile” of someone who would’ve carried out the crime. The case was dismissed but a family member recalls that the case took its toll.

“I clearly remember when he came home after the trial. He was completely devastated. As an ordinary citizen one stands completely defenseless in this situation. That can simply not be right,” the person said.

But many people have already settled with NJORD law and its apparently shadowy partners, about which very little is known.

Lawyer Nikolaj Linneballe said that no one really knows who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and, importantly, who is collecting all the money from cases that should have never been brought. He believes the settlement money should be returned when it has been shown that plaintiffs had no right to bring a case but whether that will ever happen is unknown.

Court Suggests That The Lawsuits May Be Illegal

As reported by Berlingske , the Court of Frederiksberg appears to be of the opinion that the lawsuits in these ‘false plaintiff’ cases may be illegal. Indeed, the suggestion is that Danes affected by the action may be able to file a claim for damages via a criminal complaint.

While that may be the case, by design these middle-man companies seem primed to collapse like chocolate teapots should the battle turn sour. But nonetheless, things are certainly in a mess.

Aside from CMS’s lack of standing to bring any of these cases, NJORD law stands accused of requesting an arbitrary amount of 7,500 kroner to settle each case, regardless of the costs incurred in the matter. This raises the question of how “real” these claims for compensation are, despite the fact they should’ve never been brought at all.

“[The] amount is arbitrarily fixed for the occasion, and not an amount where there is an expression of a real claim for compensation, remuneration or allowance,” the court previously said, noting that the actions constitute a potentially significant “legal security problem” for Danes.

One of the problems is the starting point of the law firm and its partners. Those accused are considered guilty unless they are able to prove their innocence, which in most cases is not possible, since the companies involved hold all of the ‘evidence’, including who is supposed to have shared what, when, and with whom.

Indeed, the collection and presentation of evidence is held in a tightly closed-loop, since it’s all handled non-transparently by entities acting in concert with the plaintiffs and rightsholders. The defendants have no access to the audit trails so are faced with the problem of arguing against a spreadsheet.

In many respects, copyright-trolling has rarely been any different. The smoke and mirrors are fairly standard, as are the strong-arm tactics. But maybe Denmark has had enough now, which is usually a signal for the trolls to move to another territory and start the same thing all over again.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

Back in June, Hurricane Electic, one of the major network providers and operator of the largest IPv6 backbone, took action to prevent damage to its business.

Hurricane provides services to large Internet-focused businesses, including ISPs, which in turn have thousands of customers, all of whom are free to use their connections as they wish. However, a group of movie companies, all of which are known for filing copyright complaints in pursuit of settlement, tried to argue that Hurricane is responsible for the actions of its customers.

After obtaining a subpoena, a law firm acting for the companies behind Rambo: Last Blood, London Has Fallen, Dallas Buyers Club, The Hitman’s Bodyguard, and many others demanded that Hurricane should hand over the personal details of its allegedly pirating customers.

In response to persistent demands, including to disconnect allegedly infringing customers and pay damages in excess of $500,000, Hurricane Electric filed two lawsuits , one in California and one in Nevada, seeking a declaratory judgment stating that it is not responsible for the infringements of its customers. Or those of their customers. Or their customers’ customers.

Amended Complaint Filed in August 2020

In August, Hurricane Electric (HE) filed an amended complaint which in part described the alleged business model of the movie companies targeting its business.

“HE is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that multiple Defendants, many of which share the same addresses, managing agents, and/or agents for service, are copyright assertion entities in the business of generating income primarily from threats of infringement lawsuits against legitimate technology companies that have nothing to do with any alleged infringements by unnamed end users of Internet connections,” HE wrote.

Describing the defendants as “mere shells” for generating income via threats of copyright infringement lawsuits, HE stated that the move companies have become frustrated by courts awarding limited damages against individual file-sharers so have adopted a new business model of suing entities, like HE, that are “higher up the food chain.”

With the main case still rumbling on, an interesting third-party complaint appeared on the docket this week. Featuring Killing Link Distribution LLC, one of the defendants in the HE case and the company behind the Nicholas Cage movie Kill Chain as plaintiff, it targets Sophidea Inc ., an Internet service provider.

Third Party Lawsuit Against a Hurriance Electric Customer

While the company was the subject of several headlines in 2014, little is known about Wyoming-based Sophidea. The third-party lawsuit (filed by Culpepper IP, the same law firm that obtained user data from YTS ) says that Sophidea is an ISP operating in California that buys Internet access, IP address and co-location services from Hurricane Electric.

The complaint further states that the ISP operates a VPN service through HE, enabling its customers to access the Internet via HE IP addresses. According to Killing Link, users of Sophidea’s VPN service accessed “illicit notorious piracy websites” to download and share pirated copies of movies.

“Particularly, Defendant’s users have used this VPN service to download torrent files of Plaintiff’s Work, and pirate Plaintiff’s Work on the Internet via the BitTorrent Protocol Client throughout the world,” the complaint notes.

Among the sites allegedly accessed by Sophidea’s customers are YTS, The Pirate Bay, RARBG, 1337x, Fmovies, Cimaclub, RuTracker, and Torrentz2. Interestingly, Killing Link further claims that users also accessed file-hosting sites Rapidgator and Uploaded, plus Russian social networking site VK “to engage in massive piracy”. How this information was obtained isn’t revealed.

“Defendant [Sophidea] continued to provide network connections to its users despite receiving notices indicating that Defendant’s users were using the network connection to engage in piracy via, for example, one or more of the above piracy websites,” the complaint reads.

The third-party complaint does not seek damages. Instead, the movie company requests preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent Sophidea from continuing to provide customer access to “infringing material or activity residing at particular online sites.”

Complaint Quickly Concludes With Proposed Stipulated Injunction

On the very same day that the complaint was filed at a California court, a new document appeared on the docket revealing that everything had been sorted out between the parties. A quick turn around, certainly. But it’s the details of the agreement that are likely to raise eyebrows.

According to the stipulated injunction and dismissal, Sophidea provides a VPN service, manned by volunteers, for the purposes of providing uncensored Internet access to people in closed societies.

“Many of Defendant’s users are citizens in countries with internet censorship such as Iran, China, Russia and Vietnam, etc. Defendant depends on donations to provide this VPN service and does not make any profit. Defendant has recently operated at a deficit,” it reads.

“To protect Defendant’s users from their own governments, Defendant does not require users to log in to use Defendant’s services. Rather, users can download Defendant’s software for free without providing any personal information. To further protect them, and also due to the volume of traffic, Defendant does not log their users’ access, i.e. their IP addresses and websites visited.”

Given the background, it seems likely that Sophidea operates its service as a fairly ‘dumb ‘pipe, which means that people are able to access content of their choice, including pirated movies. The company acknowledges that it has been unable to distinguish between “unacceptable and acceptable” usage due to the vast majority of traffic being encrypted.

However, since it has respect for US intellectual property rights, it has offered to assist.

Sophidea Agrees To Block Pirates Sites Under the DMCA

In an agreement with Killing Link to conclude the lawsuit, Sophidea says it denies liability but acknowledges that its customers ‘may’ have used its VPN to pirate copyrighted content. As a result it will implement site-blocking pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §512(j) , with details as per the image below.

According to the agreement, Sophidea will be considered in compliance with the order if it blocks site domains, IP addresses, URLs, or any other technical means agreed between the parties. Furthermore, Killing Link will be able to update the block list with any pirate sites mentioned in the USTR’s review of ‘notorious markets’ moving forward, or any site found liable for infringement in a US court.

As reported last month, various copyright holders and industry organizations have already nominated Amazon, Facebook, Namecheap, Cloudflare and Peter Sunde’s Njalla service for the next notorious markets list, so life could become even more challenging for Sophidea’s already restricted users.

The third party complaint can be found here . The stipulated injunction (signed by the judge Thursday) is here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Over the past several years, independent photographers have filed more than a thousand lawsuits against companies that allegedly used their work without permission.

The majority of these cases, with prominent targets such as Yahoo.com, Verizon.com, MSN.com, MTV.com, Gawker.com, are handled by attorney Richard Liebowitz.

When we first spotted this emerging trend in 2016 , Liebowitz told us that he was helping independent photographers to protect their rights. All too often, companies would take their work without paying, he said.

Liebowitz’ Repeated Misconduct

While that argument still holds true in many cases, the attorney himself has trouble sticking to the rules as well. In his relatively short career, courts have reprimanded and sanctioned him for various types of misconduct.

This summer, for example, in the Usherson v. Bandshell case, a New York federal court ordered the lawyer to pay over $100,000 in sanctions for violating several court orders and repeatedly lying under oath. This included a false claim that the photo’s copyright was registered when the case was filed.

In a detailed order, the court further concluded that, given the attorney’s “deplorable record,” steps should be taken to suspend the attorney’s ability to file new cases. As such, the matter was referred to the court’s Grievance Committee.

Suspended from Practicing Law

The Grievance Committee evaluated the findings recently and concluded that Liebowitz will be suspended from practicing law in the district until further order.

“After careful deliberation, the Committee is unanimously of the view that the Charges are strongly supported by the record. What is more, the Committee is unanimously of the view that interim disciplinary measures against Respondent must be put in place immediately,” the Committee writes.

The order, issued last week, notes that the measure is appropriate to protect the public from future violations. Given the attorney’s track record, this is a real threat.

“The record in this case — which includes Respondent’s repeated disregard for orders from this Court and his unwillingness to change despite 19 formal sanctions and scores of other admonishments and warnings from judges across the country — leads the Committee to the view that recurrence is highly likely.”

The suspension is temporary, as the court still has to finalize the full proceeding. For the time being, however, Liebowitz will have to halt all his legal activities in the district.

Further Sanctions?

Meanwhile, the various missteps continue to pile on. In addition to the $100,000 sanction in the Usherson v. Bandshell case a few weeks ago, the attorney was also instructed to send a copy of the scathing order to all of his clients. However, that didn’t happen.

In September he informed the court that he had failed to inform some clients right away. A month later, it became clear that he failed to do so in 113 cases, which is far from a minor oversight.

Yesterday, District Court Judge Jesse Furman wrote that this additional failure to comply with the court’s order is a strong argument to impose further sanctions.

“Had Mr. Liebowitz failed to file the Opinion and Order in a handful of cases, the failure to comply might have been understandable and excusable. But the failure to file it in 113 cases is astonishing and suggests contumaciousness, an egregiously disorganized case management system, or both.”

Nothing to Deter

Interestingly, however, the Court chose not to add any sanctions. While that may sound positive for the lawyer, the reasoning behind it is quite grim. Mr. Liebowitz may be a lost cause, Judge Furman suggests.

“[T]he ultimate purpose of sanctions is deterrence and, as Mr. Liebowitz’s extraordinary record of both sanctions and noncompliance with court orders demonstrates, it is far from clear that there is any additional sanction that would serve to deter him.”

In addition, there is no new misconduct to ‘deter’ at the movement, as the attorney is suspended from practicing law in the district now.

“Thus, for the time being, there will be nothing to deter when it comes to Mr. Liebowitz,” Judge Furman concludes.

—

A copy of the order issued by District Court Judge Jesse Furman, which includes a copy of the Grievance Committee’s decision, is available here (pdf) . Photo credit: Liebowitz image by” King of Hearts ” (CC BY-SA 4.0)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.