Is Malibu Media About To Become The Righthaven Of Porn Trolls?

from the drop the bomb dept

Last month we wrote about an interesting case in which a judge effectively called the bluff of Malibu Media, a copyright trolling operation that has filed 365 lawsuits, targeting about 6,000 people. And, of course, it’s never taken a single one to an actual trial, because that does not appear to be the goal. Instead, it’s all about getting people to settle, and it sounds like Malibu has been successful on that front. In the case we mentioned last month, the judge made it clear that he wanted Malibu Media to actually go through a trial, and highlighted four defendants who had claimed innocence, and wanted to use those as a “bellwether” trial, to effectively test Malibu’s theories. The judge, Michael Baylson, was pretty clear that he would not be happy if Malibu Media tried to squeeze out of the case.

At the beginning of the month, Malibu filed its “amended complaint” against the “John Does” in question, which gave up on some of the arguments in the original complaint and instead focused on direct infringement claims — while also expanding the number of works infringed.

Yesterday, the Does hit back. It’s interesting to note that they’ve signed up Marc Randazza (along with Jordan Rushie) to help them, as Randazza has both been on the other side of some porn copyright trolling cases and was also the lawyer largely responsible for bringing down the famed copyright trolling operation Righthaven. His work with porn studios to take part in similar cases has resulted in some worries of ulterior motives in taking on John Does in other cases, though that seems to be a bit paranoid.

Either way, the Does hit back hard. They’re throwing the kitchen sink at Malibu Media. Among other things, they’re claiming that the decision to expand the case to other possible infringements is ridiculous since the defendants use dynamic IP addresses, and Malibu is basing the other infringements on the same IP, but a totally different date or time. Also: the defendants claim that Malibu initially argued that all of the Does needed to be lumped together in a single lawsuit because they represented a “swarm” and as such had to be tried together. Except, in the amended complaint, they move away from that completely (no surprise, since the judge carved out just these few defendants). However, the defendants point out the inconsistency:


When considering litigating the “swarm theory,” Malibu was faced with the prospect of

dozens of defendants, joined in their common defense against the plaintiff, with an initial seeder

who very well may have had a license to publish the works to BitTorrent or elsewhere. When

push came to shove, Malibu decided to dismiss more than eighty percent of the defendants it

initially sued, despite its prior claims that the cases were brought against unified “swarms.”

Malibu apparently thought better of the swarm theory, and decided to reduce the number of

defendants. However, Malibu cannot properly abandon its foundational theory and still leave the

case against Doe 13 intact. The swarm theory of liability relies upon a “swarm” of defendants

and renders these now-dropped defendants indispensable to the action. Without even an

allegation against the initial seeder, we have no idea whether Malibu itself seeded the relevant

files. As Malibu does freely distribute the relevant films, it is entirely possible, if not most

likely, that the initial seeder had permission to distribute the files via BitTorrent. If he or she

did not, it is entirely likely that a participant in the swarm, from whom Doe 13 received the file,

may have had such permission. Malibu’s omissions speak loudly in favor of dismissal. Unless

Malibu re-joins these previous defendants, including the initial seeder, the Court must dismiss

the action against Doe 13, who is by Malibu’s own theory incapable of according Plaintiff full

and complete relief.

That paragraph has footnotes to point out that the company Malibu was using to obtain IP addresses, IPP (formerly Guardaley — remember them?) is accused of actually seeding the files in the first place, which would suggest the copies were authorized. Of course, it’s worth noting that Randazza, when on the other side of these cases, has used the swarm argument in the past.

Either way, that’s just the warmup for the problems with the amended complaint. There’s also a few other problems — such as that it doesn’t appear that Malibu legitimately owned the copyright in question. Oops. First, there’s the fact that the filmmaker argued that the key film was a “work for hire” made for Malibu. Except, Malibu only came into existence in early 2011 and the movie was made years earlier. Malibu claimed this was an oversight in the registration process and then sought to register the copyrights properly just recently. However, again there are problems, as the assignment from the filmmaker failed to assign the specific rights under Section 106 of the Copyright Act, which are what you need if you want to sue. This was the critical defect in the Righthaven cases, in that they pretended to assign those rights, but it was in name only since the original copyright holder really retained all the key rights provided under Section 106. Furthermore, the defendants argue that the assignment statement does not really qualify as an assignment, and is, at best, a license.

In this case, the Assignment contains no provision of any exclusive rights from Field to

Malibu Media. The assignment is silent as to what, if any, rights Field has within the films.

Rather than transferring any discernible exclusive rights under Section 106 to Malibu Media, Mr.

Field has executed what is essentially a quit-claim deed to Malibu Media, giving Plaintiff a

jumble of unidentified rights (or perhaps none at all) that, on the face of the assignment, do not

include the rights required to sustain an infringement action: exclusive rights under Section

106. Absent any indication that Field possessed full, undivided interest in the copyrighted

works or exclusive rights therein, there is no basis on the face of the assignment for finding that

Malibu Media acquired any exclusive rights and nothing in the assignment addresses past

infringement.

Then they point out that even if the assignment is proper, it still doesn’t help Malibu, because it is not clear when the assignment was made. And, under the law, while you can transfer the right to sue (along with other exclusive rights) for past infringements, that needs to be expressly stated in the assignment. That’s not the case here.

Then there are other issues concerning the “swarm” argument. The defendants point out that if they were being sued as part of a swarm, the total awards across all the defendants can’t surpass the maximum statutory rate. Yet with a bunch of defendants having settled, it’s possible that Malibu has already been “made whole.”


Malibu has already recovered significant funds in connection with the infringements

alleged in the Amended Complaint.

Prejudice against Does #6 and #19 before this action was set for a bellwether. (Dkt. Nos. 16 and

17). Presumably, this was because Malibu received adequate settlements from these defendants.

In fact, Malibu may have received doubly-adequate settlements from them – in which case

Malibu is now triple-dipping by seeking damages that have already been satisfied by third parties

Malibu intentionally kept out of this litigation.

Because the swarm is global in scope, and the Plaintiff has likely already been made

whole by other undisclosed swarm members, nothing short of full disclosure and setoff would

allow Doe #13 to evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to bring this action that it repeatedly claims to be

based on the uploading and downloading the exact same file. Since the Plaintiff seeks statutory

damages, if the Plaintiff has already collected the statutory maximum for this work from other

defendants, then the Plaintiff must stop visiting the well.

Malibu filed Notices of Voluntarily Dismissal with

Thought they were done? Not yet. They also claim that Malibu is abusing subpoena powers outside of what was alleged in the complaint. In the amended filing, Malibu notes that its “partner” in identifying infringement, IPP, passed along the info that at least one of the Does has been accused by another IPP customer of infringement as well. As the defendants point out, that’s completely irrelevant to the case at hand:


Nucorp, Ltd. is not a party to this action or any other action against Doe #13, and this

allegation is scandalous and impertinent. Furthermore, set forth in more detail below, adding

allegation also violated two court orders forbidding Malibu from abusing its subpoena power for

purposes outside of what was alleged in the Complaint. Accordingly, Paragraph 53 and Exhibit

“F” of the Amended Complaint should be struck .

In one of the other Motions to Dismiss, questions are also raised about whether or not Malibu has the proper and necessary licenses to do business in Pennsylvania where the lawsuit was filed.

There’s more, but you get the idea. It certainly looks like some are trying to give Malibu the Righthaven treatment. And we all remember how that went



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

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 “Is Malibu Media About To Become The Righthaven Of Porn Trolls?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
22 Comments
sophisticatedjanedoesays:

Re: Re: Is it even copyrightable?

There was more than one case where the copyrightability of porn was questioned: both by judges and defendants. The closest call was in the Fantalis’s case (which is settled on Friday). Randazza even filed an amicus curiae brief on this case. Why it was the closest? During the last hearing, Judge Hegarty clearly stated that if the jury found any of the ?works? to be obscene, these ?works? would not be subject to copyright protection.

But as I said, the case settled right after that: Fantalis moved too close to the foundation of Malibu’s house of cards and threatened its destruction.

Nothing interesting happened in other cases that brushed the copyrightability of porn, yet the idea is still in the air, and if trolls push harder with their assault on the society, they may find that the toy (copyright protection) given to pornographers may be taken back for abuse as adults take back toys from toddlers who misuse them.

Re: Re: Is it even copyrightable?

This is one of the dumbest defense arguments anyone could raise.

When you think about these cases, think about them rationally. To make it pretty simple: Copyright is exclusively a federal issue. That is why you have to bring copyright claims in federal court. The reason being that you don’t want copyright protection to vary from state to state.

Obscenity is a purely local community standard. What is “obscene” in Bibleburg, Mississippi might be completely run-of-the-mill in Las Vegas or Miami.

So, you can’t have copyright protection as a patchwork of being protectable in one place, but not another, and over that hill, yonder, it is protected, but not here in this neighborhood.

To give you the tl;dr version: http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/doc-38-1-proposed-amicus.pdf

Anyone who espouses the theory that copyright protection has any relationship to obscenity is a) uneducated on the law, b) lacks the simply ability to use Google c) is so abjectly fucking stupid that they should be sterilized to keep more idiots from populating the earth.

Machin Shinsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even copyrightable?

While yes I will give in that what is “obscenity” varies from place to place I think you will have a hard time finding many people to agree that porn is “useful art”. I’m sure you will find some lonely basement dwellers, but for the most part everyone agrees that porn is not art.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even copyrightable?

While yes I will give in that what is “obscenity” varies from place to place I think you will have a hard time finding many people to agree that porn is “useful art”.

Useful art, in the Constitutional context, refers to inventions and the patent system, not copyright.

Copyright was for “science.”

G Thompsonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even copyrightable?

Of course it’s USEFUL.. without porn the Video Player (VHS or BETA), 8mm Camera, or Internet would not have sold like they did.

Though on a more serious note: define art and more to the point define pornography. The community (not legal – which is freakin ambiguous in the extreme) definition keeps changing as community mores and values change. What was pornographic 200, 100, 50, 20 yrs ago is not pornographic today for the reasonable person. the Statue of David at one time was considered pornographic (and I’m led to believe some moronic idiots still think it is) but isn’t today.. so Is David art? or only now is it art? who decides and how do you tell?

G Thompsonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it even copyrightable?

Whereas I actually agree with you that Copyright should absolutely apply to pornography, I was always lead to believe that though different states had different ‘obscenity’ interpretations (with exceptions being Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia – though that might be old info) due to your 18 USC Chapter 71 obscenity itself therefore a US Federal matter too.

Though you then have the problem of trying to define what “Prurient Interests” eyeroll means in this day and age especially remembering that Miller & Roth especially were decades ago and mores (hopefully) have changed somewhat.

Other than that good luck to both you and Jordan and the Does in this matter. And wishing you and your family a great Thanksgiving – take a break, think about nothing, and have a beer on me. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: I've taught you how to spell "bellwether"!

“Try to have a more interesting post than this.”

I honestly and full-heartedly believe it is very difficult, if not actually impossible, for Mike to have a post more interesting than this, simply because this article is itself very interesting and well worth the read.
So in a very round-about way, you are actually encouraging Mike to push himself harder, to excel in what he does best. I’m sure he must be very grateful.

sophisticatedjanedoesays:

Righthaven, Randazza, Fraud....

To preserve the fairness, it was not Marc Randazza who discovered the fraudulent MM copyrights. It was a Michigan attorney Jeffrey Thennisch — back in July.

Raul reported about it 10 days ago: Malibu Media?s Massive Fraud.

As for Randazza’s involvement, I decided to keep my opinions and emotions tamed for the time being. If it happens that I was, as Mike put it, “paranoid,” I will be happy to admit it: I’m not here to tickle my ego. Yet I don’t trust this man: he brought too much misery to ordinary folks’ families, and I’m not ready to brush it off, even if his involvement in the bellwether trial happens to be effective.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Righthaven, Randazza, Fraud....

The enemy of my enemy might still be an ass, to paraphrase.

While seeing pookies name annoys me to the core, what this particular case has its focus on is correct. We all know there is no love lost between him and I, I expect to continue doing battle with him in the future, but today he appears to be on the correct side of the fight. Much like his battle against the “lawyer” elsewhere, I believe in that fight and assisted my “sworn enemy” because the cause is important.

Another time, in another arena, we will clash again.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

I look forward to the courts ruling against MM, and shredding the tissue paper used to try and protect the assets with a sham corporate veil.
While they have managed to offshore much of the cash in a tax haven designed to help hide assets and make recovery very difficult, I’m sure the courts would NEVER look at the principals involved in this shakedown scheme and make them weep. But sometime I fib.

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 ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow