82 comments on “UPDATED: John Steele Starts Another Case, Ira M. Siegel Starts FOUR, Old Case Names A Single Person. Hard Drive Productions and Pink Lotus Entertainment Use A New Troll Neil H. Rubin. Thousands More Added To Copyright Troll Scam

  1. Here’s Agent Trolls “one” that hes gonna pick as an example for future scare tactic. Let us see if he picked the right one to target. Either this person has money and stuff to lose or not a thing. If they have money, they’re gonna fight tooth and nail (if no settlement is offered and taken) or if they don’t- What’s your point Troll? That you got a judgement for blood from a rock. Nice. Congrats.
    Go Neo! Who-ever you are we all support you!

  2. Steele didn’t have to name the Doe in that particular case. The doe was already named by DGW in the initial case they filed in DC court.

    Steele filed that case back in February

    • You are right. When putting this together it was 3 in the morning. It had the same date of the 9th so it seemed like it was this month. We at least bring it up. We will modify this post. When your exhausted and reading anything looks like what ever you think it is.

      Thanks.

      • I understand completely! Just wanted to let you know the “sight” was not directed at you or this blog. It was a reaction to these lawsuits.

        Thanks for providing the information

  3. Have you heard about the Honeypot accusation from one doe in a case by a guy named sperlein? (Not sure if that is how you spell it.)

  4. Thanks for posting the article. While looking at the DC Federal Court Web site (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/), I noticed the following link at the bottom of the page: “Wireless Access in the Courthouse.

    Free wireless in public areas. Read more”

    Can you guess where I’m going with this?

    For anyone who lives in the jurisdiction of this court, the “Open” wireless defense is bolstered. I would even suggest this could be applied to other jurisdictions, as the lawyers for the District Court had to review and authorize the Terms of Use and Guidelines. Some of the trolls claim that “Open” wireless is no defense and you are still liable for whatever someone does on your IP, even if you didn’t authorize them access or had knowledge they were conducting illegal activities.

    Here is some text from the Wireless Guidelines (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/wireless_guidelines):

    The United States District and Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia have initiated a Pilot Project which provides free wireless Internet access in public areas of the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse and William B. Bryant Annex. The wireless network will be available during normal business hours. Wireless access in the courtrooms is not authorized unless approved by a U.S. District or Bankruptcy Judge.

    Any use of Court-provided wireless Internet access must be in accordance with the Courts’ Wireless Network Service Agreement/Terms of Use. Patrons are expected to use these services in a legal, responsible, and considerate manner, consistent with the informational and research purposes for which it is provided.

    In order to connect to the Courts’ wireless network, your device must have a WiFi-compatible network card installed (802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz) or (802.11a/n 5.0GHz). Access is provided in a limited number of public locations throughout the Courthouse (Cafeteria, Attorney Lounge, Jury Lounge, Bryant Annex Atrium, District/Bankruptcy public Intake/Files area). Your wireless card should detect the signal immediately (Note: Some wireless card software may require some additional procedures and/or setting changes. Please consult your user’s manual, or contact your hardware or software provider for any additional assistance.) Once your device picks up the wireless signal, select the District/Bankruptcy Court wireless network:
    SSID/Network Name = DCDUSCPUBLIC (Open Access)
    Please note the following information and guidelines:
    • As with most public wireless Internet access, the Courts’ wireless connection is not secure and privacy cannot be protected. Any information being sent or received could potentially be intercepted by another wireless user. Wireless users should not transmit sensitive personal information (credit card numbers, passwords, etc.) while using this or any public wireless network.
    • Use of the Courts’ wireless connection is entirely at the users own risk. The Court is not responsible for any loss, injury, or damages resulting from the use of the wireless connection.
    • Patrons should be familiar with their own personal wireless devices and should have basic knowledge of how to connect their own devices to a wireless network. Court staff cannot provide technical assistance with personal devices or configurations and cannot guarantee that the user will be able to make a wireless connection.
    • Bring a FULLY CHARGED battery and prepare to be self-powered, as electrical outlets are not readily available in the public areas.
    • Electrical cords MAY NOT be strung across public traffic areas. Patrons will be asked to terminate their use of electrical power if court personnel determine that such use presents a safety hazard.
    • Use of the Courthouse electrical power is entirely at users own risk. The Court is not responsible for any loss, injury, or damages resulting from the use of the Courthouse electrical power. Users may not tamper with Courthouse electrical equipment or wiring.
    • Personal headphones are required for use with audio files.
    • Printing is not available via the wireless network.

    Here is some text from the Wireless Terms of Use (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/wireless_terms):

    Welcome to the Wireless Network for the United States District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia
    You have connected to the United States District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia’s Wireless Network. To use this network, you must read and accept the terms of use outlined in the Wireless Network Service Agreement / Terms of Use below and the Wireless Guidelines posted on our Internet Website (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov). If you do not accept these terms, you will not be able to access the Internet.

    WIRELESS NETWORK SERVICE AGREEMENT / TERMS OF USE
    Please read this agreement carefully before using our Wireless Network Services. This is an agreement between you and the U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for D.C. and their subsidiaries and/or affiliates (“USDBC-DC”, “we”, “us”, “our”) for your use of our wireless local area network communication services (“Wireless Network”, “the Service”). By either acknowledging this agreement and/or using/activating the Service, you agree to these terms.

    Our Wireless Network is available to your device only when it is in the operating range of our Wireless Network hot spot location(s). The Service is subject to unavailability, including emergencies, third party service failures, transmission, equipment or network problems or limitations, interference, signal strength, and maintenance and repair. The Service may be interrupted, refused, limited or curtailed.

    We are not responsible for data, messages or pages lost, not delivered or misdirected because of interruptions or performance issues with the Service, or the underlying network(s) and transmission equipment and systems. The accuracy and timeliness of data received is not guaranteed. Delays or omissions may occur. Actual network speed will vary based on your device configuration, location, compression, network congestion and other factors.

    PROHIBITED USE OF THE SERVICE / COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
    Reproduction, retransmission, dissemination or resale of the Service, whether for profit or not, is prohibited without our express, advance, written permission.
    You may not share your IP address or ISP internet connection with anyone, access the Service simultaneously through multiple units, or authorize any other individual or entity to use the Service.
    You may not use the Service for any purpose that’s unlawful, or in any manner that could damage our property or others’ property. You may not use the Service in any way that interferes with, harms or disrupts our system or other users.

    We have the right, but not the obligation, to suspend or terminate your access and use of the Service, and to block or remove (in whole or in part) any communications and materials transmitted through our Service that we believe in our sole discretion may violate applicable law, this Agreement or a third party’s rights, or that is otherwise inappropriate or unacceptable. We also have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor, intercept and disclose any transmissions over or using our facilities, and to provide use records, and related information under certain circumstances, such as response to lawful process, orders, warrants or subpoenas, or to protect our rights, property and users.

    CONTENT DISCLAIMER
    The internet contains materials that you may find objectionable or offensive. We don’t publish or control, and are not responsible or liable for, any third-party information, content, services, products, software or other material that can be accessed through the Service. You are solely responsible for evaluating the accuracy, completeness, and usefulness of all services, products and other information, and the quality and merchantability, accuracy, timeliness or delivery of such services, products and other information. You’re responsible for paying any charges that you incur from third parties through your use of the Service, and your personal information may be available to third parties that you access through the Service.

    PRIVACY AND SECURITY
    Wireless systems transmit voice and data communications over a complex network. The privacy and security of such voice and data transmissions cannot be guaranteed. You acknowledge that the Service is not inherently secure, and you understand that wireless communications can be intercepted by equipment and software designed for that purpose. We are not liable to you or any other party for any lack of privacy you experience while using the Service.

    DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
    The U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for D.C. are providing the Service on an “as is” and “as available” basis, with no warranties whatsoever. In no event will we be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, exemplary or any damages associated with your use of the Service. No advice given by the U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for D.C. or our representatives shall create a warranty. You assume all responsibility and risk associated with your use of the Service.

    Now I know that these Terms of Use and Guidelines went through some pretty extensive legal review before the “Open” wireless went active. Of course majority of the general public doesn’t run a Web site that could post such a legal statement. If you are like me, you older wireless router doesn’t even give the option of posting a Warning Banner to someone connecting to your network.
    My point with all this is that if the US District Court in DC can claim no liability because of the “Open” wireless service they provide, anyone else can. Now I’m no lawyer, but this definitely an area to consider.

  5. New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1 – 1474
    cv-10-05863-mej

    Heard anything? i just got a certified letter demanding $1500 by july 26th…
    ps. Siegel’s a douche…

    • Have not heard anything about that case to our knowledge. One thing is for sure, do not pay that idiot. We will try and look into it. Hey if you want to. Scan that letter and box out any personal information and post it for us and we will add it to our Copyright Troll Scam Letter section. It is up to you.

    • If they have your name and address cancel your ISP and go to one that does not keep records, do not except any mail from them, sign for nothing, tell the deliverer to send it back. Do not pay them or contact them either or answer their phone calls because they could record them and use it against you possibly. There are THOUSANDS of people they are trying to get. It would take them forever and lots of $$$ and time to take you to court. Their proof is laughable too. Do not pay these scum and extortionists. Record their phone calls on your machine and put them on the net.

      Just some food for thought. Read the other pages here too.

  6. Thanks for the help! Looked through tons of pages and this is the first one that I found that applied.

  7. My mother got one of these letters in the mail from Ira Siegel from something I allegedly downloaded, demanding $900 or else. She made the mistake of going to the copyright enforcement group site and filling out the info so now they have her name and address. What can I do? Just ignore it? Thanks!

    • People’s information has already been given over to Copyright Trolls. Just fight them when they take you to court which will be a while from now as it will take a lot of time and $$$ to do it. If you pay them $900 that will just fund them to go after more people and make them feel like you feel right now.

  8. What are the chances he will take us to court? I live in the northeast and this apparently was filed on behalf of Diabolic in California. Why would they go thru all the trouble over $900?

  9. Hi, I received an email from the law offices of Ira Siegel saying I need to settle by August 24th for the amount of $2,500 in order to be dismissed from this case as well –

    New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1 – 1474 cv-10-05863-mej.
    Has anyone else gotten one of these recently?

  10. Re: Your Copyright Infringement in Connection With
    Movie Title: Girls On Girls 16
    Studio: New Sensations Inc
    Case Management ID: 1941019

    THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER
    PLEASE CONSIDER CONSULTING YOUR OWN ATTORNEY

    Dear xxxx

    This firm represents the above-identified studio in connection with the enforcement, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. งง 106, 504 and 505, of its copyright in the above-named movie.

    A notice was previously sent to you on 12/06/2010 at 7:58:37 AM EST including the following infringement information, and providing you an opportunity to settle the copyright infringement claim against you:

    Infringement Title: Girls On Girls 16
    Infringement File Name: Girls.On.Girls.16.XXX.DVDRip.XviD-Pr0nStarS
    Infringement Hash: 6F96C39C87619B03358327FF5170697C55837052
    Infringement File Size: 1,478,352,941 bytes
    Infringement Protocol: BitTorrent
    Infringement Timestamp: 12/05/2010 05:26:27 PM EST
    Infringers IP Address: 68.190.46.172
    Infringers Port: 20261
    ISP: Charter Communications

    You did not take advantage of the opportunity, and that opportunity has passed.

    In music copyright cases, courts have been awarding about $2,000 for infringement of copyright per 3 minute song. Considering most movies are between 30 minutes and 90 minutes long, one would expect judgments to be much larger in movie copyright cases, such as the $30,000 per movie, plus attorney fees, awarded in Liberty Media Holdings, Inc. v. Quynn Alan Phillips, Case No. CV 11-0029 JAH (JMA) (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2011).

    You do have one opportunity to resolve this matter before litigation by paying a settlement of Nine Hundred ($900.00) dollars by the close of business on Monday, August 15, 2011.

    If you desire to resolve this matter, send the settlement payment of $900.00 in the form of a check or money order made payable to “Law Offices of Ira M. Siegel” with “Case Management ID: 1941019” written on the remittance/advice line of the check or money order, along with your signature on the Liability Release Agreement (see attached document) to this address:

    Law Offices of Ira M. Siegel
    P.O. Box 16952
    Encino, CA 91416

    With respect to the Liability Release Agreement, read it carefully. Once the money represented by your check or money order has actually been received in my attorney-client trust account, I will return to you a counter-signed Liability Release Agreement on behalf of New Sensations Inc, along with a Settlement Date and Release Security Code.

    Do NOT delete any files relating to the above-identified motion picture from any of your computers unless and until the above-identified studio’s copyright infringement claim against you is resolved by settlement or otherwise. If you do, in addition to damages, we will seek sanctions against you for spoliation (i.e., destruction or alteration) of evidence.

    As noted above, you should consider consulting with your own legal counsel. We look forward to resolving this case with you according to the terms set forth in the Liability Release Agreement.

    Sincerely,

    Ira M. Siegel

  11. just got this last week…. don’t know what to do:

    To:
    XXXXXX

    Re:
    Case Name: Media Products, Inc. DBA Devil’s Film v. DOES 1-1257
    Case No.: CV-10-04471-MEJ
    United States District Court for the Northern District of California

    Title of Infringed Motion Picture: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    File Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-NYMPHO
    Hash: 87A61004E34EA04C8E6C3B5482ACCCCE85D48434
    File Size: 1,461,071,728 bytes
    ISP: Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems)

    Doe No.: 271
    Case Management ID: 2263
    Timestamp: 03/17/2010 10:41:37 AM EDT
    Protocol: BitTorrent
    IP Address: XXXXXXXXXXX
    Port: 39438

    Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXX:

    We represent the Plaintiff in the above-identified case.

    Pursuant to a Court-approved subpoena, the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) named above and other ISPs have disclosed subscribers whose Internet accounts have been identified as having been used to download from and/or make available on the Internet unauthorized copies of the above-named motion picture in violation of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et cetera).

    You have been identified as one of those subscribers, in particular as Doe 271 in Case No. CV-10-04471-MEJ, who has infringed Plaintiff’s copyright in the above-named motion picture. The complaint in this case can be viewed online at http://cv-10-04471-mej.irasiegellaw.com/. We will formally name you as a defendant in that case if you do not reach a settlement with us by the close of business on Thursday, September 8, 2011.

    YOU SHOULD CONSIDER CONSULTING WITH YOUR OWN ATTORNEY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE.

    In connection with this case, we will seek, among other things, an award against you for damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement, and up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement, under the statutory damages provisions of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)), costs and attorney fees, and a permanent injunction.

    Do NOT delete any files relating to the above-identified motion picture from any of your computers unless and until Plaintiff’s claim against you is resolved by settlement or otherwise. If you do, in addition to damages, we will seek sanctions against you for spoliation (i.e., destruction or alteration) of evidence.

    To settle your infringement now, the settlement fee is $2,500.00. Also, as indicated above, the settlement fee must be received by us, on behalf of Plaintiff, by the close of business on Thursday, September 8, 2011.

    Settlement payment in the form of a check or money order should be made payable to “Law Offices of Ira M. Siegel,” with Case Management ID: 2263 written on the remittance/advice line of the check or money order.

    The payment, along with your signature on the Liability Release Agreement (see attached document) should be sent to this address:

    Law Offices of Ira M. Siegel
    P.O. Box 16952
    Encino, CA 91416

    With respect to the Liability Release Agreement, read it carefully. You will see that we have accommodated the reasonable interests of a defendant such as yourself. Once the money represented by your check or money order has actually been received in my attorney-client trust account, I will return to you the attached Liability Release Agreement signed by me on behalf of Plaintiff, along with a Settlement Date and Release Security Code. Shortly thereafter, a dismissal of you, identified by your Doe number, IP address and timestamp, from the case will be filed with the Court and sent to you as well.

    Juries and courts do take copyright infringement very seriously. As noted above, you should consider consulting with your own attorney in connection with this case. You and/or your attorney may research similar cases relating to unauthorized downloading of media, such as in the music industry.

    We look forward to resolving this case with you according to the terms set forth in the Liability Release Agreement. If we do not, then you may formally be brought into the case without further notice.

    Sincerely,

    Ira M. Siegel

  12. I received a letter informing me that my IP is being subpoena as a part of 11-cv-22103-PAS. I talked to an attorney in Illinois and he basically urged me to settle with them. I would like to quash this if possible.

  13. In an ongoing BitTorrent lawsuit of particular interest, in which the plaintiff’s lawyer has already refused to comply with a court order demanding to know how much money is being made from settlements, a judge has now dismissed all but one of the defendants. This welcome news for more than 5,000 John Does is further augmented by a wave of criticism from the presiding judge who clearly understands “copyright-troll” style lawsuits.

    As predicted, On The Cheap, LLC vs Does 1-5011 is proving to be a must-read case for anyone interested in mass anti-filesharing lawsuits in the United States.

    The case is one of the porn-based BitTorrent lawsuits filed in 2010 by Ira M. Siegel using evidence from the Copyright Enforcement Group. The ‘work’ in question is Danielle Staub Raw – a sex tape featuring reality show star Danielle Staub.

    The case has become particularly interesting during the last couple of weeks. Judge Bernard Zimmerman’s criticism has been developing on a number of fronts including a general lack of progress, issues of jurisdiction, joinder, and the nagging feeling that the court is being used a collection agency – i.e a means to an end of achieving cash settlements from BitTorrent users.

    Now, following Ira M. Siegel’s late and incomplete filing in response to a court order in late August, Judge Zimmerman has dealt a crippling blow to the case by dismissing all but one of the 5,000+ defendants.

    “Having reviewed plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause as well as an amicus brief filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and having considered the arguments of counsel, I find that almost 5,000 remaining Doe defendants are improperly joined..[..],” Zimmerman writes.

    In short, just because BitTorrent users may have participated in the same swarm at varying points in time it does not follow that they worked in concert. Furthermore, Judge Zimmerman ruled that having around 5,000 defendants in one case would not promote judicial efficiency, not least because many defendants will have their own unique defenses to the accusations.

    Of course, to keep costs down Ira M. Siegel and his client want to process defendants all at once and in common with almost all of these settlement-driven cases, avoid taking defendants to court. But in keeping up appearances to the contrary, that defendants will be taken to court, the whole premise begins to look ridiculous when the logistics are examined.

    “No courtroom in this building can hold over 200, let alone 5000,” said Judge Zimmerman.

    He then went on to bemoan the issues of jurisdiction which have plagued this and similar cases.

    “Plaintiff, well aware of the difficulties out-of-state and out-of-district defendants would face if required to appear in San Francisco, has nonetheless sent them settlement demands which apparently inform them they have been sued in this District.” This, notes the Judge, is incompatible with “principles of fundamental fairness.”

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Judge Zimmerman added an interesting footnote to his ruling which shows that he has a very clear understanding of what these mass anti-filesharing lawsuits are all about.

    “The Court’s concerns are heightened by plaintiff’s refusal to file under seal a copy of its settlement letter and related information about its settlement practices. The film sells for $19.95 on plaintiff’s website. According to public reports, plaintiffs in other BitTorrent cases, rather than prosecuting their lawsuits after learning the identities of Does, are demanding thousands of dollars from each Doe defendant in settlement,” Judge Zimmerman begins.

    “If all this is correct, it raises questions of whether this film was produced for commercial purposes or for purposes of generating litigation and settlements. Put another way, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact copyright laws ‘to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts’.

    “If all the concerns about these mass Doe lawsuits are true, it appears that the copyright laws are being used as part of a massive collection scheme and not to promote useful arts,” he concludes.

  14. I received a letter from my ISP informing me it is being subpoena as a part of 11-cv-04776 K. Beech, Inc v. John Does 1-39 case. I have until mid -October to file motion to quash the Subpoena else my ISP will hand over my personal contact details to the plaintiff lawyers. What should I do if I don want to be dragged into this legal mess. Shall wait it out and settle or file a motion that I am bit hesitant to do.
    Anyone has any updates on this case or has been names? Any imput will be much appreciated. THanks.

  15. I might be a defendant in New Sensations Inc v. Does 1-1474. I received a subpoena from my ISP, Verizon, that if I do not do anything in 30 days, they will release my information.
    I do not want to hire an attorney, too expensive, nor do I want to go to court. If I ignore it, do they have a chance to default against me? If so, I feel like I want to just settle when they ask me to so that I don’t go through the trouble of defending.

    I have checked on http://www.rfcexpress.com/index.asp and the plaintiff/plaintiff attorney appears to not have local counsel in New York. Does that mean I have a low chance of getting sued? I’m pretty freaked out and would just like to pay the settlement for all this to go away

    • I too got the same mail just today. I rent my house out and I believe it was a previous tenant. please advise! I do not want to pay the settlement or go to court. Should I get a motion to quash?

  16. I might be a defendant in Patrick Collins, Inc v. Does 1-2590. I received a subpoena from my ISP, CenturyLink(QWest), that if I do not do anything in 30 days, they will release my information.

    they are claiming that i downloaded a porn video from BitTorrent which i didn’t. i don’t even use that program. and i don’t have money to pay an attorney.

    it says that it is filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California.

    should i just ignore this and when they start calling me or something for a settle just keep ignoring them or what? what is the worst case scenario here?

    • I, too, am part of this case and just received my notice last Friday. (I’m with Cox Communications).

      From everything I’m reading, it sounds like a Motion to Quash and have it sealed with an attorney takes time and money, which I don’t know if I have in the first place.

      Is anyone familiar with any attorneys in Nebraska that do this sort of thing? Has anyone filed a Motion to Quash, and what was the general process, time requirement, and cost associated with that?

      I guess my only other option would be to just let it go and then just return (Not sign for) any mail they try to send me going forward, as my personal information would obviously have been released by my ISP by that point. Unless someone has any other options?

  17. I got one for new sensations 1-1474 for ira douche. I read on another forum its speculated this will be dismissed within this month. anyone got any good advise on what to do?

  18. Also one of the 1-1474. Received the letter last week and i’m mulling over what to do. I’m still confused on the whole motion to quash scenario. I have until the 14th of November to reply to IP and I don’t even know what that will do. I read about sealing the motion and replying anonymously (just your doe #) but I’m hearing conflicting reports that it does anything. If I submit the motion to quash and its rejected, does that do any more to protect me or is it a waste of time? The papers are filed in an out of state court so I’m not even sure how this works with jurisdiction.

    For the previous anonymous, where are you reading up on this case and potentially being dismissed? I’m having a hard time finding info on this case so I’d be happy to read more about it, thanks!

    • Do not be too worried about it, they are mainly banking on you sending them money and them not having to do anything but scare you. It would take years and lots and lots of $$$$ to get everyone. So stop stressing over it. Motion to quash with a lawyer if you have the money. But if not do not worry about it.

      • So no motion to quash, no consulting with a lawyer, nothing?

        I just read the occasional default verdicts and just read a story about two individuals needing to pay up $20,000 (10k each) in a recent verdict and that leaves me a little uneasy. Not trying to sound unthankful for your advice, just I’ve obviously never dealt with something like this before and just ignoring it sounds like a risky idea.

  19. I am also one of the “lucky” 1474s. I have spoken with two lawyers (recommended by the EFF). Both seem to have the same advice on doing nothing and waiting on your ISP to release the information. After they release it, we are going to get hit by the settlement offer.

    This is where the lawyers had differing views. They did both agree that the cost of having to try someone out of CA would be very high which would most likely deter the plaintiff. One, however, seemed to favor settling much more than the other.

    I guess what I’m most worried about is not taking the settlement and having Siegel decide to pursue me in my state. If that happens, I could try to get another offer (at a much higher rate) or decide to get legal representation (again, at a much higher rate). Needless to say, dispute the advice above, a settlement offer (especially one of $900) seems very lucrative.

    Any comments / advice?

      • Happy to hear that I’m not the only one in this situation. The lawyers gave you the advice to not file a motion to quash? I’m not from California or from NY (one of the addresses on the paper work) so I’m not sure what to do. I’ve looked for templates for the motion to quash and they all confuse me to be honest. I don’t have much money and going to a lawyer wasn’t much of an option for me. I have until the 13th of next month to get back to my IP before they release my info and I’ve been stuck in limbo the past week trying to get my ahead around what to do.

        • More or less, from what I was told (I didn’t ask about self filing a quash), it would cost a lawyer around $750 (estimate only from one lawyer, not saying it applies to all). If they sent it in, make sure that they leave your information out of it (which is exactly what they are asking for) and only refer to you as Doe XXX with your IP address.

          Mainly what I got from the lawyer and whether to quash or not, is that as long as one person in our case chooses to do so, it more or less applies to us. The only impact that more quashes would have would be to influence the judge more so.

          Again, it is all about playing the game. Wait for your ISP to release your information, wait for the plaintiff to perform an analysis on the defendants. Analyze your settlement offer. Determine if the cost of settling exceeds the chance of further litigation.

          Once again, I am saying this based entirely on my knowledge (which is quite limited). I could be completely wrong which is why I was seeking further opinions and advice in my original post.

          • So if someone else sends in a quash its just as good as me doing it? With over 1,473 other people in this case I can assume a fair share of quashes should go through then? If i do or dont send in a quash is it more or less likely I’ll be contacted after my information is released? I’ve heard some people say to just play the “ignore” card and don’t settle while others say to settle if the price isn’t too rich. Roughly for me anything over 1,000 will be too much.

            If the judge sees the quashes is there a chance she dismisses the case and we don’t have to deal with the troll? Obviously I don’t know what to expect here and from all that I’ve read I only get more confused. I guess the concern over this and how its confusing me is what the plaintiff is banking on…

            • From what I know, additional quashes do help the cause, but only in a minimal way after an initial quash is received. It kind of leads back to my question on whether anyone knows about how Judge Maria-Elena James views these cases. If she is like the majority of Judges, then extra quashes could impacted her to the point of dismissing the case. I have a feeling, though, that if this case does get dismissed, it will be after the ISPs have released our information.

              I more or less am at the point where I am not going to allow my ISP to immediately release my information, or am I going to file a motion to quash. I am just letting the cards fall now and am waiting on my settlement letter. It is what I should do with that offer that I was hoping to hear about.

              • Still trying to figure out this case and see if or how I can file a motion to quash on my own. Don’t have the money or the ability to consult with a lawyer and fear with the impending date of my IP releasing my info that I will be in hot water soon. I just can’t find a proper form to make my own quality motion to quash and I’m at the point of depression and fear that I’m going to be in severe financial trouble here…

  20. I just searched the CA Northern District and found that CV-10-05863-MEJ has been voluntarily dismissed as of 10-5-11, apparently against all John Does.

    Office: San Francisco Filed: 12/23/2010
    Jury Demand: Plaintiff Demand:
    Nature of Suit: 820 Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition: Dismissed – Voluntarily
    County: Los Angeles Terminated: 10/05/2011
    Origin: 1 Reopened:

    Lead Case: None
    Related Case: None Other Court Case: None
    Def Custody Status:
    Flags: ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, ProSe

    Plaintiff: New Sensations, Inc represented by Ira M. Siegel Phone: 310-435-7656
    Fax: 310-657-2187
    Email: irasiegel@earthlink.net

    Defendant: Does 1-1745
    Defendant: Doe 733 represented by Michael A. Cifelli Phone: 201-896-4100
    Fax: 201-896-8660
    Email: MCifelli@scarincihollenbeck.com

    Defendant: Doe 733 represented by Robert D. Eassa Phone: (510) 444-3131
    Fax: (510) 839-7940
    Email: robert.eassa.service@filicebrown.com

    Defendant: Ronald Burr, Jr.
    Defendant: John Doe 173.76.128.164 represented by Jason E Sweet Phone: 617-250-8619
    Fax: 617-250-8883
    Email: jsweet@boothsweet.com

    Defendant: N-I-Tech, LLC
    Defendant: John Doe #895
    Defendant: John Doe 113 represented by Jason E Sweet Phone: 617-250-8619
    Fax: 617-250-8883
    Email: jsweet@boothsweet.com

    Defendant: Daniel Kane

  21. Per review of court documents, a motion to quash was filed and denied by the judge. This motion was filed by a Doe, so it was dismissed without prejudice. This means that if you choose to file another motion, it will have to be on a individual basis.

  22. Just to keep you update and in good spirits, there was another motion to quash that has been filed with the courts. This motion was filed by another anonymous doe on the basis that he/she has been receiving constant abuse from the plaintiff. Due to this abuse, the doe is seeking to remain anonymous. I haven’t completely analyzed the filing as of now, but the doe is bringing up numerous preceding rulings. All in all, it is a 15 page motion. I will keep you informed on any details I make from it / the ruling on it as it become available. Stay strong.

  23. Another John Doe in 1-1474. I haven’t had the money or knowledge to file for a motion to quash/ I don’t know whether it will have a significant effect, so I didn’t. On the letter I got from Comcast, it said that they will be releasing my “name, address, and other information” tomorrow, November 1st. So I should be expecting a settlement offer (for around $1000) from Ira Douche sometime soon?

    What sort of action can I take after Comcast has released my information? I never downloaded the said file!

    • If the settlement is 1000 I wouldn’t be too bothered. Ok I would but I’m hearing it will likely be 2,500-3,000 for a settlement. Many of the motions are being dismissed so I’m not very hopefully that a motion would do much good right now.

      I’m also in the same boat as you, not sure what to do when I start to get the harassment letters/calls trying to extort the money out of me for fear of damaging my name.

      • This is completely bogus! I had no part in downloading that movie and I’ll be damned if they try to take money or tarnish my name.

  24. So anyone here from the older ira siegel new sensations case? 1-1768 I think… I know it was dismissed but I’m sure the letters have continued after the fact to the individuals. I haven’t been able to find any evidence that smaller cases were filed but I don’t know if a proxy was handling the case. I’m one of those listed in the 1-1474 case and Im interested to know what I have in store for me over the next few weeks and months when me info gets released next week.

  25. I’m a (currently) anonymous doe that’s been targeted by Siegel. I’m going to ride it out until he takes me to court. But I have my worries that I could get in trouble because I upgraded my hard drive a couple months ago and trashed the old drive because it was inaccessible. I don’t want to settle but I also don’t want to go to jail for tampering with evidence. I didn’t knowingly do this in order to avoid forensic investigation, I was ligitemently replacing broken hardware because I couldn’t even start my laptop and I didn’t know that there was evidence of infringement on my IP address at the time. But from what I’m seeing from these cases… you’re guilty no matter what even when you prove your innocence. And without a hard drive that dates back til before a supposed infringement could I go to jail?

    • I also question this. The alleged infringement happened almost a year ago. I’ve since gone out and acquired a new computer while trashing the old one. The old computer was a laptop with a broken keyboard and fan so it was no functional. I trashed it since it was unusable but now with this issue coming up a year later I’m expected to have kept “evidence” that I didn’t even know may be important?

      The timeframe here is not acceptable. If they came to me a month later and requested my computer I could produce it, now I’m left looking like I’m tampering with evidence.

      • Apparently they look at your hard drive with an electron microscope to find stuff when they subpoena your computer. But most veteran pirates know to download straight to an external drive attached to a router and run bittorrent programs straight from a USB drive so that can both be trashed in the event of an emergency. These are the people that download thousands of copyrighted works daily and share freely. Some people run slave computers that are like “servers” full of content. Also I fail to understand how the presence of bittorrent software automatically equals theft. They can sue you if you have a bittorrent program even if you don’t have the files. Because having that software apparently automatically makes you a thief even though you could create torrent files to collaborate on a school project or share uncopyrighted video footage. Or download open source software. It’s a sad day when liberty is under fire like this.

  26. do any one know anything about the Patrick Collins, Inc v. Does 1-2590? i got i subpoena saying i downloaded/share some porn video with BitTorrent which i don’t even have.

  27. Im a doe 1-1474 member – just got the subpoena letter from ISP from Seigel – i dont know what this is about or what to do – the ISP in in my wifes name, and i worried for her even tho we have nothing to do with this.. How do you file a motion to quash anonymously? and can it be done by yourself or will i need a lawyer from MO where the plaintiff filed..? Any suggestions on attny and costs..? i dont want to settle if i have no idea why this is happening to us.. we dont do downloading porn – i think weve be hacked or scammed!! Any suggestions or comments to this is appreciated.. I dont have money to throw in the fire since we cant even afford electric and food & am outta work..

  28. CV-11-2270-MEJ is my case No. They emailed me and I responded because it all seemed legit. Dumb me didn’t search it up first, found the Website – http://irasiegellaw.com/index_5MSZ.html – and it’s a total crock. Spelling error here and there and such. Can anyone give me insight as to the Case No and what I should do since I responded via the email already? Thanks!

  29. does 1-2590
    I have the settlement cost $2500.00 due by Dec 25, 2011. I never down load that Porn Movie.I did call
    my ISP Server (Qwest Communications), they say I did down load illegally on that date and they also
    said if it happen again they will ban my service for life.Do you think this is true? Do I have to pay the
    $2500. to Ira M Siegel. What should I do ??? Please help

    • Did you receive a subpoena from your isp for your info release..? How did he get your info..? I would be a tough case for them to prove anyhow b/c their is not evidence.. Maybe your wifi signal was breached or someone else used your inet to do this without your knowledge.. Nonetheless.. Dont pay them one dime because these vultures thrive because of people settling which in turn allows them more funds to attack and extort money from others..

  30. i also recieved the notice from my ISP that they had to give up my information in the 2590 case. I didnt download it, but i think my son probably did. He was living with us back then and had his pc in the house, both his and mine were running wireless. What right do i have in a situation like that?

  31. I just yesterday received papers for these rediculious allegations… Who is the defense lawyers for all these people in the same situation as I am???

    • Do not worry about a lawyer till you get a summons in the court. Many people have got these letters though and nothing has happened for months. They are expecting you to just pay and make them money without lifting a finger. Psychological mind job. They are scared to go to court though cause if they loose they pay for everything heh. As to which lawyer to use, it all depends on where you live really to which is their own.

    • Actually it just means that suit got killed. It does not mean you cant be sued in your PROPER Jusidiction.

      Odds of that happening? no idea but probably smallish unless your in CA because that would have been proper jusidiction for those that live there.

      thanks for the link btw..always nice so people can make a hard copy

      as an aside to curious 1-1474 minds–some things to consider

      First… If your crappy ISP has not turned over your info yet call them and tell them to DO NOT.
      If it would make you feel better print out the link provided in above post and FAX to ISP legal dept so they cant claim ignorance and turn over your info “accidently”!

      Second…consider whether you are “Judgement Proof” meaning even if you lost a lawsuit they couldnt collect (and dont forget about a local filing mechanism to protect your home if you own one–various states have Homestead type forms that can be filed that can protect your home in cases of big liablity) And dont forget Bankruptcy as an alternative if you lost a suit!

      Third…find out how long your crappy ISP holds customer log info (the sites your IP visits)
      If your ISP gets subpoen’d but after they wipe out that info you should be unfindable for that occurance

      Fourth…make plans to scrap the lousy stinking ISP that didnt even file a Motion to Quash JUST as a general good business practice for thier own part. You know..as in just keeping the law working according to its rules as THEY know that if your in NY you cant be sued in CA as its not the proper jurisdiction

      As you would have not been a party to the subpoena THAT is why they get rejected ie..the court doesnt know who you are (your info has not been turned over yet) so you have no legal standing to file Quash

      dang I been lernin a boatload lately :))))))))
      just offering info as I see it
      good luck all

      • one more thing
        Statute of Limitations..3 yrs I believe?
        from date of alleged infraction?? dunno

        also..none of this applies to any mitigation measures your ISP may want to apply against you on
        thier own (downgrading connection speeds,cancelling service,etc)
        thats a completely separate issue that may have to be dealt with

  32. 1-1474 has been cleared indeed. Thanks for the Link for the final Order. For all those receiving anything from Ira Siegel, screw him. He may be a legit lawyer or whatever (I cannot verify), but he is full of scam material. Unless you live in CA jurisdiction, he cannot do anything. Should you receive any Subpeonas from your ISP, definitely tell them to not to release. Should he get your information via that method, he could try to get you through a PI or something in the state you live in. Depends on how aggressive he wishes to be, or he can use your information to start some other scam on you.

    Wish we could go against this guy….

    • I just received a “Notice of Copyright Infringement” email. I haven’t clicked the “Direct Settlement Link”.

      I am thinking of just paying this off. Does anyone have any experience with just paying it off?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s