This week Rightscorp, which has been hopelessly struggling to save its floor-hitting stock from being delisted from NASDAQ, was hit with yet another lawsuit, this time in Georgia (Melissa Brown and Ben Jenkins v. Righscorp, Inc. et al, GAMD 15-cv-00012).
The complaint is short and concentrates on a single deliberate violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act — harassing robocalling and messaging without the recipients’ consent. This is not a class action, and the plaintiffs seek an award of trebled statutory damages ($1,500 per each call). Depending on how many violations the court will find actionable, it may result in a hefty sum. In any case, if the plaintiffs prevail (which is most likely going to happen), this precedent has a potential of opening a floodgate of similar actions: in its latest press release (1/22/2015) the troll claimed that it “closed over 170,000” cases of copyright infringement.” How many of these “closures” are the result of unlawful telephone harassment? Just imagine if every robocall recipient decides that he/she wants a small piece of the Rightscorp’s flesh!
The plaintiffs are represented by Sergei Lemberg.
Tag: Copyright Troll
Despite an overwhelming proof of innocence, Malibu’s lawyers continue dragging the defendant through a frivolous lawsuit
Remember how copyright troll M. Keith Lipscomb, after finding out beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt that a defendant in a Malibu Media Bittorent infringement case is absolutely innocent, threatened to ruin his life nonetheless? Today we witness a painfully similar scenario: after the defendant in Malibu Media v. Roberto Roldan (FLMD 13-cv-03007) filed an alibi-grade proof that he couldn’t have been an infringer, Lipscomb & Co doubled down in a futile attempt to save face and avoid paying attorney fees.
This case was conceived on 11/27/2013. In the complaint, Malibu claimed the infringement of 40 XArt’s hardcore porn flicks. After Brighthouse sold its subscriber’ identity to the troll, Lipscomb decided to name not the subscriber, but his son. Why? Because he is a young male and because he liked some popular music and movies on Facebook — the titles that were allegedly shared using the IP address in question. In addition, the LexisNexis’s Accurint database [incorrectly] listed the defendant as a tenant in his parents’ house at the dates the alleged infringement was recorded.
Giganews Wins Again in Perfect 10 Copyright Battle
Adult magazine publisher Perfect 10 is one of the most litigious publishers in the online space.
The company has made a business out of suing Internet services for alleged copyright infringement and in recent years has targeted Google, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, RapidShare and Depositfiles, and even hosting providers LeaseWeb and OVH.
While Perfect 10 has secured several private settlements, court victories in contested cases have not been forthcoming. The publisher had hoped of success in its current and prolonged legal battle with Usenet provider Giganews but things are not going well.
In a November 2014 ruling the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that Giganews was not liable for the infringing activities of its users. The provider now has further reason to celebrate thanks to a ruling from the same Court.
Rather than simply roll over under pressure from Perfect 10’s legal team, Giganews put up a vigorous and comprehensive defense to the publisher’s claims. During 2014 Giganews sought and obtained several discovery orders requiring the adult publisher to produce potentially huge amounts of data relating to its claim against the provider
(…)
Perfect 10 didn’t even produce evidence related to the infringement at the heart of the case.