Downloading Pirated Movies Can Damage Your Career And Cost You Thousands Of Dollars

George,

Following up on a voice message I just left for you. Please know that my firm represents Patrick Collins, Inc. (“PCI”) as its attorney in its copyright enforcement campaign. We would very much like the opportunity to explain what we are doing through PCI’s copyright enforcement campaign, why is legal and ethical and indeed absolutely necessary given that PCI’s copyrights are being infringed over 50,000 times a month. Indeed, unless my client enforces its copyrights, the public will come to learn that it can infringe my client’s copyrights with impunity. When that happens, my client fears that it business will suffer more or even fail since its primary product is a movie capable of being converted into a digital media file and downloaded illegally through the internet. The way I see it, PCI’s decision to enforce its copyrights is really no different, except that PCI’s store is on-line, than Home Depot’s decision to prosecute every person who shoplifts from it.

I would also like to discuss with you the nature of my client’s evidence of infringement against John or Jane Does like Ms.. Specifically, my client’s investigator has a server and a software program that monitors the internet. When John or Jane Does, here a person using an IP address assigned to Ms. , enters a BitTorrent swarm of people uploading and downloading my client’s movie, the infringer sends my client’s investigator’s server a piece of a copyrighted movie. That is proof of the infringement. The investigator’s server then merely records the IP address. We then subpoena the Internet Service Provider who was assigned the IP address for redistribution to its subscribers. The ISP then correlate the IP address to the infringer. The server does not transmit any information. This type of evidence has been tested in jury trials.

Further, to the extent you are interested, I will point you in the direction of materials from the U.S. government which indicates that there is a national public policy articulated by the President, Senators and Congressmen which states that fighting on-line infringement is in the nation’s interest because on-line piracy costs U.S. companies jobs, discourages the creative arts, among other reasons. Please know that we certainly have no fear of being reported to police or attorney generals. You should know, however, criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and the department of justice. State governments do not get involved. Indeed, I have so far been contacted by two police people who both after investigating advised the Doe that the dispute is legitimate.

Finally, I would like to explain to you why my client believes it must, in order to preserve the credibility of the campaign, enter into settlement agreements with every infringer or sue them individually. As I will explain, the Recording Industry Association of America pioneered this type of mass copyright litigation. As the RIAA concluded, and my client also believes, the copyright enforcement campaign will lose credibility if it does not follow this course of action.

All things considered, after we have talked, I am hopeful that the tone of your article will be one that warns the public not engage in online infringement, explains the public policy prohibiting on-line infringement, and explains the consequence of on-line infringement, including the possibility of being sued like Ms.. Any such article would be a real public service and my client would welcome it. Indeed, my client’s strongest desire is that the 50,000 plus people a month that illegally download its movies purchase them legally. If these infringers did so, my client’s revenue would increase by nearly a million dollars a month, most of the pirated movie retail for around $18.75. A million dollars a month is far more than my client can ever reasonably expect to generate from its copyright campaign.

While I am sure your article will be truthful, accurate and un-slanted, as I am sure you will appreciate, my client’s reputation for being a law abiding and ethical corporate citizen is important to it. Accordingly, should an article be written that in any way asserts or implies that my client is doing anything unlawful, unethical or that in any other way distorts the truth, my client will have no choice but take the appropriate actions against the person and entity that so published any such article. We hope and trust that no such actions will be necessary here.

I look forward to talking with you. My contact information is set forth in my signature block below.

With my best regards,

Keith Lipscomb

Lipscomb Eisenberg, PL

2 Biscayne Blvd.

Penthouse Suite 3800

Miami, Florida 33131

George,

To: M. Keith Lipscomb

Cc: M. Keith Lipscomb; c@ymail.com; copyright

Subject: Re: [FWD: As I mentioned Elizabeth Jones in my voice mail to you today I am writing a column about you and your company’s conduct in this matter which has been

 

Great

How do you know it was downloaded at her home and not by a neighbor through her unprotected wifi ?

 

Sent from George’s iPhone

 

It’s an interesting question and a frequent assertion by subscribers/infringers.

 

First, by establishing that the subscriber’s IP address was used to commit the infringement, we have pled a prima facie case for copyright infringement. In response to our prima facie case, a Doe can defend on the basis that its wifi was hacked pleading it in an answer and affirmative defenses.

 

Should that defense ever be raised in a litigation then, among other things, my clients would investigate by verifying how far the subscriber’s wifi signal carries. Most modems don’t project signals far enough to establish a good connection into a neighboring house. If it did carry a signal to another house then we would, subpoena and depose the Doe’s neighbors to ascertain whether: (a) they have a computer, (b) they have internet service, and (c) they have ever used a neighbor’s open access wifi connection. If the neighbors have a computer and internet then there is no reason to hack.

 

Also, we would subpoena the subscriber’s ISP again requesting that it provide us with all of the DMCA notices that were sent to the subscriber, as well as any electronic evidence the ISP has regarding megabit usage. DMCA notices or excessive usage are strong indicators of peer to peer infringement. By way of background, DMCA notices warn that infringement is occurring on the subscriber’s account. Additionally, if we have a MAC address from the ISP, we can correlate the IP address to the specific computer. Further, to enable BitTorrent to work, one has to install what is called a BitTorrent Client, which is a software program, on one’s computer. If that program is on the infringer’s computer then that is strong evidence that the subscriber is the infringer. If the subscriber throws the computer away, however, I am pretty sure that the “I did not do it, I do not have the computer on which it was done” defense was expressly rejected by a jury in one of the RIAA cases. If it was a visitor to the subscriber’s house, the subscriber always has the option to tell us that. E.g., if the kids, grandkids, maid or nanny were visiting on the date in question, tell us and we will figure it between the affected parties.

 

Here is the bottom line, however, merely because a Doe could possibly prove that its wifi was hacked and that it was not the infringer does not make my client’s copyright enforcement campaign overbroad, unlawful or unethical. To underscore the point, let me pose the question back to you: What would you do if your revenue model was pay per download and your articles were being illegally downloaded on the scale that my client’s digital movies are being illegally downloaded? I think you would do the same thing. I know I would and I am personally very proud to be defending my client’s copyrights to the best of my ability.

 

Finally, without supporting evidence, you should know, neither my client nor I are inclined to initially believe subscribers who make the assertion that their wifi must have been hacked. Indeed, this defense is such a frequent refrain that if we were to believe it, we’d also have to believe that wifi hacking were extraordinarily rampant. It just doesn’t make logical sense, to us, that this what is going on in the overwhelming majority of instances where the defense is proffered.

 

One more thing about this campaign, if you are going to a truly in depth article about it, you should look at the other actors in the BitTorrent community. I think if explore the feasibility of suing torrent websites like www.piratebay.com or the software companies that produce BitTorrent Clients you will find that the torrent sites are run by professional thieves who secret themselves in remote locations across the country, and the software companies intentionally design their software so that they can assert that their software has legitimate non-infringing uses. After studying this problem, my client which has a legitimate business need to enforce its copyrights made the decision that there is no good way to do it except for filing claims against end users.

 

I hope this answers your question. I look forward to reading a fair and balanced article. I remain available to discuss these issues with you via phone or by further email correspondence.

 

Best regards,

Keith