Welcome to the Cashman Law Firm, P.L.L.C. blog covering intellectual property topics such as patent law and patent litigation. We are located at 5142 Darnell St., Houston, TX 77096. Our phone number is 713-364-3476.

While scrolling down to view the law content, articles, opinions, and blog postings, please feel free to e-mail me with any questions you may have.

Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, a Houston, TX law firm helps clients protect their inventions by filing for a patent, enforce their inventions when companies try to steal or infringe the patents [through licensing, negotiations, sale, or if necessary, a patent litigation suit], and protects the inventor and his company by protecting the inventor's assets, property, or home against foreclosure should it become in the inventor's interest to close up shop and file bankruptcy.

If you have any questions about the articles in this blog, feel free to
e-mail me at rzcashman@cashmanlawfirm.com.

***Again, please scroll down to view the articles.***

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Can I get caught viewing streamed copyrighted videos?


Last month, I wrote an article entitled, “Whether internet porn viewers ‘should expect viewing histories to be made public.”  The fear that prompted that article was that someone could hack into the logs of a porn-streaming website, and with that information, expose the porn viewing habits of millions of Americans.  The conclusion of that article was that it would be difficult for a hacker to hack into a website which streams adult content, steal the website’s logs containing the IP addresses of those who have viewed the web pages which stream the videos, and then somehow correlate that IP address list with the actual identities of the internet users.  Thus, I do not expect to see any Ashley Madison hacks for websites streaming copyrighted content anytime soon.

The next question people asked was, “can I be sued for viewing copyrighted content on a YouTube-like site?”  In short, the answer is yes, you can be sued, but it will likely never happen.  Here’s why:


While a hacker would likely be able to obtain the IP address records from a pornography website’s analytics through theft, a copyright enforcement company such as CEG-TEK or RightsCorp would be unable to get this information without 1) a court order, or 2) the cooperation of the adult website itself.  The reason for this is that 1) porn website owners are notoriously outside the U.S., and thus, they are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts.  The copyright holders could try suing the website owners, but this is often a difficult task (finding an elusive website owner outside the U.S. is a much more difficult task than suing internet users who participate in a bittorrent swarm to obtain files using BitTorrent).

While the analytics companies could be sued and forced to disclose the list of IP addresses for a particular website, this is also an unlikely scenario because complying with such a court order directing them to turn over records for one of their clients’ websites could be 1) illegal, and 2) it could put them in jeopardy of being sued by their customer.  So this is not a likely outcome.

Secondly, the copyright holders could “join forces” with the website owners to participate in the financial earnings of going after the downloaders (alternatively, they could be outright paid to disclose this information), but again, doing so would put the websites own visitors (their own customers) in financial jeopardy, and thus they would likely not participate in such a scheme.


In short, it is unlikely that a copyright holder would be able to obtain this needed list of IP addresses of those who viewed certain copyrighted content, and thus, with a streaming site, the copyright holders would likely not be able to learn who you are.

NOTE: It is still advisable to use a VPN when accessing a site streaming content, because your own ISP could be monitoring your web viewing habits, and they ARE in the U.S., and they could be sued and/or pressured to hand over “evidence” that your account visited a particular web page at a certain date and time.  It is unlikely this would ever happen, but it is best to err on the side of caution.

To date [and as far as I am aware], all of the copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Courts (the federal courts) across the U.S. have been for BITTORRENT ACTIVITY.

With very few exceptions where the copyright holder identified and sued the UPLOADER (the one who POSTED the video onto the website) based on a watermark or secret code embedded into the copyrighted video that identified the accused infringer as being the one who disseminated the copyrighted materials, there has never been a “John Doe” bittorrent lawsuit against a downloader who got caught by viewing content streamed on a YouTube-like website.  This is not to say that there will not be one in the future based on future internet fingerprint IDs forced upon internet users by government entities, or the like.


Thus, copyright holders have not yet and likely will never go through the initial step of 1) suing the website owner to obtain the list of IP addresses, and for this reason, I have not seen and do not foresee seeing lawsuits filed against internet users who view copyrighted content using a YouTube-like streaming service.

This is not to suggest or encourage that someone use this medium of viewing copyrighted films as technology can change, laws can change, and as the courts loosen their long-arm jurisdiction against foreign corporations and entities (weakening the Asahi case), the United States might start asserting its jurisdictions over foreign countries or foreign entities or corporations, and they might start forcing an internet fingerprint ID on the citizenry to track each citizen’s internet usage.  The takeaway, however, is that it is a lot harder to sue someone for viewing streamed content rather than suing someone for downloading content via bittorrent.

NOTE: An obvious exception to this article are those who have created accounts using their real identity or contact information, either 1) to participate or comment on forums or in the comment sections of the websites, or 2) those who pay a monthly or annual membership to access the premium content (e.g., faster speeds, unlimited content, etc.).  If you have an account on a website which streams content, then YES, your identity is at risk, and your viewing habits could be exposed for the world to see.  Otherwise, likely not.

Filed under: Streamed Content Tagged: copyright infringement, Streamed content, YouTube Websites

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1l4cOnt

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Florida Judge dismisses a Malibu case because Lipscomb failed to establish a connection between an IP address and person


Well written article, and good references. I have nothing to add because the article speaks for itself. The comments are just as interesting, especially mentioning Lipscomb’s Hawk Technology Systems, LLC *patent* infringement case. Yes, patent infringement (right down my alley).

Originally posted on Fight Copyright Trolls:

Even if this IPaddress is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.

From Judge Ungaro’s Order

We saw it coming: in less than two months in the Southern District of Florida, a venue where copyright troll Keith Lipscomb’s command and control is located,

View original 534 more words

Filed under: Uncategorized

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1phZxrc

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Florida Judge dismisses a Malibu case because Lipscomb failed to establish a connection between an IP address and person


Well written article, and good references. I have nothing to add because the article speaks for itself. The comments are just as interesting, especially mentioning Lipscomb’s Hawk Technology Systems, LLC *patent* infringement case. Yes, patent infringement (right down my alley).

Originally posted on Fight Copyright Trolls:

Even if this IPaddress is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.

From Judge Ungaro’s Order

We saw it coming: in less than two months in the Southern District of Florida, a venue where copyright troll Keith Lipscomb’s command and control is located,

View original 534 more words

Filed under: Uncategorized

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1oIgW9Z

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Big news: Judge rules that the copyright troll’s complaint does not meet pleading standards

Reblogged from Fight Copyright Trolls:

Click to visit the original post

Yesterday Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted a motion to dismiss the case Elf-Man v. Does 1-152 (WAWD 13-cv-00507). This motion was filed on 10/30/2013 by Michael P. Matesky on behalf of three named defendants. The parties presented their oral arguments in front of the judge on 1/15/2014; even though I was not there, I can imagine the judge’s attitude towards the troll by merely looking at the…

Read more… 965 more words

This is big... BIG news. Having a judge rule that the boilerplate copyright infringement complaint is insufficient forces the "copyright troll" attorneys to write more specific allegations... something they would like to avoid AT ALL COSTS. This is one judge in one federal court, but now there is case law in Washington that the other judges must follow as "law." Other federal courts in other states will refer to this case for support, but they will not be bound by it. Looking for more rulings like this one in other federal courts. Go justice!

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1fWt2LQ

Friday, September 13, 2013

“Swarm joinder theory” and “Judicial Economy” refuted in Missouri Joinder Ruling

Add Missouri to the list of state unfriendly to copyright trolls. And, congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients who have been severed and dismissed from the Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-91 (Case No. 4:12-cv-02292) lawsuit!

Now what was exciting about this Purzel Video GMBH case ruling was U.S. District Judge Audrery Fleissig’s 1) refutation of the “judicial economy” justification for joinder, and 2) his clarification of the relationship between bittorrent users for joinder purposes (and similarly, what he left open for future rulings by referring to bittorrent transfers as mere “pieces”).

Courts in other federal jursidictions which allow multiple defendants to be sued together in bittorrent cases (pro-joinder jurisdictions) allow joinder of non-related defendants based on the fact that it is easier to have one “John Doe 1-500″ case with five hundred (500) defendants in it rather than to have five hundred “single John Doe” lawsuits. The defendants in these cases are all accused of violating the same copyright laws; the defendants are all accused of using bittorrent to download the same title; the courts are all deciding the same issues for each defendant — whether the court has “personal jurisdiction” over each defendant (whether the plaintiffs sued defendants in the wrong state, depriving that federal court of personal jurisdiction over each John Doe Defendant), and whether the defendants are properly joined together as co-defendants in the same lawsuit.

I suspect that Judge Flessig caught on to the extortion scheme, and he made his ruling with the understanding that everything in the above justifications for “judicial economy” is true… if the plaintiffs are running a settlement extortion scheme. However, if the plaintiffs indeed intend in good faith to move forward with their case “on the merits,” then as the judge points out, the “judicial economy” approach falls apart.

The rule now in Missouri federal courts (binding on other Missouri cases, persuasive in non-Missouri cases) is that suing multiple defendants in a “John Doe 1-X” lawsuit is improper because of the prejudice to the co-defendants and the confusion that will result *if* the plaintiffs actually have a good faith intent on pursuing their claims (e.g., if they are “not” running a settlement extortion scheme).

For example, a rule in federal courts is that every named defendant needs to be provided copies of all documents for the case in which they are accused. The judge points out that it would prejudice Defendant #2 if he started receiving motions and rulings relating to the depositions and interrogatories for Defendant #1. Multiply the confusion that would occur if there are ten defendants, or one hundred defendants, and so on. Similarly, each defendant will end up having his own lawyer. If the lawyer for Defendant #1 makes a motion and the court orders his client to a case management hearing, Defendant #2 will receive a copy of this order and may think that he has to attend the hearing.

This gets even more burdensome as soon as defendants are named and discover begins to take place. Judge Fleissig points out that every defendant has the right to attend the depositions of the other co-defendants. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if every John Doe Defendant crowds into a small office to hear the other defendants’ depositions. My own addition — imagine if all the accused defendants and each of their lawyers try to crowd into one small courtroom for a hearing.

Lastly, we all know that the justifications for joinder in a federal lawsuit is the “same transaction or occurrence” standard. In other words, courts have ruled that defendants can be joined together in one lawsuit if they were participating in the same bittorrent swarm at the same time — this is known as the “swarm joinder theory” asserted by the plaintiffs in every bittorrent lawsuit complaint.

In plaintiff attorney Paul Lesko’s cases, it is interesting to note that he was trying to extend the definition of a bittorrent swarm to span 18 weeks — from August 5th, 2012 to December 5th, 2012. This would obviously include internet users who never uploaded or downloaded from each other, and it would place them together as being part of the same transaction [big ongoing swarm] or occurrence [the "happening" of the swarm, for as long as "it" stays "alive"].

This secondary swarm theory has no official name, but it could be described as the “temporal swarm theory,” which asserts that defendants who participate in a bittorent swarm can be sued with all other defendants who ever uploaded or downloaded to that swarm (as opposed to a more legitimate “snapshot swarm theory” which joins bittorrent users together in a lawsuit based on who is uploading and downloads to whom at a particular point in time).

However, Judge Fleissig rejected both the “swarm joinder theory” and the “temporal swarm theory” (“snapshot swarms” were not discussed) because in both cases, the bittorrent users did not download and upload from EACH OF ALL the other bittorrent users in that swarm. In other words, a bittorrent swarm consists of many small “transactions and occurrences” between multiple users, and the judge essentially ruled that association with a “bittorrent swarm” does not properly connect [for joinder purposes] one defendant with another defendant from whom or to whom he did not specifically download or upload.

Food for thought for future Missouri federal cases: I want to also mention that Judge Fleissig refers to the accused bittorrent users as merely transferring “pieces” of the copyrighted files to each other rather than the entire copyrighted title [to be found liable for copyright infringement (under the "substantial similarity" prong), courts have ruled that the entire copyrighted file needs to be transferred; not merely "pieces" of it].

I would love to interpret his words as meaning that ‘because no user transfers a complete copyrighted file to any other user (only data bits and “pieces” of the copyrighted file that the downloader’s bittorrent software pieces together into a file), no user can be found liable for copyright infringement,’ but I do not think this is what he was referring to.

Rather, by mentioning bittorrent transfers from one user to another user as mere “pieces” of a copyrighted file, Judge Fleissig leaves open the question (perhaps to be elaborated in a future ruling) whether transferring bits and “pieces” of a copyrighted file (but not the entire file) can constitute copyright infringement.

NOTE: This ruling directly affects as binding upon the following Missouri bittorrent cases* (sorted by filing date):

reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-39 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00895)

Georgia Film Fund Four, LLC v. Does 1-75 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00832)

The Bicycle Peddler, LLC v. Does 1-28 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00583)

Elf-Man, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00576)

The Thompsons Film, LLC v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00577)

PHE, Inc. v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00480)

Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-32 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00449)

Purzel Video GMBH v. Does 1-67 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00450)

Riding Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00430)

Bayou Pictures, LLC v. John Does 1-11 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00433)

The Good Doctor, LLC v. John Does 1-36 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00434)

Maxcon Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-88 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00428)

reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00409)

reFX Audio Software Inc. v. Does 1-53 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00408)

Breaking Glass Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-188 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00388)

Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00290)

Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-30 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00020)

*some of these may have already been dismissed on other grounds.

Filed under: Bayou Pictures LLC, Breaking Glass Pictures LLC, Copyright Trolls, Elf-Man LLC, Federal Criminal Law, Georgia Film Fund Four LLC, Joinder, Judge Audrery Fleissig (MO), Maxcon Productions Inc., Missouri (MO), P2P, Paul Lesko, Peer-to-peer, PHE Inc., Purzel Video GMBH, reFX Audio Software Inc., Riding Films Inc., The Bicycle Peddler LLC, The Good Doctor LLC, The Thompsons Film LLC, Torrent, Vision FIlms Inc. Tagged: 4:12-cv-02292, 4:13-cv-00020, 4:13-cv-00290, 4:13-cv-00388, 4:13-cv-00408, 4:13-cv-00409, 4:13-cv-00428, 4:13-cv-00430, 4:13-cv-00433, 4:13-cv-00434, 4:13-cv-00449, 4:13-cv-00450, 4:13-cv-00480, 4:13-cv-00576, 4:13-cv-00577, 4:13-cv-00583, 4:13-cv-00832, 4:13-cv-00895, bittorrent, copyright infringement, John Does 1-, joinder, Judge Audrery Fleissig, Missouri Bittorrent, Paul Lesko, Purzel Video, Swarm Joinder Theory

via WordPress http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/swarm-joinder-theory-judicial-economy-bittorrent-purzel/

Friday, June 21, 2013

Is the MPAA giant waking up and luring defendants through their $20 DMCA settlement letters?

I have been fighting with myself trying to determine whether to write this article for a problem with Warner Brothers’ $20 settlement demand letters that they are sending out to accused downloaders of their content. Yet I suspect that this is just the beginning of something larger — I fear that the MPAA might be jumping on board the “DMCA settlement letter” scheme or even worse, starting to sue defendants again en masse for copyright infringement.

Under a company named “Rightscorp, Inc.,” (Website: http://www.DigitalRightsCorp.com) Christopher Sabec is sending out “DMCA Letters” almost copying CEG-TEK’s letters accusing the internet user of copyright infringement and offering to settle the claims for a mere $20.

RightsCorp is representing, however, mega corporations such as Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. (“Warner Bros.”) on their ABC Family teen shows such as “Pretty Little Liars” (file: “Pretty.Little.Liars.S03E05.HDTV.x264-LOL.mp4″) among other TV shows geared at teenagers who are quite savvy on the internet. The expectation is that not all of the episodes are available on their http://abcfamily.go.com website, and so naturally kids will migrate to the internet and Bittorrent to download the earlier episodes taken down from their websites.

What is bothering me, however, is that the release on their https://secure.digitalrightscorp.com/settle website (pasted below) releases the accused defendant from their claim of copyright infringement for a mere $20, but it has the defendant ADMITTING GUILT to the infringement. Thus, in legal terms, an accused internet user who pays the $20 may be released from liability for THAT instance of infringement, but the next time they catch that user downloading, they can not only sue for the full $150,000 (or ask for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS as a settlement), but in court, they can use the prior settlement as EVIDENCE OF GUILT that the accused defendant habitually downloads copyrighted videos and TV shows.

To be clear: EVERY settlement agreement for copyright infringement should have language stating that the accused defendant is not admitting guilt, or else the act of settling a copyright infringement claim can be construed as an “admission” of guilt in a court. Specifically, the language (e.g., taken from CEG-TEK’s settlements) would say something like “this Liability Release represents a compromise and that nothing herein is to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of RELEASEE.” This language appears to be purposefully ABSENT from the Warner Brothers DMCA Scare Letters.

For this reason, it is difficult for me to suggest hiring a third party / attorney and paying one of us to anonymously settle a $20 matter, BUT it is my opinion that the RightsCorp settlements are simply dangerous to your legal rights. Yet the flip side is that Warner Bros. is an MPAA member, and they have unlimited pockets to sue a defendant (they have in the past, and they could again in the future), and that not settling could later result in a second claim against you for a lot more money (it is not unlike them to ask for $20,000 as a settlement for one title).

My Personal Opinion: The MPAA has been lying dormant these past three years while the porn companies and their copyright trolls fight out the issues in the various federal courts across the U.S. My suspicion is that they are getting ready to dip their toes back into the water and start suing internet users again. I am suspicious that perhaps this $20 scheme is just their way to start getting names and contact information to gear up to sue “repeat offenders” who have already settled one of their claims. And for $20, it appears to me that this will be an easy way to lure defendants into giving over their contact information to be solicited later for something else.

Here is a sample copy of their release (noting that the “no admission of guilt” language is missing):

WB Sample Settlement Agreement

Liability Release & Settlement Receipt

IMPORTANT: Please retain this document for your records. It releases you from liability for the below mentioned infringement and serves as official notice of settlement.

Reference # TC-4ab****************************

Title Pr*******************

Filename Pr********************

Timestamp 2013-06***********

Infringement Source Torrent

Infringers IP Address 61*************

Infringers Port 4****

In consideration of the settlement payment made and the representations and agreements made in this Release & Settlement, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (“WB”) for itself, for its past, present and future directors, shareholders, members, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, partners, trustees, beneficiaries, family members, heirs, subsidiaries and affiliates, and for its and their predecessors, successors and assigns (collectively the “Releasor”);

Hereby finally, unconditionally, irrevocably and absolutely releases, acquits, remises and forever discharges robert steele, 3100 donald douglas loop n santa monica CA, 90405 and such person’s family members and heirs (collectively the “Releasee”);

From any and all manner of actions, suits, debts, sums of money, interest owed, charges, damages, judgments, executions, obligations, costs, expenses, fees (including attorneys’ fees and court costs), claims, demands, causes of action and liabilities, that arise under the United States Copyright Act, in each case whether known or unknown, absolute or contingent, matured or unmatured, presently existing or hereafter discovered, at law, in equity or otherwise, that the Releasor may now have or that might subsequently accrue against the Releasee arising out of or connected with the specific Infringement of copyrighted material(s) referenced above;

Provided however, that this release shall not, and shall not be deemed to, constitute a release with respect to any other past, present or future infringements by Releasee other than the specific Infringement of copyrighted material(s) referenced above.

Robert Steele agrees not to infringe any of WB’s filmed entertainment (including but not limited to films, videos, video games, animation and television programs), whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or controlled by WB. In furtherance of this agreement, Robert Steele agrees to immediately and permanently cease the unauthorized copying and/or distribution (including, but not limited to, downloading, uploading, filesharing, file “swapping,” or other similar activities) of WB filmed entertainment, including, but not limited to, those items listed in this correspondence.

Settlement Date 2013-06**********

Transaction Id 102**************

Settlement Amount ***

If you have any questions about this release, please contact rsteele@digitalrightscorp.com

Filed under: DMCA Scare Letters, Federal Criminal Law, P2P, Peer-to-peer, Torrent Tagged: abc family, chris sabec, christopher sabec, digitalrightscorp.com, DMCA letter, MPAA, pretty little liars, Rightscorp, robert steele, Warner Bros, Warner Brothers, WB lawsuit

via WordPress http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/wb-warner-bros-mpaa-sending-20-dmca-settlement-letters/

Thursday, June 13, 2013

CEG-TEK is now your friendly “photo” copyright troll.

I try my hardest to separate out the “photo” copyright trolls from the “bittorrent” copyright trolls when writing articles on this blog, as they are a separate category of trolls with their own rules.

In sum, “photo” copyright trolls search the web for images that are used on websites, often by bloggers, without permission or license from the owner of that photograph. Essentially, a blogger writes (for example) about the topic of “red pepper” vegetables. To make their blog entry more visually appealing, they search Google Images for “red pepper,” copy the first image they see, and they paste it on the top of their blog.

Most bloggers stay away from pictures that have a watermark on it, or from images which have a copyright logo marked on it. The problem is that 99% of the pictures out there have no copyright marking, and are not sold anywhere. Unsuspecting bloggers use these photos or random pictures on their blogs, and unbenownst to them, the owner (or a third party who purchases the rights to the photo with the intention of suing bloggers) begins asserting their copyright interests in the photo. Many accused bloggers who I have spoken to have expressed that they didn’t think they needed a license for a photo for non-commercial activities, and now they are facing threats of a lawsuit for using an image on their website.

Where the waters get muddied is that now Copyright Enforcement Group (a.k.a., “CEG-TEK”, “CEG TEK”, and more recently, “CEG”) is sending out the same DMCA letters that they ordinarily send to my bittorrent clients, but now they are in the “photo trolling” business. Their letters assert that a particular website used a copyrighted photo without a license, and the copyright holder is now asserting his rights for the “theft” that happened to his intellectual property rights. Thus, they are asking for $500 per photo, which in my opinion is obscene considering all their other letters ask for $200 per video shared via bittorrent.

On a personal note, hitting website users with a threat of a lawsuit over an image pulled from a Google image search is simply obscene. I would certainly understand such a letter if the image had a watermark pointing the user to a website where they can purchase rights to the photo without the watermark, or if there was a copyright mark on the image. Yet these photos have none of these, and they are literally trolling old websites and blogs looking for photos which were copied from other websites.

What makes this so obscene is that the photo copyright owners are asserting the same copyright infringement claims as do the copyright holders for the bittorrent cases we deal with daily. Along with the same copyright claims come the same shock of having the law provide statutory damages of $150,000 to the copyright holder who can prove the infringement. $150,000 for a movie download in my mind is obscene and is a disproportionate punishment for the “crime” of downloading a copyrighted title. Even moreso for a photo, and even moreso for an unmarked and unwatermarked photo freely available on a Google image search.

Now here are the details as they are unfolding. So far, it appears as if the “photo” copyright troll entity asserting the copyrights is a company called “AKM Images / GSI Media.” The letter CEG-TEK is sending out provides a screenshot image of the blog containing the photo (and in a number of cases, the blog is no longer in existence and is only shown in the internet archives on the “Way Back Machine” on http://archive.org). It appears as if even CEG-TEK was unsure if they wanted to go into this area, because many of the screenshots are from last year (2012). And, the so-called DMCA letters are not sent by ISPs, but appear forwarded by the website admins who host the various blogs.

6/13 UPDATE: There is some talk about the copyrighted images being posted on the website owner’s website or blog by a third party RSS aggregator. In sum, the accused blogger or website owner in many cases didn’t even post the images themselves, yet they are still asked by CEG to pay $500 to avoid a lawsuit.

Filed under: AKM Images / GSI Media, and Copyright Enforcement Group), CEG (a.k.a. CEG-TEK, CEG TEK, Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK), Copyright Trolls, Federal Criminal Law, Ira Siegel, Ira Siegel, P2P, Peer-to-peer, Photo Image Copyright Troll Attorneys Tagged: AKM Images, CEG, CEG-TEK, Copyright Enforcement Group, GSI Media, Ira Siegel

via WordPress http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/ceg-tek-akm-images-gsi-media-photo-image-copyright-trolls/