Guardaley | X-Art

Lipscomb borrows from the Prenda book, attacks EFF

Lipscomb’s insistence that he is not a copyright troll, his efforts to distinguish his shakedown outfit from the Prenda gang, becomes more and more laughable. Remember the bile-infused Prenda’s opposition to EFF’s brief last year, which contained nothing but insults? Yesterday in Wisconsin Keith Lipscomb (via his local Mary K. Schulz) filed an opposition to EFF’s motion to leave to file a brief, prompting an acute deja vu.

We wrote about this case (actually 11 cases consolidated into a single one): Judge Stephen Crocker smelled a troll, halted the proceedings, and issued an order to show cause why Malibu Media/X-Art/Lipscomb shouldn’t be sanctioned for supplementing their complaints with a malicious exhibit (infamous “Exhibit C” that lists unrelated infringements that defendants purportedly committed). Malibu/Lipscomb responded to the order on 6/26/2013 (of course bragging about the Bellwether Pyrrhic victory). Shortly after, EFF (via Erin Russell) asked for leave to file an amicus curiae brief:

In the instant cases, defendants are in danger of being coerced into unjust settlements by the threat of public embarrassment before having a reasonable opportunity to be heard. In fact, the conduct that led to the Court’s Order to Show Cause – attaching to complaints a list of highly embarrassing pornographic movie titles for which Malibu is not claiming copyright infringement – creates a strong incentive for defendants to avoid appearing before this Court. Raising defenses, no matter their merit, would risk a defendant’s identity being revealed and publicly associated with the scandalous titles listed in “Exhibit C.” Given the circumstances, the defendants are inadequately represented at this stage, though their rights are very much at stake.

EFF will assist the Court by providing a response to Malibu’s briefing, including placing Malibu’s conduct in the context of judicial responses to the broader phenomenon of BitTorrent litigation and providing authority supporting the Court’s contention that Malibu’s conduct has violated Rule 11. In order to respond thoroughly to Malibu’s 30 pages of argument and numerous declarations, EFF respectfully requests that it be allowed to file its brief on July 15, 2013, or on such other date as the Court orders.

Yesterday’s Prenda’s Lipscomb’s opposition to this request is very weak in my opinion, and in addition to usual attacks on EFF’s “pro-piracy agenda,” is largely based on a bizarre argument that EFF cannot provide any valuable input because…

…no one at the EFF is a trained psychologist who has interviewed Plaintiff or its counsel for the purpose of forming an opinion about the purpose behind attaching Exhibit C.


The purpose of a particular troll’s sleaze was never discovered using a psychiatrist. Any court makes its determinations based on facts, arguments by the parties, and input from non-parties that have experience in a particular area. It is ridiculous to state that EFF has no expertise in this type of “litigation,” and it is an insult to the judge’s intelligence to assume that he either needs a mind-reader or should rely solely on the plaintiff to make the right conclusion, especially if that plaintiff has the audacity to claim the monopoly on truth:

…since Plaintiff and its counsel told the whole truth about its purpose, the EFF simply will not be able to contradict any of the material statements in the declarations Plaintiff submitted.

Ironically, while insisting that EFF would not know trolls’ intentions because they are not psychiatrists, Lipscomb & Co know exactly what EFF’s brief will and will not be about:

The EFF cannot assist the Court in providing competent testimony about Plaintiff’s purpose for attaching Exhibit C. Instead, all the EFF could possibly do is provide anecdotal ad hominem attacks and inadmissible speculation about the purpose of Exhibit C. This would merely district the Court from its task and unnecessarily burden Plaintiff who would have to respond to irrelevant and inadmissible red herrings.


In conclusion, I’d like to draw your attention to a document that was recently filed by Morgan Pietz in Michigan (Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, MIED 13-cv-1220). This is a declaration that details the communication between Pietz and Lipscomb’s Shakedown Officer, Elizabeth Jones. Although the dialogues took place a year ago, the methods are hardly changed in principle. You will see the proto phase of what would become “Exhibit C” — namely, a tactic of initially accusing a victim of a single download, but when he contacts the troll, twisting his arms using additional “evidence.” Do we really need a psychiatrist to understand the dark, rotten souls of Lipscomb and his goons? I wouldn’t peek into that darkness voluntarily, simply because I value and want to preserve my faith in humanity.


wordpress counter


9 responses to ‘Lipscomb borrows from the Prenda book, attacks EFF

  1. Love the tinfoil hat.

    Understanding why Lipscomb goes after the EFF as an unbiased amicus I am still left wondering about the underlying tone of of terror that pervades this filing. 🙂

  2. I think the author was bit nervous and rushed when they wrote this. There is also a little bit of John Steele’s style in the Introduction. I know they will say it was auto-correct that changed “distract” to “district.” Still it is very clear when reviewed.


    I bet Malibu Media/Lipscomb would not complain if the MPAA requested leave to file an AC brief supporting them.

    DTD 🙂

  3. You have to love Pietz, he has basically put together a good list showing that serving and suing copyright infringers is not their concern but getting the discovery to obtain peoples names and phone numbers is so they can crank out the settlement letters and then sick the negotiators on them.

    The 0.04% serving ratio is pretty telling of what really is going on here, and you can bet this is going to catch the Judges eye. I am a little suspicious of this so called negotiating firm, and what they won’t say or give any info about themselves.

    Could it be that there is the possibility that maybe Lipsomb or Collins are stakeholders in this enitity? I guess that remains to be seen, but of course I am wondering aloud about that. I tend to be a little skeptical when you see somthing like that and they are quite reluctant to say much about who owns it, what they do and for who.

    The fact that Lipscomb seem to trumpet the bellweather trial case is kind of laughable, in that he is saying “see we do take defendants to trial and litigate” maybe he has forgotten the Judge is the one who initiated it and they had no choice but to go or really be labbelled a copyright troll in my opinion.

    Now that Pietz has opened this can of worms up for Lipscomb it should be interesting to see what transpires in the next while and how the Judge will look at some of the information Pietz provided.

  4. Not enough will ever be said about the fine work that Morgan E Pietz does in exterminating the trolls. This is who was needed in the Bellwether Case. Much is written about Judge Wright however it is also thanks to Pietz who is clarifying the exact nature abd specifics of how the shack down occurs across America, of how the Federal Judges are simple pawns in the trolls criminal enterprise.

  5. That picture of Butterball in the tinfoil hat made my day. I know I should think of something intelligent to say about this post, but I just can’t. I’m too busy laughing at the thought of Keith “Butterball” Lipscomb walking around his house wearing that hat.

  6. Perhaps they wouldn’t have these problems if they, you know, focused on suing the right people instead of losing all possible goodwill.

Leave a Reply


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

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s