Copyright Porn Trollers Malibu Media Resort to Polygraph Tests to Settle Cases

[reaper]

As first published by Fight Copyright Trolls over the past weekend, the latest new scare tactic being used by notorious porn copyright troll firm, Malibu Media, happens to be a polygraph test.

We’ve discussed many times here on Slyck how atrocious it is that copyright troll law firms use scare tactics to try to get their victims to pay up “or else”, but this is the first we have heard about polygraph tests being used and it takes the definition of scare tactics to an all-time disturbing low.

When it comes to alleged copyright infringement, we’ve seen how firms like Prenda Law, ACS Law and Malibu Media operate, and it’s far from impressive. When it comes to alleged porn copyright theft, it can be extremely embarrassing for any alleged infringer who does not want to risk exposure to friends and family for any porn related viewing or violation. Malibu Media has been sanctioned in the past for using embarrassing scare tactics.

In a recent court document filed in the northern district of Illinois federal court by Malibu Media, an adult film company who operates website X-Art.com, Malibu cites several infringements by BitTorrent users in several cases. They state, “Plaintiff knows that during the period of January 1, 2014 through March 21, 2014, there were at least 175,000 Americans who infringed its content within the BitTorrent file distribution network, many of which reside in this district. Plaintiff has no other way to make the infringement stop and seek recourse for its losses than to bring a suit like the one before this Court.” They also stated in the complaint, “Unfortunately, many people have decided to take its movies illegally through the BitTorrent protocol instead of lawfully subscribing to its website.”

Malibu explains it has adopted high standards prior to serving a defendant and in some cases has determined to not pursue a case based on insufficient evidence. Further down on page four of the document the lawyers add, “Further, Malibu will dismiss its claims against any Defendant who agrees to and passes a polygraph administered by a licensed examiner of the Defendant's choosing. Out of the entirety of polygraphs administered within the United States by Malibu, no Defendant has passed and all such examinations have subsequently led to the Defendant settling the case.”

The court document also provides details on the number of cases filed, and the status of those cases. Malibu’s lawyers documented that they have “filed 268 cases within the Northern District of Illinois. Of these 268 cases, 25 cases were with joined defendants and 243cases were actions filed against a single Defendant, like the current case at hand. The 268 cases filed by Malibu had a total of 886 Defendants between them. Of these 886 defendants, 643 were within joined suits and 243 defendants were from cases against only a single defendant. Each defendant infringed, on average, 17.9 separate copyrighted works owned by Malibu between all 886 Defendants.” Of the cases, 49 defendants’ cases were dismissed for hardship, 259 were dismissed for insufficient evidence, and 304 were dismissed due to insufficient information from the ISPs.

On page 14 of the court document, Malibu defends their practice by stating the following:

“The undeniable fact is that some people and entities will never agree with the enforcement of copyrights on the Internet. At first, critics labeled “copyright trolls” as those who acquired copyrighted content for the sole purpose of litigation. Once Judge Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as a component of Malibu’s Bellwether trial, determined that Malibu did not fit this definition of a “copyright troll,” the critics moved the goalposts and determined that any entity who derives an appreciable percent of their income from litigation is a “copyright troll.” Once it was disclosed that a de minimis percent of Malibu’s income is derived from litigation, the definition changed to an amorphous “anyone who files a lot of lawsuits.” With that definition, any person or entity owning content that is heavily infringed is destined to be called a “troll.” “Many internet blogs commenting on this and related cases ignore the rights of copyright owners to sue for infringement, and inappropriately belittle efforts of copyright owners to seek injunctions and damages.”

While Malibu Media continues to defend their practice, we can only hope that their latest scare tactic of using a polygraph test will not set a example for other copyright trolls as well. We find this scare tactic scheme of their “business model” to be very disturbing.