IPP

Well after spending a great deal of time reading Pietz’s motion and reading the exhibits he submitted there are some fascinating thing’s that caught my eye. With respect to Patrick Paige being brought in.

It would seem in my opinion that Paige was brought in more for credential clout to further the findings using the Excipio software in this case. This strikes me as more of a move to save their litigation in this case and any other pending Malibu cases where the issues regarding the proprietary software if you will that Pietz has raised in this case and was brought forth in the Colorado case as well.

Lipscomb and the gang have stated previously in their court filings that they would have no issue with Tobias Fieser coming to court to testify if called upon to support the facts he has supplied about the IPP software and how it works and how he was the person in charge that was in care and custody of the information and verified it’s authenticity to it’s operation and results.

Now if you recall Lipscomb has stated that Feiser is the ONLY one who could testify to it’s reults and authenticy. Hmmm now why would he be the only one? Surely one would have to believe that the authors who developed and coded the software could verify how it performs the process it underatkes and how it achieves it results, after all they would have tested it to make sure of the accuracy of it before it was put in service.

So why wouldn’t Ben Perinho who it would seem invented this software be able to testify and support that the software does what it was designed to do? It seems a tad troubling that Feiser is the only person who could verify and testify about the result of this software used in the IPP monitoring even though he didn’t create it and just uses it in his job allegedly.

Lipscomb has gone to great lengths in Fesier’s declaration to the court to mention that Feiser would come to court and testify to the results of the software and his findings if subpoenaed to do so….But apparently not anytime soon.

So now it is a different firm called Excipio software and monitoring for illegal downloads and in Paige’s spare time when not working for law enforcement Paige put’s on his crime fighting gear to track down people downloading porn from Malibu and XArt, Must be just as enthralling for him and look great on the credential sheet.

With this revelation that IPP was no longer being used and now it is Excipio how does Lipscomb and Malibu present this to the court considering that in 14-cv-0223, 14-cv-0257 and 14-cv-0263 IPP and Feiser declarations are used to get the court to consider granting the request for the Subscriber information in relation to the IP addresses that were monitored by IPP downloading the infringing works of XArt.

How does Lipscomb explain this now little blip to the court that it wasn’t IPP software, servers and technician’s that was used it was Excipio’s software, servers and a contractor.

I also found the revelation that Canadian copyright troll Canpire/Barry Logan specified in their affidavit to the court in Ontario, Canada that they used Guardaley Observer v1.2 to monitor the downloading of Voltage Pictures films being shared on Bit torrent clients by infringers.

So Canpire/Barry Logan were using a verison of Guardaley Observer v1.2 to monitor for infringing works between Sept 1 3012 and Oct 31 2012 and the action was filed in Ontario court on May 27 2013…Then Barry comes back and say’s whoops I meant Guardaley Observer v1.47. Gee Barry didn’t the German court find their software was faulty and not reliable, but yet YOU used it to monitor downloading of your clients films??? That ought to go well for you when some defense counsel brings that little gem up.

Now in some of the Malibu cases were we have seen documents here and elsewhere all of Tobias’s declarations say that he used v1.2 of IPP’s software. Guardaley’s website is still alive and well. Now why don’t we see any information on the IPP firm and it’s software IPP International Tracker??

One would find it most strange that a firm that does international business with the Protection of Copyrighted works would have some information for it’s clients and any potential clients to get a hold of IPP to discuss the services they offer or inquire about their services…but apparently not.

They have no presence on the net, no real presence or address I can find in Germany, nor any phone listing ( but fear not future clients, super sleuth and copyright crime fighter Keith Lipscomb can give you the number that only he seems to know ) ( Getting the phone number for super secret firm IPP will require the secret handshake and a picture of you and Big Foot holding up a newspaper with today’s date on it )

Now Lipscomb states that IPP is not Guardaley or any version of it. But Ben Perino is the one who invented the Guardaley Observer software, so obviously he was employed there along with Patrick Achache. Now Ben Perino was listed as a Director, CEO and even a stint as managing director at Guardaley and Ben was also listed as a manager a United States Copyright Group ( who didn’t see that one coming! )

Patrick Achache was apparently the Director of Data Services at Guardaley. Now why would they claim that Patrick stole the Software from Guardaley as they are alleging? If you look at the what the proprietary software is it seems like it is based on the shareaza bit torrent program. ( based on or is..)
with what it would seem are already out there software like Wireshark and PCAP etc etc. thrown in the mix and called it their own

I wonder what the good folks at shareaza think about a copyright protection firm violating the terms of their user agreement for shareaza bit torrent client and then using their coded work and modifying it for a commercial purpose ( wouldn’t that be a tad illegal? )

I could have also sworn there was a declaration from IPP signed by Patrick ( I could be wrong but I thought there was one submitted in a torrent lawsuit case ) The name Daniel Arheidt pops up as a Technical Director at Guardaley in declarations submitted in porn trolling lawsuits.

Daniel Arheidt name is also on IPP declarations as a “consultant” in affidavits in torrent cases imagine that. Did anyone happen to notice that the Tobias Fieser signatures all seem to be a little off? They start out similar, but towards the middle and end they look different. It seemed this way on all three that are in Pietz’s Exhibit documents.

I also have to wonder why some of the IPP affidavits are not notarized by anyone before being sent over to Lipscomb. That strikes me as a tad odd. One of things I would like to hear come out is who all has a intrest in Malibu Media LLC? Lipscomb will reiterate that is are two favorite purveyors of porn Colette and Brigham, but I have to wonder if there are not some other partners in this, After all Ben had his hand in Guardaley and is USCG…so one has to wonder.

If Pietz get the Judge interested in all of the nuances that he has come up with , Lipscomb is going to be up against it. I can see the strategy of stone walling lasting very long if the Judge orders him to produce some of the documents and who has an interest in what in these settlements, you can pull a Prenda and delay, deny and deflect but only for so long ( Ask John how that is working out for him now)

It will be interesting to see if the Judge is going to consolidate these cases and what Lipscomb will do if the dominos start to fall his way. Judges dont like to be treated as stupid and they definitely don’t like some of the games that go on in their court rooms.

Lipscomb I believe is in a tough spot here. He has been insisting in his declarations that if need be Tobias Fieser can testify and appear to provide testimony to his findings of infringement, and this has been seen in many Malibu cases… but no all of a sudden it seems like he isn’t too receptive to that Idea.

Now this is Hypothetical, but is Tobias Fieser our new Alan Cooper? There could be a possibility that he might be a figment of imagination, now of course this is Hypothetical and we don’t know whether this is the case, but there is always the possibility ( Just like the possibilty that I have the winning Powerball lottery numbers for next weeks draw already.)

Pietz motion is an interesting read and his exhibits are pretty good and do a nice job of filling some blanks and connecting the dots, so it will be interesting to see what Lipscomb’s response will be and what the Judge thinks of all this.

I predict we are going to see Lipscomb button down the hatches and try to fight vigorously that Pietrz is out to lunch and that all this means nothing. ( aka the Prenda strategy) Needless to say this should be interesting to watch the flurry of denials and counter claims of bad faith and being mean and making it personal and they hurt out feelings and yada yada yada

As for Hoppe waving his finger at the ISP’s and telling them you can’t do that, well good luck with that. I don’t see the ISP’s cowering in the corner. In reality all the Hoppe can do is run to the court and try to get the Judge to get an order to get the ISP’s compelled to turn over the documents.

Now could Hoppe succeed possibly, but I think with the exhibits that Pietz has filed and the Motion that Pietz has filed and the reasons set forth in it, I think Hoppe would be in tough if the court thinks there is some shenanigans at play in his court room, especially with the court shopping being alleged in these cases.

I will be looking forward to the updates!