Voltage Pictures Lawyer Renounces ‘Unethical’ BitTorrent Copyright Suits

Voltage Pictures' Lawyer Renounces "Unethical" BitTorrent
Photo by Voltage Pictures/REX/Shutterstock

An attorney who filed dozens of BitTorrent copyright cases on behalf of Voltage Pictures and Millennium Films has renounced the practice, saying he was duped into participating in unethical copyright “trolling.”

James S. Davis filed suit against his former legal partner and his former clients in San Diego Superior Court in July. In the complaint, he says that he was recruited into the BitTorrent litigation by a former law school classmate, Carl Crowell, who told him he had a “good litigation business opportunity.”

Crowell, based in Salem, Ore., has filed hundreds of copyright infringement lawsuits against users of torrent sites. Crowell typically files against “John Doe” defendants who are identified solely by their IP address. He then obtains a court order forcing the internet service provider to identify the subscriber. He then demands a settlement — usually about $7,500. Though some defendants allege that someone else was using their IP address, it is often cheaper to settle than to fight the claims in court.

Davis was practicing immigration law in San Diego when Crowell asked him to help with the copyright cases in March 2015, according to the suit. Soon, Davis began filing federal suits for illegal downloads of “Dallas Buyers Club” and “The Cobbler,” both produced by Voltage Pictures, among other films.

In one of those cases in San Francisco, the defense attorney, Nicholas Ranallo, filed a motion asking the plaintiffs to post a $50,000 bond. In the motion, Ranallo blasted Davis for “copyright trolling,” and raised questions about whether Davis’ client — Dallas Buyers Club LLC — actually owned the copyright to the film. Ranallo also claimed it was impossible to know whether his client, Ryan Underwood, was actually responsible for the illegal downloads.

“The plaintiffs’ goal in these matters is not to reach a judgment on the merits, but rather to secure a dubious settlement with onerous terms that accrue primarily to the benefit of attorneys and other non-parties,” Ranallo alleged. Ranallo also cited litigation filed against Voltage by Dallas Buyers Club LLC, in which the latter stated that it had no knowledge or control over the copyright litigation being carried out in its name.

In response, Davis argued that the copyright owners were engaged in a sincere effort to combat piracy, and would only target “the worst of the worst” violators. Davis alleged that Underwood’s IP address was used to distribute “Dallas Buyers Club” over 400 times, along with 2,000 other titles.

Davis prevailed on the motion, and the case was later dismissed by mutual agreement of the parties. But in his recent lawsuit, Davis now says that in the course of preparing his response, he began asking questions and uncovering facts that undermined “his belief in the value and ethical propriety” of the copyright suits.

In a separate copyright case in San Diego, Davis says he uncovered additional troubling facts in the course of drafting a response to a judge’s threat to dismiss the case. He says he had a meeting in Santa Monica with the key figures on the plaintiff’s side, after which he “concluded that both the legal and factual basis of the Copyright Litigation campaign were unsound, and that each had been misrepresented to him.”

At that point, Davis had filed 58 copyright cases for downloads of two Voltage films (“Dallas Buyers Club,” “The Cobbler”), three Millennium films (“London Has Fallen,” “Criminal,” “Septembers of Shiraz”) and two Benaroya Pictures films (“Queen of the Desert,” “Cell”). He dismissed the cases or turned them over to other counsel and withdrew from the copyright enforcement campaign.

He then retained Ranallo — who had blasted his San Francisco case — to sue Crowell, as well as Millennium, Voltage and other entities. In the suit, Davis seeks at least $300,000 to compensate him for hours spent working on cases that were “legally and factually infirm.”

Crowell declined to comment.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 6

Leave a Reply

6 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

  1. SJD says:

    This is a commendable action: Crowell-driven copyright shakedown business is overdue for shutdown.

    However, after the judge questioned diversity, this action was voluntarily dismissed on 6/26, more than a month prior to the publication. I suspect that this story was written long time ago and editors didn’t check the docket before publishing.

    Prosecution of a similar scheme run by a similar outfit — infamous Prenda Law — makes me optimistic that there will be more lawsuits aimed at unmasking this scheme, and maybe even the feds decide to chime in.

    • Pedro D says:

      It is worth noting the tireless troll slayer Nicholas Ranallo was integral in the take down of the infamous Prenda law you reference

    • SJD says:

      Correction: according to the tweet by the story author, the case was refiled in the California state court, pending there.

  2. salvage says:

    Dear Hollywood,

    You are making record profits despite the fact that anyone anywhere can download your movies with nothing more than an Internet connection.

    Your lawyers screaming about how the sky is going to fall have you noticed that they’re wrong? Like for the last 10 years? Have you noticed that these lawyers are the ones making bank without solving the “problem”? Nice job to have huh? You don’t actually have to solve anything, just keep doing almost nothing and you’ll always be solvent.

    Imagine if all the fees you’ve paid to various troll lawyers you spent on making better movies? Or just kept the money? Would you be making more or less?

    Why don’t you go three years without suing anyone… I know, I know, your lawyers will shriek and moan that this will be the end! That they are the thin Gucci-belted line that protects your hoard of gold from the ravenous pirates that will take it all away! But they’re lying to you and you can prove it by stopping all this nonsense. Three years, see what happens, I bet your lawyer bills will go down and your overall profits will stay the same.

    Make good movies and you will make money.

    Heck, make bad ones and you will make money in China at least.

    What you won’t make is progress by “declaring war on pirates”.

    See HBO’s latest headlines for the full story there and further proof; GoT most “pirated” show in history makes how much? Their budget is how many millions? If they’re losing money to “pirates” then how does that make sense? I doubt even the most creative of Hollywood Accounting could explain that paradox.

    So stop making your fans your enemies, sell them don’t sue them.

    Or not, keep doing the stupid things, doesn’t matter, your movies will always be on the Internet authorized or unauthorized and there is nothing your lawyers can do about that.

    They must know that by now, why don’t you?

  3. dee says:

    So the att’y is now an innocent dupe?

  4. Jim says:

    So, they are trying to get money from people for copyright infringement – but they don’t even own the movies ? These lawsuits are designed as a big rip-off and the courts shouldn’t play this game.

    Even if some teenager gets your movie for free, this doesn’t justify taking $ 7500 out of their pockets and ruining their lives…it’s shameless.

    There is not even any proof, that it really hurts the film business. Maybe the additional people, who wouldn’t have bought a ticket anyway, make the title more popular.

More Biz News from Variety

Loading