As Patrick Collins Has Learned, Porn Copyright Trolling Leads to Bad Hobbits

Check out our advertisers www.risingstarpr.com
www.etsy.com/shop/jspin2 www.auditionporn.com/tour1, www.eruptionxl.com and www.sexucrave.com

Follow Gene Ross at twitter@GeneRoss3; Follow AdultFYI at twitter@adultfyi

In the copyright troll world, Elegant Angel’s Patrick Collins has apparently picked up some bad Hobbits.

Enough of the bad puns. From the tech website Ars Technica, to all the legal sites that cover porn piracy issues, Collins, unfortunately, has become something of a standing joke over a business model designed to shake down computer users over alleged porn content theft.

Never mind the fact that in almost all porn piracy cases these accusations can’t be proved. But that doesn’t stop Collins, Ben Dover and other porn merchants from employing attorneys who time and again serve notice on suspects offering them an option: pay now to save embarrassment or face a hefty lawsuit later.

The popular word for this practice is called trolling, which has become the 21st century equivalent of ambulance chasing.

In instances we’ve seen so far, some porn companies have actually employed attorneys who aren’t licensed to practice, aren’t licensed to practice in the states where these cases are being adjudicated, or have truncated the court process with the naive temerity of first year law students.

Among their defendants, I believe Collins’ attorneys have also pursued a blind woman and a grandmother. But the latest courtroom gaffe involving the Elegant Angel title Anal Cum Swappers 2 takes the cake.

In a Massachusetts piracy case heard last month federal judge Leo Sorokin denounced Collins and his attorneys for abusing the legal system.

That’s because Patrick Collins, Inc, had filed “John Doe” lawsuits against at least 11,570 defendants but failed to convert any of those “John Does” into named defendants. Cryin’ out loud, Manwin tube sites have a better conversion rate.

Judge Sorokin chided Collins and his representation for failing to “articulate a discovery plan” that would lead to identifying the infringers they sued.

Aside from that, Collins & Co. couldn’t come up with the specifics needed or required to identify the infringers, said the judge. I love legal terminology. The courts have a marvelous way of calling you an A-hole without actually calling you an A-hole.

When Judge Sorokin specifically asked Collins’ attorney what information he needed, the attorney’s reply was, “I don’t think there is a specific set of information we need… I’d like to keep this as least burdensome as possible and as least costly as possible. Opening communications between me and the Does or me and the subscribers is, I think, the best course of action.”

If you didn’t catch the drift, that’s legal double-talk for the dog ate my homework. Judge Sorokin then went on to say that “the history of this litigation” demonstrates a “lack of interest in actually litigating” the case against any specific defendant.

That’s legalese for the fact that Collins’ attorney is jacking him off and wasting his time. The last time we checked, Elegant Angel’s case was about to be booted.

For the life of him, it seems that Collins can’t find a good attorney. And that appears to extend to his divorce case which has also become a Chinese fire drill. Only there’s no legalese to describe that one. Except, maybe, Po Po for Two.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*