Update To The “Richard Pryor Response” OR What To Tell The Troll When He Calls

Posted on March 14, 2013 by DieTrollDie

14 March 2013 Update

As we have a steady stream of new Does to these cases, I felt that an update to the Richard Pryor Response (RPR) was in order.  No drastic changes, just some updated information.  I will keep the original post up, as well as attached to this one.
First I want to explain my view of the RPR.  The RPR is exculpatory in nature – “I didn’t do it.“  It prevents the Troll from saying you refused to deny or even acknowledge the allegation.  Not that you are legally required to do that anyway.  Where we have seen such Troll statements is when a court starts to question Plaintiff’s efforts to identify the true infringer.  Here is one example from Brett Gibbs (Ex-Prenda Law Inc., counsel), Document #50, 2:12-cv-08333, Declaration in Support of Response to 7 Feb 13, Order to Show Cause (page 13).   Gibbs_Decl_7Feb13

42. The fact that the Wagars and Dentons ignored my requests for information that would potentially preclude members of their households as the infringers was significant. In other cases of alleged copyright infringement that I have prosecuted, I have been contacted by the alleged infringer who explained that they were not the infringer and provided information such as an unsecured Internet connection or possible unidentified third party guests to the residence. In those instances, the respective complaints were dismissed without naming a defendant.

Now I don’t believe Troll Gibbs statement that he has simply dropped cases of people who claimed “Open WiFi” or that an unknown individuals used their Internet connection to do this.  More likely he dropped the cases after figuring out the ISP subscriber wasn’t giving into pressure and their evidence was for crap.  I will say this does make a nice statement to bring up when Prenda Law does not drop a Doe defendant after he Denys any wrongdoing.  They will then probably claim they had great evidence like the defendant played computer games or had a Facebook account.  Simply stupid.
So here is the RPR – What To Tell The Troll When He Calls

• 1) I didn’t do it
• 2) The movie is not on my system
• 3) I will fight you in court
• 4) Have a nice day and don’t call back

As I previously stated, do not give them any additional information on you or your family, residence, network, etc.  Make them conduct a Lexus/Nexus check on you, a Google search of your online presence, and a piss-poor Google Maps examination.
Another option is to respond to their letters or exculpatory evidence requests with a letter of your own.  CAUTION when doing this.
As previously stated, there is NO legal requirement to reply to the request.  The following is from my “Lipscomb Fishing Co.” article.

Saying that, I’m of the opinion it could be good to respond on your own terms.  As I have previously cautioned everyone – don’t make any false statements if you do respond.  Also do not provide the Troll any of the information he is asking for.  The type of response I’m suggesting is an adapted Richard Pryor Response.  Take a look at the example and tell me what you think.  If you decide to make such a response, please edit the letter to fit your situation.  So if you have a Linux OS that comes with BitTorrent installed, please remove that corresponding part from the letter.    DearTroll

Even with this, there is no guarantee the Troll will not name and serve you with a summons.  Just remember the odds of this are still very slim.  As your situation is bound to different and unique, please consult with an attorney, do your research, and make the decision that is best for YOU.
DieTrollDie    “Some ships are designed to sink… other require our assistance.“
Here is something for you Linux users.
——- Original February 2012 Article ——————————————-
I have been fielding more and more emails and posting from Does asking what they should do when a Troll calls. Everyone’s circumstances are different, but I think I have the initial response you should give the Troll representative. I call it the “Richard Pryor Response,” after an Eddie Murphy skit (Raw – Chewed out by Bill Cosby). 
Here is a YouTube clip from it - Have a Coke and smile and shut the …….. (go to approx.4:25)
Tell the Troll representative this and only this. Don’t get mad or argumentative – that is what they want.

• 1) I didn’t do it
• 2) The movie is not on my system
• 3) I will fight you in court
• 4) Have a nice day and don’t call back

Follow this as a script and DON’T talk about anything else. Anything you say will be exploited by the Troll in an effort to get you to settle.

• Tell the Troll you are worried about losing your job and I guarantee he will use it as leverage against you.
• Tell him you own a home and he then knows you have assets he can possibly target.

Make sure you document the Who, What, Where, When, Why, & How of the conversation. Keep this information in a folder, just in case you ever need it. Be sure to add to it when they continue to call and email with threats. Documentation is key.
So what has driven the change from completely ignoring the Troll when he calls? There has been a couple of cases where a Troll requested the court grant a subpoena for a 4-hour deposition of a Doe defendant. (http://dietrolldie.com/2012/01/05/brett-gibbs-whines-an-end-to-311-cv-01566-hard-drive-productions-inc-v-doe-ip-address-173-55-54-77/ AND  http://dietrolldie.com/2012/01/16/judge-denies-troll-request-to-depose-an-unnamed-doe-but-known-to-the-troll-in-case-s-11-3074-kjm-hard-drive-production-v-doe/)  Most of these requests have been denied, but I know of one that was granted. The Troll complained to the court that the Doe defendant would not talk to them and was being evasive. The Troll said they needed to talk to the Doe defendant to fully determine if he (or others in the household) was responsible. If the Doe would have at least responded to the Troll with the Richard Pryor Response, the judge may have simply denied the request and told the Troll to move forward with naming and serving a summons. The Trolls don’t want to do this; it essentially shuts down their easy settlement efforts and they have to spend money to proceed. They also know how weak their public IP address evidence is. Can’t wait to see what comes of a deposition where the Troll “technical” experts/witnesses get questioned on their methods and procedures of collecting the public IP addresses and what they actually mean.
DieTrollDie