With the copyright lawsuit factory formerly known as Prenda Law now mired in sanctions, a California company called Malibu Media has become the most litigious copyright holder in the US.

The company goes to great pains to distance itself from the business model of so-called "copyright trolls." Unlike Prenda, which had no business besides filing lawsuits over porn that it allegedly uploaded to The Pirate Bay, Malibu has a real adult media business centered around its website called X-Art.

Despite that difference, Malibu and its lawyers have been prominently featured on FightCopyrightTrolls (FCT), a blog that has become a center of information and advocacy for critics of mass copyright lawsuits. That's because Malibu is the biggest filer of copyright litigation today. The New Yorker recently reviewed their litigation history, finding that the company has filed more than 1,300 lawsuits in the past year.

In a motion [PDF] unveiled yesterday, Malibu launched a wild assault on FCT, accusing its founder of heading up a "fanatical Internet hate group" consisting of "BitTorrent users, anti-copyright extremists, former BitTorrent copyright defendants, and a few attorneys."

The motion suggests that FCT's criticism has annoyed Malibu Media and its owners, Colette and Brigham Fields. The motion claims that the "hate group" exists in order to "physically threaten, defame, and cyber-stalk" everyone associated with Malibu. "Their psychopathy is criminal and scary."

The document asks for additional confidentiality measures to protect Malibu, and it was originally filed under seal in February. In April, the judge overseeing the case said that Malibu had to file an unsealed version of the motion.

The motion says that the defense lawyer in this case, Jonathan Phillips, has close ties to the "Internet hate group" and will share information inappropriately.

"Tweets about this case and Internet posts of Plaintiff’s discovery responses makes clear he intends to share information learned through discovery with the Internet hate group," writes Malibu's lawyer.

In an interview with Ars, FCT's founder and chief blogger, who goes by the moniker Sophisticated Jane Doe (SJD), said that the attack on his blog is a "big bluff" that shows Malibu is getting desperate in a case where it's likely to lose to defense lawyer Philips.

"I was a little nervous in the beginning," when Malibu first began to threaten him, SJD told Ars. "Then, carefully reading this stuff, I see how weak and twisted their arguments are. It won't hold any water if they try to use it in the action against me."

While SJD's criticism has been sharp, he says it hasn't been anywhere near the high pitch that Malibu claims. Malibu claims SJD has been responsible for death threats and accused the site of creating child pornography.

"Further inciting violence, SJD describes Plaintiff’s principals as greedy scumbags and uses other curse words and pejoratives to harass Plaintiff and its attorneys," writes Malibu's lawyer, Mary Schulz.

Allegations

Malibu does point to some genuinely threatening tweets in its motion. "You never had an enemy so dedicated in ur life, prepare to lose ur beauty in one swift acid splash," @xartdestroyer allegedly tweeted at Colette Fields.

But SJD told Ars he has "absolutely no idea" who was behind that Twitter account, and in fact he never heard of it until he read Malibu's motion.

The motion also points out that SJD himself tweeted to Colette on her birthday, saying “Birthday is a natural time to think about death . . . you will be remembered as an extortionist.”

SJD says that statement wasn't intended as a threat. Rather, it was an exhortation for Malibu to think about their reputation.

He also contends that other elements of their motion are overblown. For instance, the motion says SJD has taken to "repeatedly accusing Plaintiff of producing child pornography."

"Years ago, I used the word 'underage' one time, thinking it was a synonym for 'young,'" said SJD, whose first language is Russian, not English. "Then I realized, it wasn't a good thing to do," and he stopped.

SJD has sometimes criticized the pornography sold by X-Art as "barely legal" or "teen pornography" and has suggested adult film companies should only use models aged 21 and older.

Pointing out that X-Art makes "teen" material isn't an allegation of child pornography, however. In fact, they're the same words that X-Art uses to promote its own material. The terms "barely legal" and "teen" are included as keywords in the source code of X-Art's website, SJD pointed out. Earlier today, Colette Fields advertised her newest model (NSFW) on Twitter, calling her a "#sexy #nude #teen #vixen."

While SJD maintains that he's never called X-Art child porn, he has called out Colette and Brigham Fields, saying they have violated local Ventura County laws. He's posted evidence that the couple has filmed pornography in their home without having the proper permits and that they have also violated a local ordinance that requires condoms to be used when filming adult material.

"I consulted with some lawyers before posting it," said SJD. He verified the lack of permits with the county. "The evidence is so clear. I have pictures of movies they made in their kitchen, and there are a lot of screenshots."

In a sense, Sophisticated Jane Doe is actually two people. FightCopyrightTrolls is written by a husband-and-wife blogging team, with the husband typically writing drafts of the blog posts and his wife editing them. Ars spoke to the male counterpart of SJD.

An attorney representing Malibu Media said the owners were not available for comment.

Going public

The allegations extend to the defense lawyer in this case, Jonathan Philips, whom the motion refers to as a "Key Member of the Internet Hate Group."

Phillips "has known Plaintiff receives death threats" since December, according to Malibu.

Phillips told Ars that there's already a protective order in place that will keep secret the things that should be kept under wraps—such as "trade secrets, tax documents, and personally identifying information," he said. Other information will generally be public, although much of it won't come out until trial.

It's appropriate that Malibu, which has sued thousands for copyright infringement, should have to make that information public, he noted.

"This filing was a result of an order from the Northern District of Illinois, which refused to allow Malibu Media to litigate this particular case in the shadows," said Philips in an e-mail to Ars. "I am happy to practice in United States District Courts where the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear that litigation is to be open, accessible, and able to be reviewed and commented by the news media, the blogosphere, and the public at large."