MORA, Minn. – Long before he semi-retired from allegedly attempting the practice of intellectual property law, attorney Jack Titanium-Nickelloy had established himself as a controversial figure on the internet stage. In response to his tireless, nigh-Herculean efforts to safeguard his clients’ erotic-artistic expression from the Cheapskate Charlies of the terrible torrent-sphere, Titanium-Nickelloy found himself labeled a “copyright troll.”

The backlash from Titanium-Nickelloy’s zealous representation didn’t end with name-calling, though. Soon he found himself the target of what he calls “squirrelous, underfunded accusations” ranging from minor ethics violations and trivial misrepresentations of material fact to “laughably obvious” identity theft, which under Minnesota law translates to a Class DUH misdemeanor.

Eager to clear his good name and defend the reputation of the law firms with which he insists he was never actually directly associated, and/or with which he is no longer associated so far as anybody can definitively prove, Titanium-Nickelloy recently sat down with YNOT for a candid Q&A session about his life as a self-proclaimed “misunderstood superhero of adult entertainment-related intellectual property.”

YNOT: Thanks for agreeing to speak with us today, Jack.

Jack Titanium-Nickelloy: Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean “us?” Are you wearing a wire?

I was using the “royal we.” By us, I meant YNOT. And yes, I am recording this, obviously, as you agreed to this being an entirely on-the-record session, unless you specify otherwise prior to offering any given response.

Oh – right, right, of course. You’re very welcome then, and I’m very pleased to be here.

Why do you think you’ve been the subject of so much criticism and mockery on the internet, not to mention the recipient of rebuke from certain federal courts?

Well, I think first you have to acknowledge for all the criticism from the backseat quarterbacks and Monday morning drivers out there, when it comes to the court, the only opinion which counts, we’ve won every single substantive motion in every single case we’ve handled.

But you were, in fact, sanctioned by—

That doesn’t count! I very clearly and intentionally said we’d won every substantive motion we filed.

So you’re saying the motion you filed opposing those sanctions lacked substance?

Exactly. Besides, we weren’t worried then, and aren’t worried now, about what some so-called “federal judge” thinks. I mean, who died and made that guy King of American Jurisprudence, right?

OK. Moving on…. You referenced winning every motion you’ve filed, which raises another important question: With which law firm or law firms are you, or have you ever been, associated?

I’m glad you asked me this, because there is so much misinformation out there on the Internet posted by my detractors and a ton of other jealous haters. The answer is very simple and very clear.

[Long pause] Which is….?

Pardon?

What is the simple and clear answer to which you just referred?

About the law firms?

Yes. The question is: With which law firm, or law firms, are you or have you ever been, associated?

Oh, I’m not associated in any way with any law firm and technically never have been, even back when I was actively practicing law.

How about this, then: Which law firms are you alleged to have been a part?

How about I tell you which three law firms out there do the best job of protecting the crucially important intellectual property rights of adult entertainment entrepreneurs like myself and my various non-associates?

Sure, I’ll settle for that.

Without a doubt, the best three firms in the business are Aderpa Law, Hagendaz & Titanium-Nickelloy and Piracy = Bad, LLLEP.

The second one appears to have your name in it.

I know. Crazy coincidence, right? What are the odds?

What does “LLLEP” stand for, by the way? I’m familiar with LLP —“limited liability partnerships”—and LLLPs, or “limited liability limited partnerships,” but I’ve never heard of an “LLLEP” before.

It’s a new designation just for intellectual property specialists like us – I mean like them. It stands for “limited liability, limited existence partnership.” Among other advantages, this structure enables attorneys to have a direct financial interest in the outcome of a case without ever revealing such to the court.

Really? But by law don’t you have to—

Isn’t the structure of law firms with which I’m not provably associated beyond the scope of this interview? I mean, you didn’t have me come here to educate you about the difference between an LLLEP and an NFLPA, right?

Fair enough. Let’s move on. What do you say to critics who maintain you can’t meet the burden of proof when it comes to showing the owner of any given IP is the same person who allegedly violated your clients’ copyrights, given the nature of torrents and the environment where the infringement is alleged to have taken place?

People only think they’re anonymous in such an environment. We have sophisticated technology which enables us to positively identify offenders, regardless of any steps they might have taken to conceal their identities.

How does your technology do this?

While I would love to explain it to you, and I totally could, because I do understand the nuances and inner workings every next-generation tech gadget from the Vegematic 6 to the latest ePhone, I’m simply not at liberty to discuss how our technology works, because to do so I would have to reveal valuable trade secrets belonging to me and my various non-associates at the aforementioned law firms.

How about the claims your own accounts and other accounts associated with those law firms are connected to the uploading of your – or maybe ‘their’ – clients’ videos, and the seeding of content onto assorted file-sharing platforms?

Given the nature of torrents and the environment where this alleged “honey-potting” has allegedly taken place, allegedly, there’s no way anybody can meet the burden of proof in terms of showing any account allegedly connected to me, my alleged firm or our various alleged in-laws uploaded those files. What – I suppose they have some sort of secret, magic, proprietary technology, or something?

But didn’t you just say—

Unless they had our technology, I mean, which they don’t, because the technology is ours, all proprietary and exclusive-like and the and analytical functions and methods it employs are, as I mentioned previously, something I’m not at liberty to discuss, due to the need to maintain valuable trade secrets and so as not to violate Article 7 of the Genevus Confection.

The Genevus Confection?

Sorry. I misspoke. I meant, of course, as to avoid violating Article 12-2(a) of the Honda Accords.

OK, then…. What does Article 12-2(a) of the Honda Accords say, exactly?

Look, it’s very complicated, as are all issues of intellectual property lawfulness. I don’t think I can explain Article 2-12(a) of the Honda Accords to a layman like you any more than I could sufficiently dumb-down the provisions of the Burned Confection to make them comprehensevish to someone of your negligible statuary.

Fine. How about telling me what, specifically, leads you to recommend Piracy = Bad, LLLEP, then?

In my extensive experience as someone whom you can’t prove is associated with or has retained said firm, I have found they truly live by their motto: Tutela vestri iura cum avaritia corrupta, et dolus.

What does that mean?

What? Now I have to teach you Latin, too?

You brought it up.

Relax buddy. Just messing with you. The motto means “protecting your rights with ethics and integrity.” And this is exactly what we do, every time we send an alleged infringer a letter broadly implying if they don’t settle immediately for a modest sum like 15 thousand smackers, we’ll take them to court for 150 grand per infringement and use publicly available court documents to reveal their perverse pornographic proclivities to their neighbors, employers, parents, current and prospective romantic partners and local, socially-conservative clergy.

You mean every time “they” send out such a letter. Right?

Yes, yes, of course. Now you’ve got me doing the “royal me” thing! I gotta watch that in the future — especially at the next round of hearings on proposed sanctions against me and my various non-associates!

Moving on again, let’s talk a bit about your former gardener and his claims against—

You know what? I’m totally out of time. Sorry about this, but, let’s sit down again for another interview real soon, OK? Next time, we can talk about another manner of litigation about which I’m really excited, but with which I’m totally and completely not associated, obviously: The exciting new field of baseless class-action objections!