Originally Posted by AdultKing

Multi-party lawsuits are not the problem, the problem is that at the moment too many very poorly targeted blanket actions are being run through the courts.

I have no tolerance for the anti piracy methods that involve suing thousands of people based on nothing more than an IP address, it's sloppy. There needs to be more identifying information on the offender gathered by litigants before they sue - however if properly targeted I see no problem with multi-party actions


My statement was self apparent, I clearly said that I do not believe that wide ranging poorly targeted actions help the anti piracy cause. However I have no issue with very well targeted multi-party actions.

Here's an example. A website is seized which has 1,000 members. Each member had paid for access. After forensic examination of all user data it is determined that 850 members had used an identifiable method of payment. 750 of those members was able to be identified by several data points contained within the user database of the website. A pattern of usage of each the 750 members was able to be verified.

Is it then wrong to sue the 750 identified members who downloaded infringing content ? I think not and this is an example of the types of cases that should be run, not the sloppy ill conceived cases currently making it before the courts.

Originally Posted by AdultPornMasta

The UK's Consumer Focus group intervened in the original case saying the adult film-maker had no grounds to pursue 6,155 of them as they were suspected of pirating films for which Golden Eye did not hold the copyright.

The Consumer Focus intervention also changed the wording of letters sent out to suspected pirates to make it clear what penalties people faced. In the letters sent to suspected pirates, Golden Eye said payment of a settlement fee would head off a potential court case.

Golden Eye has now gone to court to get personal details of the 6,155 people released by O2. The Open Rights Group (ORG) has applied to intervene to stop this.

The ORG said it wanted to intervene because Golden Eye had no specific mandate from the 12 other porn studios whose works are believed to have been pirated. Instead, it said, Golden Eye had an "enforcement only" licence which would see it hand over 25% of the cash it got from those it contacted to the studios. Golden Eye would keep the remaining cash.

The ORG has appealed for cash to help pay £5,000 for legal fees and mount the court challenge. If it successfully intervened, said the ORG, O2 would not have to have over any names and future schemes that try to get cash from suspected pirates may be shelved.

Golden Eye has yet to comment on the case and the ORG's intervention.