Bad News for Content Owners Suing Bit Torrent Downloaders...
 

Which basically means the lawyers will have to file similar suits in other US District Courts all over the US.

If other judges hearing these types of cases pick up and follow this ruling it will either (a) cause complaints to be filed in numerous jurisdictions or unfortunately might put an end to many of these lawsuits.

From TorrentFreak.com...

http://torrentfreak.com/sued-bittorr...sid=03c abdde

This will just force the amount of any settlement agreements to increase, to cover the extra work and expense of filing in multiple jurisdictions. How is that a win for pirates? :2 cents:

Steve Lightspeed

Attorneys generally have 1 licensed in one state.


That means you have to hire an attorney for every state these people/pirates are in and file a separate law suit for every state. Versus one attorney and one lawsuit with multiple defendants listed with the venue from where the lawsuit is filed is stated.



That really sux ass! This will get really expensive for people trying to protect their content really fast. Even if you win, defendants will probably end up "BK-ing" the judgements.


Sad news:(

All this is done on contingency so all you will see is 51 law firms popping up going for it.

I might be wrong on this and i am too lazy to google it, but "district court" I don't think is for EACH state. I believe the districts encompass several states and it might not be that many districts. On second thought the grammar in that post sucks and I am not sure what they are stating in the last sentence.

C'mon DamianJ - I know you are reading this - fighting that urge to jump in here and gloat a little - call Lightspeed a blackmailer some more.....You're lickin your chops holmes...give in to the impulse...

There are 94 United States district courts. I will have to ask my contact if a fed atty can practice in any of them. I think they can. So while you might only need one atty, 94 different trials could get expensive.

Not sure why class action suits circumvent this jurisdiction deal though.

Three are 94 US District Courts and 12 Circuit Courts (appeals)

Class Action = numerous Plaintiffs, usually suing one Defendant. So you only need to file one case in the district where the defendant is located.

Suing torrent users = one Plaintiff, usually suing numerous Defendants. So you need to file the case in the district where the defendant lives. Numerous defendants living in different districts = multiple filings.

You are right, I did not think that one through.

While usually the case that the Plaintiffs are the class, it is possible to bring a defense class action suit.

You wouldnt file in every district, just the ones where the population of your defendants are concentrated and located...

stealing porn is really lame

The other issue is that Time Warner is only releasing 50 or so names a day of the different users. It would take close to year just to find out who all the 9000 illegal downloaders are on some of these cases.

Why are they only releasing 50/day? Are they doing it to try and protect their users for some reason?

Time and money involved in which they get 0 return?

Multiple district suits, chances are higher for at least one of them to win? Then you can steamroll over them.

Do you want me to jack off the hard on you have for me?

Seriously....

seems like a bad precedent

I'm good on that, however I do think you should jack off that harmless old codger Markham.

The copyright holders were instructed by the Court to name and serve all defendants before November 18, 2010, but instead asked for a massive 5 year extension. One of the reasons they cite for the extension is the fact that Internet provider ?Time Warner? only has to identify the personal details of 28 IP-addresses a month.

no isp wants the hassle of being a policeman between their customers and someone suing them.

:1orglaugh

Thanks Slutboat.

I just lost my lunch over the keyboard. :1orglaugh

This might have a ripple effect on other cases. its just too early to tell...

Someone get this guy a GFY tshirt!

Why can't a production company just sue the ISP for allowing the thefts to occur? Kinda like aiding and abetting...right?

Maybe you should change your name to Tugboat.

Because thats when the tube loop hole kicks in. The one used by the tube sites but designed for the ISP's. lol


This is all very complex, but i will tell you it sux, but at the end it is a step in the right direction over all.

Misuse of equipment can't be blamed on the ISP. Would be like suing the manufacturer of a knife you were stabbed by a loony with.

why does that suck, would you want to be dragged into court on obsenity charges, for a sale to a person who actual address was in the bible belt, and who gave you a pro porn state address for mailing your shit.


the law should apply equally to all people.

Exactamundo.

Until court cases, rulings, and appeals are over.... "many a slip twixt cup and lip"

just remember this is at the getting the persons name stage. the arguement that he just ruled in favor of was made by an unknown "third party" most likely one of the defendents, and it was allowed even though the person didn't identify themselves to make it.

that is the key to this case, there are a lot more, privacy, jurisdiction etc issues that are being violated by the shot gun aproach of suing bit torrent downloaders.

Fair use authorizes a lot of activity which means when ever the download is fair use, that persons privacy rights are being stomped all over.

when the net catches both fair use and infringement at the same time, you have some serious problems.

You are a perpetual GFY idiot. Who is talking about suing DOWNLOADERS? We are going after people sharing FULL SITE RIPS. Explain how that is "fair use"?

two words "back up"

the guys who bought your site, are the very people who have a fair use right to use the technology as a superior backup

remember i get n-1 points of redundancy (where n is the seed density) before a single infringing copy is even potentially being created.

That just how the technology works.

As long as your not providing the life time access (free access) every customer of yours does have a fair use righ to use the most cost effective backup solution for the content they paid for.

Bullshit. If a longtime member emailed me and told me they lost their harddrive, I would GIVE THEM free access. These suits are aimed at people GIVING AWAY OUR CONTENT FOR FREE TO ANYONE. How do you not see that is true?

I can't wait until karma runs you over with a fucking snow plow.

How could sharing content with other people be considered a backup? What you said doesn't make any sort of sense

Gideon folds when faced with COMMON SENSE.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You believe yourself?

who the fuck has ever used a torrent for a back up. that's just retarded.

It never does. Nor do the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo like "n-1 points of redundancy." The first person you allow to copy a backup you made for yourself, in the cloud or elsewhere, is the first person you have illegally distributed the content to, and the first infringing copy you produced.

It also ignores that indexed P2P is hardly the most effective means to backups. It's about the slowest, most arcane, and least efficient means; while you can access your backups, so can everyone else connecting to you, costing you bandwidth and slowing down your network. This is really such a stupid argument I'm surprised anyone is willing to make it.

There is never fair use in *distributing* digital content you may have purchased to someone else, and this is exactly what happens the moment anyone other than the original purchaser accesses the file.

Or suing McDonalds for making you fat...

wait.:(

Not really, my lawyer can practice in NY and MD, smart ol jew he is.

no real winners

...and the winners...

:1orglaugh

wtf? they made a Far Cry movie?

link to download pls!

so it doesn't make sense when you deliberately violate the US supreme court ruling in Cablevision vs 20th century fox and look at it using the wrong POV.

it only sharing if you look at from the network prespective. The problem is that every fair use even timeshifting appears to be an infringement when you look at it from that point of view. The appeals court recognized this and when they changed the POV they realized it was no different using the cloud as a timeshifting device as a VCR.

That the issue here, the seeder is never sharing the file, when you look at it from the users POV. He is never giving ANYONE a copy of the working file, he is simply putting pieces of the file on multiple transient computers (fair use of cacheing). The leacher is not making copies when they download the pieces, because it still not a full working copy. It only when they REORDER it into a working copy does the action ever become an infringing, and then only when you don't have a fair use right to RECOVER the content.

I will say it again

leave the seeder alone
leave the tracker alone
leave the leecher with the fair use alone

Go after the leecher without the fair use right