Mr. Cashman has a new and very insightful post about dealing with a particular kind of DMCA notice related to bittorrent use. If you received a DMCA notice from Ira Siegel or CEG-TEK, I’d be happy to talk to you about your situation, but you should go read . . . → Read More: Bittorrent DMCAs from CEG-TEK: What Rob Says
Congratulations to all Rational Law clients and other John Doe defendants involved with a bittorrent case in the District of New Jersey, including the several cases titled Amselfilm Productions v. Does and Century Media Ltd. v. Does. On Wednesday 10/10/2012 orders were entered in most, if not all, of these cases, severing and dismissing all defendants except Doe #1 and setting heavy burdens for the plaintiffs and their attorneys to carry before they may re-file. Here is a link to one of . . . → Read More: Bittorrent Case Update- New Jersey
I’ve been fielding some questions lately about file-sharing cases where the complaint alleges that the defendants were negligent in leaving their wireless router unsecured. While it might not be a smart decision to leave your router open, it seems preposterous to suggest that every owner of an access point owes a duty of care to every single copyright holder.
Here’s a longer discussion of this point, by attorney John Whitaker:
if I don’t have any reason to protect your stuff, then I’m not negligent if your stuff gets lost or stolen.
And here’s a PDF of a recent decision dismissing a case that claimed negligence for an open wireless router. This is from a court in the Ninth circuit, so it’s likely that district courts in Oregon would follow the . . . → Read More: Negligence is Pre-empted by Copyright
I get a lot of calls and emails from potential clients that begin like this:
Potential Client: I got this letter from Comcast. It says I have until next week to file a motion to quash the subpoena. How much do you charge for that?
Steve: … Well, that’s one option, but…
Potential Client: No really, I want to keep my name private.
Continue reading Why I Generally Don’t Recommend Filing MTQs in Bittorrent Cases
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms Rule 11 sanctions against Evan Stone of Texas.
Stone committed those violations as an attempt to repeat his strategy of suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally, using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars – a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country.
Copy of the order is here: . . . → Read More: A Bad Day for Evan Stone
Rob Cashman has a longish read on his blog today, asking where Comcast has been for the last two years on these bittorrent troll cases: Comcast wins battle against Millennium TGA & Prenda. Subscribers lose.. Worth the read if you are a . . . → Read More: Cashman says: Comcast wins / Subscribers lose
I’ve been meaning to write about this for a day or two now, but Courthouse News beat me to the punch.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A woman claims a pornographic filmmaker tried to coerce her into settling a bogus copyright infringement case – and that even if she did download its porn, which she did not, pornography is not copyrightable, because it is not a science or a useful art.
via Courthouse News Service. Now, I’m not sure the obscenity arguments here have merit- that line of reasoning has been tried and rejected before. But the really interesting thing is the procedural situation is totally flipped by this case.
In a dec judgment action, the plaintiff (who used to be a Jane Doe) spends $350 to file a case in her home court, and then the burden shifts onto Steele and Prenda and Guardelay and the movie studio. She doesn’t have to prove that she didn’t do it- they have to prove she did. If they can’t prove she did it, she wins. And they will have to pay her costs and attorney’s fees.
The complaint itself is interesting (warning, PDF) because it also accuses the porn studio of violating criminal prostitution laws. . . . → Read More: Declaratory Judgment Complaint filed vs. Hard Drive Productions
via Ars Technica Law & Disorder, looks like Randazza might finally be able to collect a few bucks: Righthaven’s domain name is being auctioned.
I would assume this means that they’re selling everything that isn’t bolted down… if there is anything left . . . → Read More: Righthaven’s domain name up for auction
There is a new order published in 11-cv-01741 in the District of Columbia. It reverses the guarantee of anonymity that Judge Bates extended to John Does in this case (discussed earlier here) before the case was transferred to another judge. It also states that the court will not consider anonymous motions from John Does, and requires all Does who have already filed a motion to either agree to have their name posted on the public docket or withdraw their motion and remain anonymous. Does with motions already filed have until February 2 to send a response to the court.
This new development isn’t especially surprising, coming as it does from the DC courts. Dunlap Grubb and Weaver have been very successful in obtaining favorable treatment for their clients at the hands of DC federal judges, at least through the early-discovery stage. The initial order from Judge Bates was an outlier, and that’s why we chose to take note of it here. This order from Judge Facciola is simply a reversion to form.
Plaintiff is now required to serve the new order on all of the ISPs it previously sent subpoenas, and then requires those ISPs to forward the order to subscribers. . . . → Read More: Anonymous Motions Blocked By New Judge in Hard Drive Productions 11-cv-01741