Slashdot Mirror
P2P Litigation Crippled In DC District Court Ruling
An anonymous reader writes "In a stunning defeat for the US Copyright Group, DC District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer is forcing copyright holders to sue only those over whom the DC court has personal jurisdiction. The USCG has sued in the DC court more than 4,500 people on behalf of a German producer that created the Far Cry movie. But the Judge is having none of that; in her ruling [Friday], Judge Collyer stated that only those who are in the DC court's jurisdiction can be sued — shrinking what could have been a windfall of defendant's cash to perhaps a mere trickle."
The USCG has sued over 4,500 people on behalf of a German producer that created the Far Cry movie in the DC court.
I don't see how the judge can be impartial if he let them make the movie in his court.
I want that woman considered for the next Supreme vacancy!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Good the next step would be for the judge to follow the rule of law and force them to prove that the movie was downloaded, and that the person they are suing is the one that downloaded it. I have yet to see a court case where they proved that well enough for me to ever have said guilty.
If people stole and presumably watch the movie Far Cry, *they* should be suing the studio for emotional distress or something.
*NO ONE* should be subjected to a Uwe Boll film.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
In the tradition of having at least 1 off-topic post in any discussion, let me ask a question here. If I set my torrent client's upload bandwidth to zero I find that I still get reasonable download speeds but I upload nothing. I know the torrent crowd would like to hang me for that but doesn't that offer me protection from copyright infringement lawsuits?
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Rosemary is actually a dude who sits on the bench in drag. She legally changed her name back before Clinton nominated her. Some say she was nominated because of a connection to Vince Foster.
This seems unlikely, given that she graduated from a Catholic University:
http://www.trinitydc.edu/admissions/profiles/mayerscollyer68.html
... looks like her verdict was a (ahem) far cry from what Uwe Boll was expecting.
Check out my novel.
Uh, you do know that a 12(b)(2) dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is not a dismissal with prejudice or on the merits? They can simply refile this elsewhere, without the new judge being bound by this dismissal. 12(b)(2) motions are procedural, and don't reach the actual case.
While whoever marked you troll is probably on the money, a lot of people probably might wonder why this would be significant.
It's hard to geolocate many IP addresses with any degree of precision, especially one you got months ago. And even if you can, it's not like they ever make their money back on these cases-even if they win, most of the defendants are going to go bankrupt. They won't make enough money in their life to pay the exorbitant judgment. Filing these in every district in the country, refiling the ones where you "missed", etc., is going to run up the legal bills very quickly. In the meantime, you're going to continue to annoy judges by clogging up their dockets with cases intended to "make an example" of Little Johnny or Grandma. And while an annoyed judge still must follow the law, they can certainly do as this judge did-choose to follow it very strictly indeed.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
How do we even know she can sing?
Especially since she was appointed in 2003, which means she was appointed by George W. Bush.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The litigation is questionable and is used as a means to threaten thousands of people (some innocent) into simply paying up by settling which most would have done. It's a business model, not trying to right a wrong. The fact that alleged copyright infringers may not see the inside of a court room due to it is secondary.
The litigation is questionable and is used as a means to threaten thousands of people (some innocent) into simply paying up by settling which most would have done. It's a business model, not trying to right a wrong. The fact that alleged copyright infringers may not see the inside of a court room due to it is secondary.
Yes, it's an abuse of the legal system that was pioneered (so far as I'm aware) by the RIAA, in order to a. make money and b. bypass any semblance of due process. This idea of winning default judgments in venues that are far removed from the alleged infringers was a cornerstone of that practice, in that it would grant the media company lawyers an instant and inexpensive club useful for mass intimidation, while simultaneously making it difficult if not impossible to mount any kind of defense.
This Judge appears to have a clear understanding of the tactic, and she did not like it. She gets points for understanding that this is a business model, a revenue source, not an attempt at legitimate redress and gets bonus points for putting the skids on it. Several judges involved in the RIAA's ongoing rampage wrote similar decisions: I hope this starts to become popular.
Now, to be fair, this "U.S. Copyright Group" was very up front about what they were going to do, and why, and bragged about it as a way for movie makers to "monetize" copyright infringement. Of course, they failed to advertise that it was just as amoral and unethical as the RIAA's similar compaign, and just as destined to hurt innocent people.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.