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."

Comments

Conflict of interest

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:End of the world!

[flyneye]

I want that woman considered for the next Supreme vacancy!

Now if only they ask for proof.

[cenobyte40k]

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.

Re:Now if only they ask for proof.

[demonlapin]

Civil, not criminal. Preponderance of evidence - IOW, "more likely than not" - is the standard.

Far Cry?

[Junta]

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.

Re:Far Cry?

[uweboll]

What exactly don't you like about my films?

Re:Far Cry?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly don't you like about my films?

Their existence.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement?

[demonlapin]

You'll still be showing as "offering it for download", you just won't be actually allowing the download to take place.If you want to be truly safe, stick to Rapidshare and... the old way. The other thing. That Which We Do Not Mention. Because it's also download-only.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement?

[windcask]

Yeah, according to modern interpretations of copyright laws, even using a service like that is ruled as complicity in the commission of a crime or something to that effect. It's a shame that there's really no other good way to get Linux ISOs or other perfectly legal large files without having to live in fear of getting sued...

Well ...

[thomst]

... looks like her verdict was a (ahem) far cry from what Uwe Boll was expecting.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement?

[shentino]

The problem then isn't bittorrent.

It's sue-happy companies that honestly do not give a shit if they hit innocent victims.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/11/19/1339220/Anti-Piracy-Lawyers-Knew-Letters-Hit-Innocents

These fuckers need disbarred for sending frivolous legal notices.

I doubt they will, because that's just how corrupt the system is.

"Crippled"? "Stunning defeat"?

[Theaetetus]

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.

Re:"Crippled"? "Stunning defeat"?

[kennykb]

Well, it's at least a start. Now instead of having one case against defendants across the whole US, the lawyers have to refile in all 92 district courts, multiplying their expenses considerably. (Particularly since a lawyer who files pro hac vice in many of the districts must retain local counsel.) Moreover, the defendants will be sued in their home districts. They don't need to retain counsel and appear in DC to contest their cases. (If a distant court finds a way to assert personal jurisdiction, you're well advised either to prosecute an interlocutory appeal or settle, because the expense of simply making all the required appearances in the distant state will be ruinous.)

This was also a mandatory first move on the defendants' part. Once you've filed any paperwork with the court without contesting its jurisdiction, you've lost your chance. If you've been sued in the wrong place, you get only one short opportunity to tell that to the judge. After that, you're deemed to have acquiesced on the point. That's unbelievably harsh against pro se defendants, who may not have even been able to find a lawyer (especially since the notice served against them states that they need fo find one in the distant state) by the time they're required to file an answer, but it's the law.

So it's not a major victory, but it would have gone considerably worse for the defendants had the judge asserted personal jurisdiction against them.

Re:Protection from copyright infringement?

[hedwards]

The making available theory was set aside a few years back. In order for it to be infringement you not only have to make it available, but somebody has to actually download it. And not only that, the party filing the suit has to prove that somebody actually downloaded it without authorization.

Meaning that whomever they've authorized to investigate can't download a copy and use that as evidence that the file was actually downloaded without authorization.